All-Time Test XIs

[used2bcool]

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.

The only 4-spinner WI attack that Gavaskar faced was in 1971. He played WI in 1974, 75, 76, 78, 79, and 83 and none of those attacks had more than one spinner. So I guess we'll have to discard the 9 centuries (including two doubles and a 182*) and an average of damn near 70 just so it can fit your version of reality. At least TRY to justify your idiotic statements so I don't have to browse through cricinfo to prove you wrong.

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

To say Laker is better than Murali is completely ludicrous. Laker's records are beefed up by the fact that he played on uncovered tracks which became unplayable soon after a bit of shower which occurred rather frequently in England. Put Laker in front of batsmen from the last twenty years and he gets carted all over the damn place. Despite the difference in eras, Murali STILL has a better strike rate over three times as many tests as Laker. I can throw more stats but it only serves to accentuate the absurdity of your opinion, which seems to be par for the course.

 

[TumTum]

Put Laker in front of batsmen from the last twenty years and he gets carted all over the damn place.

...just so it can fit your version of reality. At least TRY to justify your idiotic statements...

wow

 

[used2bcool]

^ I see what you did there. I probably did get a bit carried away in my Laker-hate. I just think his stats are helped way too much by friendly conditions.

 

[TumTum]

Yeah pretty stupid to contradict yourself, yet alone in the same frickin post

Anyway how can you hate Laker if you never seen him play?

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

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.

I think the thing that irks me is people make these arguements and then retool them for other players.

how can you simultaneously justify leaving out Imran Khan for Lillee if you're leaving out murali for warne while being consistent.

Imran achieved much more for pakistan than lillee. Achieved it in conditions not suited for pace. Lillee never did anything of note any place else other than england and australia.

I'm sorry but there is absolute idiocy coming from the ciricinfo panel. Steen is calling for Warne to captain it in his bit. I mean, what?!? There is about 5 or 6players in the team that actually captained at international level and somehow they've been seduced in picking warne as the best captain in an all-time XI?


can't believe hadlee never made either team.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

We can test that by seeing how Laker's stats compare to others who played in his era...


Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Lock, Benaud and Wardle do run him close statistically, from the spinners.

ZoraxDoom added 2 Minutes and 24 Seconds later...

I'm sorry but there is absolute idiocy coming from the ciricinfo panel. Steen is calling for Warne to captain it in his bit. I mean, what?!? There is about 5 or 6players in the team that actually captained at international level and somehow they've been seduced in picking warne as the best captain in an all-time XI?

Yea, I agree with this. Gilly got to captain Australia ahead of Warne. You can understand if it's Steen's personal fan-boyish coming through (Even I have Warne captaining my XI ), but if you logically want to pick a skipper from that lot, then Viv or Bradman have more credentials. Possibly even Hobbs or Hutton.

 

[used2bcool]

used2bcool added 2 Minutes and 54 Seconds later...

I don't hate Laker as such. I just think his numbers (from an era which was generally considered bowler-friendly) are just a bit padded. You'll see that even the Cricinfo panel doesn't really take him into serious consideration for their World XI.

I'm defending a guy I HAVE seen bowl, who I believe didn't become the greatest wicket-taker in Test History by fluke, hence all the hubbub.

EDIT: something very odd happened with that post. Things got merged and everything went to hell. Fixed now.

 

[TumTum]

I think the thing that irks me is people make these arguements and then retool them for other players.

how can you simultaneously justify leaving out Imran Khan for Lillee if you're leaving out murali for warne while being consistent.

Imran achieved much more for pakistan than lillee. Achieved it in conditions not suited for pace. Lillee never did anything of note any place else other than england and australia.

I'm sorry but there is absolute idiocy coming from the ciricinfo panel. Steen is calling for Warne to captain it in his bit. I mean, what?!? There is about 5 or 6players in the team that actually captained at international level and somehow they've been seduced in picking warne as the best captain in an all-time XI?

Completely agree, was a bit surprised seeing Lillee there.

Also Ian's comment that Lillee+Marshall>McGrath has me confused. If he means what I think he meant, how can you compare 2 players with 1? Also he made a comment how they were just as accurate as McGrath, which is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

 

[used2bcool]

To be honest, I'll go with Steen and pick that second XI over the first one. That one just seems to be a more logical side.

... And agrees more with my personal choices.

Forgot to add, I totally agree with both Tum Tum and Stinky in that some of the panel's criteria were rubbish. Tum Tum's method of each panelist having first, second, and third place votes with weighted worth also makes a ton of sense and I daresay would produce a more balanced result.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

I am not a massive mcgrath fan, but given what he achieved is so unique I would have actually accepted him in the all-time XI.

That's what you're looking for in all-time XI, the irreplaceable, not just someone that shades the competition in your opinion. Viv played more attacking than anyone dared, Bradman scored much higher than anyone else ever had or will do, Sobers had unmatched all round skills.

In my opinion there has never been a more inspiring captain, a more ruthless, determinded and audacious competitor than imran khan. Mcgrath too took consistency and accuracy to a new level. Utterly unique players.

chappell is a massive lillee fanboy though.

 

[used2bcool]

Dunno if this has already been done...

Maybe we could do a small exercise here at PC and produce our own list? We can use the cricinfo shortlist and use Tum Tum's method of voting with first/second/third place ballots for each position. Could be interesting.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

I think we did that. Or something similar.

Worth a shot. So what do we do, pick 3 players for each position, 3-2-1 points in that order, most points get in? Or like nominate 5 openers with points 5-4-3-2-1, 7 middle order batsmen, 3 allrounders, 3 keepers, 7 bowlers, and the ones with the most points make the final XI?

 

[Sir John]

i will post mine later.

 

[TumTum]

i will post mine later.

Thanks for giving us a heads up, can't wait :hpraise

 

[AkshayS]

I hated Cricinfo XI TBH. I just didn't like it.
Hobbs - unquestionable
Gavaskar should've made over Hutton for me, though it's still tolerable to an extent.
But the stats and the way he ripped apart one of the best West Indies attack in the 70s. He averaged 70.20 against the best bowling attack. Still this is justified to a little extent but Gavaskar was surely better.

Coming down, Bradman and Tendulkar - unquestionale.

Richards - his selection is questionable for me atleast, he might be most attacking batsmen ever but if he have Gilchrist there down the order, I think his selection is questionable. I would've thrown in another West Indian like Lara or George 'black bradman' Headley instead of him, though Lara is more likely to get in for me. Or Pollock, immense talent, he could be there too.

Sobers - unquestionable

Gilchrist - unquestionable

Then came the bowling, and I was the most disappointed here, IMO Murali should've been in the XI, no question over Warne's selection but Murali is the first choice for a spinner IMO.
Now I am the guy who would want three pacers in the squad so Murali would always be my first choice as spinner.
Now coming to pacers, Wasim and Malcolm Marshall are first two choices.

The selection of Lillee was the most disappointing and I would've preferred any one of McGrath, Imarn Khan or Richard Hadlee should've made it to the XI.
If Imran and Hadlee would've made it then the batting will be much more stronger.