All-Time Test XIs

[ZoraxDoom]

The moment we've all been waiting for:

The World XI: Jack Hobbs, Len Hutton, Don Bradman, Sachin Tendulkar, Viv Richards, Garry Sobers, Adam Gilchrist, Malcolm Marshall, Shane Warne, Wasim Akram, Dennis Lillee

The Second XI: Sunil Gavaskar, Barry Richards, George Headley, Brian Lara, Wally Hammond, Imran Khan, Alan Knott, Bill O'Reilly, Fred Trueman, Muttiah Muralitharan, SF Barnes

Readers' XI: Sunil Gavaskar, Virender Sehwag, Don Bradman, Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Lara, Garry Sobers, Adam Gilchrist, Shane Warne, Wasim Akram, Muttiah Muralitharan, Glenn McGrath

Would tend to agree. Sutcliffe didn't make either the first or second XI, but given that Hutton was picked over him for the England All-Time XI it makes sense. McGrath unlucky not to make the second XI. Warne won over Murali by a comfortable margin. Viv just trumped over Headley, Gilly over Knott.

Sehwag made the Reader's XI. What a fail. Just goes to show how Indian Population + New generation fans > The Rest in Cricinfo viewer ship.

 

[ChefMan21]

Would have swapped Richards for Hutton and Barnes for Lillee. Richards' career got killed by apartheid. But just watching him you could tell he would have been anything. The almost perfect batsman. I'm not sure how any of those quicks got in ahead of Barnes. Maybe it's because the footage is lacking and the younger generation never saw him...

 

[Adarsh]

Oh my word. Warne chosen ahead of Murali. Huh ?!!?

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Would have swapped Richards for Hutton and Barnes for Lillee. Richards' career got killed by apartheid. But just watching him you could tell he would have been anything. The almost perfect batsman. I'm not sure how any of those quicks got in ahead of Barnes. Maybe it's because the footage is lacking and the younger generation never saw him...

I'd say the fact that Barnes played a lot on uncovered wickets and the poor quality pitches in South Africa played a role too. Doubts over weather he would have succeeded on flat tracks against International quality batsmen with all the equipment and stuff they have today.

ZoraxDoom added 2 Minutes and 53 Seconds later...

Oh my word. Warne chosen ahead of Murali. Huh ?!!?

Not too shocking IMO. Warne adds his slip fielding and useful batting as well, and the added element of being a legspinner. Also, he had that knack of coming good at the most critical moments of a match. Murali will always have the doubts over his temperament given his poor record in Australia.

But was still expecting both of them to be in the side. Didn't expect Warne to win by as large a margin as he did.

 

[ChefMan21]

I'd say the fact that Barnes played a lot on uncovered wickets and the poor quality pitches in South Africa played a role too. Doubts over weather he would have succeeded on flat tracks against International quality batsmen with all the equipment and stuff they have today.

That's a good point. Still, lists like these are almost always subjective.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

Lillee is the most undeserving imo. 99.94 is good enough that only playing against england doesn't matter that much.

Lillee only played 10 tests anywhere except england, australia or NZ. He got punted around in pakistan and couldn't even manage a wicket in WI.

Averaging 23.9 is not nearly enough to make up for the gaps in his record. He only really succeeded against england over the 70s.

 

[used2bcool]

Not too shocking IMO. Warne adds his slip fielding and useful batting as well, and the added element of being a legspinner. Also, he had that knack of coming good at the most critical moments of a match. Murali will always have the doubts over his temperament given his poor record in Australia.
But was still expecting both of them to be in the side. Didn't expect Warne to win by as large a margin as he did.

If you're picking purely on the basis of bowling ability, I'd say Murali gets in ahead of Warne. Warne has the advantage of being a great slip fielder and a decent bat lower down the order. If Murali failed in Australia, Warne was ████ in India, so that evens out. In terms of numbers, Murali is ahead of almost every premier bowler in the world. But you're right, I'd just have both of them in the team.

Lillee is questionable to me too, because he has played next to no cricket in the subcontinent, neither has he played in West Indies, the premier cricketing side of his era. That's too many gaps for a modern cricketer. Imran Khan has better numbers than Lillee across locations, plus he gives you many additional qualities.

 

[sami ullah khan]

Imran Khan had to be there IMHO. He deserved to captain the side.

 

[TumTum]

If Murali failed in Australia, Warne was ████ in India, so that evens out.

Ha, no way. Murali's record in Australia is much worse than Warne's in India. Murali also doesn't have a good record in India.

Also as Ian Chappel said in his interviews, you can only be judged by the quality of opposition you play against. Warne has achieved much more for Australia than Murali has for Sri-Lanka.

 

[used2bcool]

^ I don't doubt Warne's credentials as a bowler. However, I dismiss Ian Chappell's opinion as an Aussie standing up for another Aussie. (which is not wrong, btw)

My only bone of contention is this: if you can't find a place for the greatest wicket-taker in the history of the game in your World XI, who played in the golden age of batting (and who is likely to stay on top of the wickets charts for a long, long time), then whatever criteria you have used is likely to be wrong.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Buuttt...Warne never had to bowl at Australia. And then the old argument of Warne having McGrath/Gillespie/Lee to soften up the batsmen vs. Murali getting more overs to bowl in friendly SL conditions...

Imran Khan > Lillee is a justified choice. Lillee had all the attributes, so the pick could be based on the belief that he could and would come good given enough opportunities in different conditions.

