All-Time Test XIs

[used2bcool]

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?

I guess we use the cricinfo nomination shortlist, which is here: ESPNcricinfo to pick World XI | All-time XIs | Cricinfo Magazine | Cricinfo.com

We pick whatever combination we want (i.e. 2 openers, 3 middle order, 1 allrounder, 1 keeper, 3 pace bowlers, 1 spinner) and choose three people for each position like you mentioned. The order of the selections for each position matters, of course.

One obvious thing, we can't repeat selections for different positions. If I already picked Gavaskar as my second ballot for position 1, then he can't be my third ballot for position 2. There have to be six unique votes for those two positions combined.

So for me, it would be like:
Combination: 2 openers, 3 middle order, 1 allrounder, 1 keeper, 3 pacers, 1 spinner
1. 1st vote: Hobbs/ 2nd: Hutton/ 3rd: Greenidge
2. Gavaskar/Richards/Hunte
3. Bradman/Headley/Miandad
4. Tendulkar/Lara/G Pollock
5. Viv Richards/Crowe/Kallis
6. Sobers/Miller/Botham
7. Knott/Gilchrist/Sangakkara
8. Imran/Holding/Lillee
9. Wasim/Barnes/McGrath
10. Marshall/Trueman/Ambrose
11. Murali/Warne/Kumble

Would love to see your lists.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

2 openers, 3 middle order, 2 AR, 1 keeper, 2 quicks, 1 spinner

Hobbs/Greenidge/B. Richards
Gavaskar/Hutton/Sehwag

Bradman/Dravid/Sutcliffe
Sachin/Lara/Barrington
Headley/Viv/Miandad

Sobers/Miller/Botham

Knott/Gilchrist/Hendricks

Imran/Hadlee/Faulkner

Wasim/Lillee/Barnes
Marshall/McGrath/Donald

Warne/Murali/O'Reilly

That's mine.

 

[sifter132]

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.

Yep, I think Hadlee was particularly shafted here.

But look, it's all based on style points really and it kind of irks me. Lillee and Akram were no better performers than Hadlee, McGrath or Ambrose (worse actually in my reading of the stats), yet Lillee and Akram bowled in a way that makes ex-players and fans drool. It's the same for Viv Richards and Warne too. Murali has a record that is just as easily argued for as Warne, while Allan Border or Ken Barrington and even Rahul Dravid have records as impressive as Viv's but those guys aren't rated as highly due to their style. Even Barry Richards (who fans bang on about...) - barely played Test cricket and his first class record is no better than Geoff Boycott's, but Boycott was boring, B.Richards had flair. Then you've got the romantics who jump on board to ponder how Barry might have done with more Test cricket, and suddenly he's got a spot in the 2nd XI. It's not how I'd pick a team.

 

[War]

Yep, I think Hadlee was particularly shafted here.

But look, it's all based on style points really and it kind of irks me. Lillee and Akram were no better performers than Hadlee, McGrath or Ambrose (worse actually in my reading of the stats), yet Lillee and Akram bowled in a way that makes ex-players and fans drool. It's the same for Viv Richards and Warne too. Murali has a record that is just as easily argued for as Warne, while Allan Border or Ken Barrington and even Rahul Dravid have records as impressive as Viv's but those guys aren't rated as highly due to their style. Even Barry Richards (who fans bang on about...) - barely played Test cricket and his first class record is no better than Geoff Boycott's, but Boycott was boring, B.Richards had flair. Then you've got the romantics who jump on board to ponder how Barry might have done with more Test cricket, and suddenly he's got a spot in the 2nd XI. It's not how I'd pick a team.

Yes because stats dont & never will tell the whole truth in cricket.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

one thing about the second team.

put mcgrath and hadlee in (just because I do not what trueman and barnes bowled like) with murali, imran and o'reilly.

put them on a sub-continental pitch, and if Lara was feeling in the mood, you'd fancy the second XI.

 

[sifter132]

Yes because stats dont & never will tell the whole truth in cricket.

No of course, when 2 guys are basically equivalent performance wise, go with the 'better' player eg. Warne v Murali IMO. But Wasim Akram is probably the guy I object to most vs Hadlee. People pick Wasim based on what he COULD do rather than what he DID do. Most fans can't tell me more than one series that Wasim dominated, they just remember 4 of his most awesome deliveries. I'm not sure that's right.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

I guess, having listened to the reasons, my primary reason for disagreeing with selections is (and I think you might be the same sifter) I would pick players to honour them for standing completely apart from their peers.

they've banged on about combinations and the like. what relevance does that have in a hypothetical situation?

