All-Time Test XIs

[aussie_ben91]

It's funny how King Pietersen doesn't put in great batsman of the modern era because they play with bigger bats, small fields, lack of quality bowling, etc but yet he doesn't put Glenn McGrath in his lineup, who has played almost double the ammount of matches then any of the pace bowlers in his lineup. When he has better statistics and has dominated in this 'batsman friendly' era.

What sort of logic is this?

Also, Graeme Pollock is massively overrated when it comes to proclaiming that his one of the best ever. Ponting has a much better first-class average (playing in the best domestic competition in the world in the worst domestic team in Tasmania, who rarely produce International players) but the difference is that Ponting has played 120 odd Tests. And before you start, Ponting never wore a helmet in his early days of domestic cricket and faced the likes of McGrath, Warne, Gillespie, etc and dominated them all. Go check the scorecards from the early 1990's. McGrath took a 5fer in his first-class debut and in that same innings Punter made a 100 and McGrath never got him out.

 

[King Pietersen]

I didn't put McGrath in because I already had 2 similar bowlers, and frankly I'd much rather have Malcolm Marshall over Glenn McGrath. If you had contested the inclusion of Jeff Thomson then fair enough, I'll admit that I may have made a mistake there and Wasim should probably be in the side, I will make the changes, I just stupidly managed to oversee Waqar, completely forgot about him.

Also, I never said that I wouldn't put modern batsmen in JUST because of the bats, fields, etc, that was just another reason for it. In terms of batting abiliity, I rate Viv Richards, Donald Bradman and Graeme Pollock higher than Ricky Ponting, Sachin Tendulkar and Brian Lara when it comes to their batting ability. Also, I have a modern great in the side, in Adam Gilchrist, if I was so against the modern players I'd have just gone for Alan Knott or Jeffrey Dujon.

You're basing Pollock's career on his stats arent you? As it mentions in the article, Pollock was named as the joint greatest Left Handed batsman of all-time alongside Sir Garfield Sobers. He had a tremendous test record in the games he played, he was top top class. Have you ever seen footage of Pollock batting? Do you know anything about the man? Clearly not, I don't think anyone who knows clearly about Graeme Pollock would rate Ponting ahead of him. Pollock is one of the most unlucky players to ever play the game, if he was born in any other era he'd have played 100 Test Matches, and from what I've heard, read and seen from him, he would have probably maintained his average as well. He was pure class, I refuse to admit that Ponting is better, no matter what stats you throw at me.

Edit: Update made, Wasim Akram is now in the side.

 

[mattfb]

What's your opinion on Steve Waugh Dan? You never even gave him a mention....

 

[King Pietersen]

Hmm, Steve Waugh is a strange one, I don't actually know a great deal about him. I know he was a class player, made a whole heap of runs at an average above 50, but apart from that I don't really know masses about him. I've taken a look at his stats though, and he was incredibly consistant, only struggling in 2 countries, New Zealand and Sri Lanka. He has a tremendous record in England, but I'm not sure he'd manage to get close to the 3 Middle-Order positions. I think outside the 3 I've got, I'd probably rate Ponting, Lara, Tendulkar, Border, Barrington, Chappell, Weekes and Trumper ahead of him. There's no doubting that he was a class player though, I'd just not really consider him to be one of the real all-time greats.

 

[aussie_ben91]

LOL
Well you don't know much about Graeme Pollock either do you? I mean you don't know the guy personally and I doubt you've ever seen him bat. All you can go on is other people's opinions and articles on the man. There have been many Indian domestic batsman who finished their first-class careers with averages in the mid 60's but should they be considered as one of the greatest batsman to ever grace cricket in the same vain that Pollock is?

Ricky Ponting is the greatest batsman that I've ever seen. He can make runs off any ball, just playing normal cricket shots and he literally dominates the bowling without playing any forceful shots and scoring at a fast pace. His got it all as far as I'm concerned. He is the complete player and I've never seen someone been so constantly at ease when batting.

I can understand you argueing that someone like Sobers, Lara or Tendulkar is as good as what Ponting is but saying Graeme Pollock is better then Ponting is like saying that Mike Hussey is better then Punter. Which is ridiculous.

 

[King Pietersen]

I have seen Pollock bat. I remember seeing a documentary about him, so I have seen him bat, he was amazing. Had the most amazing hand-eye co-ordination of any batsman I have ever seen. I think the proof of the pudding is that people like Sir Donald Bradman and Richie Benaud hold him in such high regard. He's widely regarded as South Africa's greatest ever player, he's won various Wisden awards, and his Test average after 23 games is only second to Donald Bradman. You claim that I just dismiss Ponting and Hayden's achievements, yet you're doing it even worse with Pollock.