Plus, Imran as skipper with Warney/Viv/Gilly/Don/Sachin giving advice sounds brilliant. And the batting becomes even stronger - I guess if you play Imran you could have Knott as keeper over Gilly.

ZoraxDoom added 4 Minutes and 33 Seconds later...

Hmmm. It's a tough call with Murali vs. Warne. I've always gone for Warne because I'm a fanboy. But logically speaking, Murali is a statistic freak of nature with a brilliant record and many, many match winning performances to go with it. The small holes in his record are cancelled out by the small holes in Warne's record, and purely based on statistics, Murali is better.

Warne just has more of an all-round package with his fielding, batting, and tactical nous. Plus there is the whole controversy over Murali's action (which really should be a non-issue now) that sours some people's opinion of him.

It's a tough call...which is why I'm surprised it was so one-sided.

 

[used2bcool]

Let's add some numerical fuel to the Warne v Murali debate!

Murali has an average of over 30 against two countries, Australia (36 in 13 tests) and India (33 in 22 tests), which are arguably the best sides of his era. Warne's worst averages are against India (47 in 14 tests) and West Indies (30 in 19 tests). As you can see, Warne's abysmal record against India is far worse than Murali's. Against almost all other countries, Murali has better numbers than Warne:

1. England: Murali 112 wkts @ 20, Warne 195 @ 23
2. India: Murali 105 @ 33, Warne 43 @ 47
3. New Zealand: 82 @ 21, Warne 103 @ 24
4. Pakistan: Warne 90 @ 20, Murali 80 @ 25
5. South Africa: Murali 104 @ 22, Warne 130 @ 24
6. West Indies: Murali 82 @ 20, Warne 65 @ 30

 

[ChefMan21]

Buuttt...Warne never had to bowl at Australia. And then the old argument of Warne having McGrath/Gillespie/Lee to soften up the batsmen vs. Murali getting more overs to bowl in friendly SL conditions...

Imran Khan > Lillee is a justified choice. Lillee had all the attributes, so the pick could be based on the belief that he could and would come good given enough opportunities in different conditions.

Plus, Imran as skipper with Warney/Viv/Gilly/Don/Sachin giving advice sounds brilliant. And the batting becomes even stronger - I guess if you play Imran you could have Knott as keeper over Gilly.

ZoraxDoom added 4 Minutes and 33 Seconds later...

Hmmm. It's a tough call with Murali vs. Warne. I've always gone for Warne because I'm a fanboy. But logically speaking, Murali is a statistic freak of nature with a brilliant record and many, many match winning performances to go with it. The small holes in his record are cancelled out by the small holes in Warne's record, and purely based on statistics, Murali is better.

Warne just has more of an all-round package with his fielding, batting, and tactical nous. Plus there is the whole controversy over Murali's action (which really should be a non-issue now) that sours some people's opinion of him.

It's a tough call...which is why I'm surprised it was so one-sided.

In the context of the side picked and voted for or in the context of forum members choices? If it's the first, I'd suggest that may have been a political issue. If you pick him (Murali), there is always going to be a question mark over the side because of how much controversy over his action there has been. It's not fair really, but if you do a side like this you want it to be accepted by the majority of fans. There is sure to be someone out there who raises the issue about his action - whether through professional jealousy, an actual opinion or what - and then I think that little question become a lot bigger.

 

[Slowcoach]

Hobbs and Sutcliffe is a bit of a joke, they played in an era dominated by the bat, if you are going to pick them, then why not pick Woodfull and Ponsford?
Their first class averages were better.
How is facing 52 year old trundlers comparable to facing the West Indies of the 80's?

As for Gavaskar, and being in the cricinfo reader's XI for "the runs he scored against the great West Indies fast bowling attack of the 70's and 80's"...
What pace attack?
The one with 4 spinners?
When the pace attack showed up, Gavaskar's form went south.

A few of the others are impossible to argue with, but I'd only pick Bradman and Richards as the two I don't have to think about as far as batting as concerned.

Then I'd bat Sobers at 5, and bring in Imran as the second allrounder.

Anyway, long story short, here is my 11.

Openers: Anyone, they're all crap, it's why they don't bat in the middle order.

Batsmen: Richards and Bradman.

All Rounders: Sobers, Imran.

Keeper: Gilchrist (he rarely ever missed a chance, something overlooked due to his outstanding batting, he was a bloody good keeper).

Bowlers: Marshall (wickets in India), Warne (ball of the century), Wasim (4 international hattricks), and Laker (10 for in an Innings twice in the same season v Aus, 8 for 2, and 19 wickets in a test).

Sorry Murali, you're great, but Laker and Warne are better, stats aren't everything, and Laker's stats eat yours anyway.

 

[TumTum]

Buuttt...Warne never had to bowl at Australia. And then the old argument of Warne having McGrath/Gillespie/Lee to soften up the batsmen vs. Murali getting more overs to bowl in friendly SL conditions...

Agree.

Warne just has more of an all-round package with his fielding, batting, and tactical nous. Plus there is the whole controversy over Murali's action (which really should be a non-issue now) that sours some people's opinion of him.

These were the deciding factors IMO.

It's a tough call...which is why I'm surprised it was so one-sided.

Well single choice votes are not able to show the true gap between players (like even if player A is slightly better than player B, player A will still have a huge lead). They should have made a system where the Judges would pick like 5 players in order for every spot.