 

[mattfb]

Yep, the side looks a lot better with Akram. Like you pointed out he revolutionized reverse swing, and his yorker was the best in the game.

 

[aussie_ben91]

To be perfectly honest, I don't see why Hussey should be held in any less regard to what Graeme Pollock is. Anyone whos seen Hussey's career thus far would agree I imagine.

 

[Ayub 95]

Ben calm down mate it is Dan's opinion not yours. If it was you it would be all Australian team

 

[King Pietersen]

To be perfectly honest, I don't see why Hussey should be held in any less regard to what Graeme Pollock is. Anyone whos seen Hussey's career thus far would agree I imagine.

You're basing that purely on statistics aren't you. Going by your method of detirmining the talent of a batsman. Ian Bell, Michael Clarke, Michael Vaughan, Andrew Strauss, and any other modern batsman averaging 40+ should be held in higher regard than Victor Trumper, Rahul Dravid would be held in higher regard than Ken Barrington, Everton Weekes and Viv Richards. It just doesn't add up. I advise giving Richie Benaud a ring and asking his opinion

 

[aussie_ben91]

Yeah but King Pietersen, you make it sound like it's almost impossible for a batsman of the modern era to be better then anyone who played the game between 1880-1980.
No batsman is perfect (barring Don Bradman). You make the batsman between 1880-1980 sound invinciable and that they never made mistakes; that they never missed a missed a bad ball without putting it away for 4 and that they used to hit 6's off balls that seamed off the pitch by 2 inches that were being bowled at 150kph.

I've seen enough cricket to know that the modern era is as hard as it is without you making it sound impossible to score runs. I see matches from the 1980's on FoxSports almost every night and it's really not as bad as what you make it out to be. It's actually quite similar to the modern era, more so then what you probably think. I'd back any batsman who averages over 50 in Test Cricket in the modern era to maintain their average if they played in the 1980's.
I've even met Jeff Thomson at a cricket presentation and he when spoke infront of everyone about his career in cricket, he still believed that pitches in the 1970's were pretty flat.
The grounds in Australia nowadays are still bigger then any of the grounds with the ropes in then any ground in any other era.

Statistics is all we have to go by because you never saw Pollock. Seeing clips of Graeme Pollock play some of his very best strokes doesn't mean anything and you are basically basing that on who you think is one of the best batsman of all time, which is absurd.

If you aren't satisfied with the players of the modern era's official Test average then check out their statistics when batting in the 2nd innings and that'll tell you how well batsman play on a deteriorated pitch.
Matthew Hayden averages 54.06 in the 2nd innings and 51.73 in the 1st innings. And people call Hayden a flat track bully? Full credit to him, as I've seen him make runs when the conditions have been favourable to the bowlers on many occasions.

 

[karnog]

Out of interest who's the captain.

 

[King Pietersen]

Yeah but King Pietersen, you make it sound like it's almost impossible for a batsman of the modern era to be better then anyone who played the game between 1880-1980.
No batsman is perfect (barring Don Bradman). You make the batsman between 1880-1980 sound invinciable and that they never made mistakes; that they never missed a missed a bad ball without putting it away for 4 and that they used to hit 6's off balls that seamed off the pitch by 2 inches that were being bowled at 150kph.

I've seen enough cricket to know that the modern era is as hard as it is without you making it sound impossible to score runs. I see matches from the 1980's on FoxSports almost every night and it's really not as bad as what you make it out to be. It's actually quite similar to the modern era, more so then what you probably think. I'd back any batsman who averages over 50 in Test Cricket in the modern era to maintain their average if they played in the 1980's.
I've even met Jeff Thomson at a cricket presentation and he when spoke infront of everyone about his career in cricket, he still believed that pitches in the 1970's were pretty flat.
The grounds in Australia nowadays are still bigger then any of the grounds with the ropes in then any ground in any other era.

Statistics is all we have to go by because you never saw Pollock. Seeing clips of Graeme Pollock play some of his very best strokes doesn't mean anything and you are basically basing that on who you think is one of the best batsman of all time, which is absurd.

If you aren't satisfied with the players of the modern era's official Test average then check out their statistics when batting in the 2nd innings and that'll tell you how well batsman play on a deteriorated pitch.
Matthew Hayden averages 54.06 in the 2nd innings and 51.73 in the 1st innings. And people call Hayden a flat track bully? Full credit to him, as I've seen him make runs when the conditions have been favourable to the bowlers on many occasions.

So the basic point you're trying to make with that post is that you think Hussey's as good, if not better than Graeme Pollock? Which is incredibly ironic considering you said I looked too much into the statistics a few days back. You're basing this purely on statistics, you clearly have ignored everything I've said about Pollock, Bradman's comments, the various awards, etc. Michael Hussey will not be remembered or regarded as one of the greatest Left Handed batsmen to play the game, Pollock is, and just because Hussey's statistics are similar/better doesn't make him a better player, as proven by Victor Trumper. He averaged under 40 in Test Cricket, does that make him worse than the entire England middle-order?

Also, why bring up Hayden? No-one's discussing him, we know you love Hayden and rate him as the greatest opener of all-time, we get the point. You cannot avoid the fact that he struggles when it swings, hence the poor record in England and New Zealand (by his standards anyway).

Karnog, I've not really thought about the Captaincy, but if pushed for an answer right now, I'd probably go for Bradman with Richards as Vice-Captain.

 

[karnog]

Hmmm maybe Ben you should create your own all time 11.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Aussie_Ben91's All-Time World XI.

Due to popular (and probably unpopular) demand, I have decided to assemble my Alltime World XI. I believe that I have watched cricket for a fairly long time and understand the game well enough to make a fair judgement on who I think are the best cricketers of all time. I have slowly taken into consideration all of the facits and qualities that are required to be apart of such a meaningful team which is solely based on merit.
I think that I have selected the best possible World XI that can thrown together. I am prepared to argue and defend my team; infact I welcome critisicm and an opportunity to argue the point with open arms because I believe that there is nothing better to do on this forum then to have a hard and gritty arguement on a topic related to cricket comparisons, etc.

I will begin by announcing my two Opening Batsman, who are Sunil Gavaksar and Matthew Hayden. I decided that I would give Sunil Gavaksar the honour of batting in the number #1 position and therefore taking first strike. This has nothing to do with who I think is the better batsman but mainly because Gavaskar always faced the first ball of a Test innings and Hayden in most cases didn't.
I feel that is a reasonably solid and genuine opening partnership. Hayden has the power and tenderness to attack the bowling and put the bowlers on the back foot whilst Gavaskar was a more traditional batsman with a good technique and temperment that can turn over the strike and build an innings. I think these qualities that I have just mentioned are ideal when it comes to assembling an opening partnership and that these two fit the description perfectly.
Both of them have struggled in comparison to their career records in countries like England, New Zealand and South Africa but what I have found is that both are more then capable of playing a substancial innings in those sort of conditions when required. Acouple of years ago Hayden was on the brink of his career ending in England but in dark and bowling friendly conditions he was able to churn out 138 at the Oval while Gavaskar has a double-hundred to his name on English soil aswell.
It's not just because of their styles and because I think that they'd gel good together that I chose them as my 2 openers, it's because I genuinely believe that these two are the 2 best opening batsman of all time. Both have had their career averages hovering around the high 50's for the majority of their careers when they were at their peak and both have maintained that average for beyhond and over 100 Tests. Both have incrediably good converisons rates aswell so you know when they get their eye in then they're going to get on with the job that's required and that's one of the things that matters most.
I don't rate Hebert Sutcliffe, Jack Hobbs and Len Hutten because none of them ever played in the subcontient and many players of the modern era have referred to the subcontient tour as probably the most mentally difficult in world cricket. Their careers were genuiely based around Ashes clashes between Australia and England and in total they only played against 3 or 4 different countries. I applaud them for being pioneers for cricket but realistically, their capabilities pale in comparison to the likes of Hayden and Gavaskar.

Number three is none other then the greatest batsman of all-time, Sir Donald Bradman. I couldn't go past him, no matter what era he played in. The average of 99.94 was no fluke either because his first-class average is over 95 aswell. They're only a few players before the 1970's who I consider to be one of the alltime greats in terms of actual cricket ability and his obviously one of them.

Number four is Ricky Ponting. I couldn't go past him as I truly believe that he is the greatest batsman that I have ever seen. You can't argue against his statistics. He can makes runs off almost any delievery that is bowled by just playing normal cricket shots and is the most fluent batsman to watch in world cricket. He'd average higher then anyone else from any era, apart from Bradman because his batting is just so incredibly gifted and talented. By the time his career ends, I reckon that he will have the record for most runs in Test Cricket and the most Test centuries aswell and that it will be a very long time before anyone breaks his record.

Number five is Sir Garfield Sobers. My batting allrounder, who'd be batting at number 3 if Ricky Ponting or Sir Donald Bradman never played cricket. Many quote him to be the best cricketer ever, I myself don't think so. I personally don't think any allround effort can beat a Test batting average of 99.94 unless his bowling average is under 15 and his batting average is over 70. He has a more flamboyant batting style then Jacques Kallis and I think that Sobers would be better suited to batting at number 5. Sobers is probably a better bowler then Kallis aswell as he offers a variety of spin and pace and is also a fairly decent fieldsmen aswell. His much like Bradman when it comes to selection. His amazing ability allrounder ability won me over even though I don't really rate many cricketers from the era that he started his career in.

Number six is Sir Vivian Richards. I've seen him bat in games from the 1980's and he has a great aura about him. From what I can tell is that he was easily the best batsman from the era he played in. He was the sort've guy that you would never want to sledge or piss off and he'd make tearing bowlers apart look so easy and would show absolutely no emotion while doing it. He fits the number 6 role perfectly with his style of batting. It's a real shame that he played beyhond his years because his statistics really don't do him justice to how good he really was.

Number seven is Adam Gilchrist. The perfect position for a batsman of his aggression and he'd be able to feed off such a talented team like he did in the Australian team for many years. He revolutionized the game and after 60 odd Tests he had about 16 hundreds to his name with a batting average of around 55-60. Had he been able to maintain over 100 matches then IMO he'd be on par with Gary Sobers as far as allround talent goes but of course Gilly couldn't maintain it and his statistics slowly dropped down over time. He still is easily the greatest Wicketkeeper-Batsman of all time and you can't not select him.

Number eight is Wasim Akram. The greatest exponent of swing bowling of alltime in my opinion. To have such a low bowling average whilst bowling in the conditions that Pakistan provide is a testerment to how great he was. He revolutionised reverse-swing and had immense control over line and length. I can't put into words how amazingly good I think Wasim is but I definately rank him in my top 3 pace bowlers of all-time. He is also my Bowling-Allrounder. Had he put a tad less more emphasis on his bowling and concentrated on his batting a bit more then who knows where his batting could've also taken him.

Number nine is Shane Warne. The greatest spin bowler of all time. Had he bowled in the same conditions as Muralidaran has in his career then Warne would still comfortably be the leading wickettaker in the history of Test Cricket. I imagine he'd have a Test average of under 20, if not 20 had the majority of his career been played in the subcontient. 80 odd matches in the subcontient to Murali and 69 in Australia for Warney explains the large gap in average between the two, not to mention that Murali has played a chunk of matches against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. Look at Murali's Test record in Australia, it speaks for itself. Warne is the better spinner. He is also my captain. I chose him because of his great knowledge of the great and his attacking sense in the game of cricket. His knowledge is massively underrated and he would've been a way better captain then either Steve Waugh or Ricky Ponting.

Number ten is Curtly Ambrose. Probably the greatest bowler that I have ever witnessed or seen footage of. He had it all and struck fear into plenty of batsman world wide. I don't care what anyone else thinks because I think that Curtly is better then Malcom Marshall. Curtly once took 7-1 in a devestating spell on a bouncy WACCA pitch against Australia in the early 1990's. Those are unheard of bowling figures that only Curtly Ambrose is capable of producing.

Number eleven is Glenn McGrath. I picked him over Malcom Marshall because McGrath dominated in an era dominated by batsman. McGrath played over 40 more Tests then Marshall aswell at a similar average. 40 Tests is allot of games and had Marshall played the same ammount of games then he record could've easily deterioted in the same vain as what Shaun Pollock's did because at one point in time Pollock had a Test average of 19. I don't buy into this first-class statistics of Marshall's either. For all we know, he could've played in an extremely weak domestic competition or could've gone over and dominated a fairly weak county competition aswell. First-class statistics don't mean anything compared to International statistics.

To conclude, I think that I have assembled a relatively awesome lineup that can't be matched. Agree or disagree, I'm up for the arguement and I can't wait to see what some of you have to say. Here is my final lineup:

Sunil Gavaksar
Matthew Hayden
Sir Donald Bradman
Ricky Ponting
Sir Garfield Sobers
Sir Vivian Richards
Adam Gilchrist (wk)
Wasim Akram
Shane Warne (c)
Curtly Ambrose
Glenn McGrath

Thank you for reading.