 

[CG123]

Hmmm, a bit of a shame not seeing Hadlee picked in either XI.

The only players outside the modern era in the Readers' XI are Gavaskar, Bradman and Sobers, which is probably what you'd expect. Infact there are more players from the modern era in the Readers' XI, than there are in both of the official XI's added together.

I guess Sehwag just emphasizes the large proportion of Indian voters.

 

[sami ullah khan]

No of course, when 2 guys are basically equivalent performance wise, go with the 'better' player eg. Warne v Murali IMO. But Wasim Akram is probably the guy I object to most vs Hadlee. People pick Wasim based on what he COULD do rather than what he DID do. Most fans can't tell me more than one series that Wasim dominated, they just remember 4 of his most awesome deliveries. I'm not sure that's right.

I remember watching him bowl beautifully in India in 1999-2000 series. He and Waqar Younis were also very instrumental in Pakistan's test series victories in England and New Zealand during the nineties. He always contributed to Pakistan's success IMO.

 

[Adarsh]

Andrew Miller and Sahil Dutta from Cricinfo are both of the opinion that Sehwag should be in the all Time Test XI. I think I agree with them. Sehwag and Gavaskar/Hobbs for me as openers.

 

[Shoaib87]

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

I would comment on selections I strongly disagree with:

Dennis"Greentop Bully"Lillee:The guy not only failed miserably on flat asian wickets but also avoided touring the region on account of fake injuries & so called business committments.Was not good against left handers & lacked a good yorker to be called a complete bowler.One of Imran Khan,Glenn McGrath or Curtley Ambrose should've been selected in his place.

Garry"I bowl every style crap"Sobers:2.56 wickets per match and a strike rate of 92 says it all.Moreover,he achieved a batting average of 57 by bashing weak Pakistani & Indian attacks of late 1950 & 1960s(averages 80+ against them,not to forget his score of 365* was also against an extremly weak Pakistan attack.Imran Khan or Keith Miller would have been a much better choice because eeryone has to bat but everyone doesn't have to bowl & a bowler of Sobers' caliber would hardly get a chance to bowl in an alltime XI.

Adam Gilchrist:This is an alltime XI so the best glovesman out of the available options should've been selected and it could be none other than Allan Knott.

My Alltime World XI:

Jack Hobbs
Len Hutton
Don Bradman
Viv Richards
Brian Lara
*Imran Khan
+Allan Knott
Richard Hadlee
Wasim Akram
Malcom Marshall
Muttiah Muralitharan

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Sorry, Sober's was a brilliant batsman by all accounts and according to everyone who saw him. I understand that his bowling may not have been as good as it's made out to be and that he was more of a batting allrounder than a bowling one, but that fits in perfectly in a All Time XI where we have 4 fantastic bowlers as it is. Sobers was a better bat than Miller, Botham and Khan, and the three of them are too good to be utilised as fifth bowlers. Sobers was also a brilliant fielder, and his versatility with the ball made him an awesome fifth-bowling option as he could be the second spinner or 4th quick depending on conditions and the batsmen batting.

 

[War]

No of course, when 2 guys are basically equivalent performance wise, go with the 'better' player eg. Warne v Murali IMO. But Wasim Akram is probably the guy I object to most vs Hadlee. People pick Wasim based on what he COULD do rather than what he DID do. Most fans can't tell me more than one series that Wasim dominated, they just remember 4 of his most awesome deliveries. I'm not sure that's right.

Agreed. I wouldn't have picked Akram, since he was basically picked for reasons you said & because he was a left-armer. Imran or Hadlee should have be in ahead of him.

 

[Shoaib87]

Sorry, Sober's was a brilliant batsman by all accounts and according to everyone who saw him. I understand that his bowling may not have been as good as it's made out to be and that he was more of a batting allrounder than a bowling one, but that fits in perfectly in a All Time XI where we have 4 fantastic bowlers as it is. Sobers was a better bat than Miller, Botham and Khan, and the three of them are too good to be utilised as fifth bowlers. Sobers was also a brilliant fielder, and his versatility with the ball made him an awesome fifth-bowling option as he could be the second spinner or 4th quick depending on conditions and the batsmen batting.

Thats because he's overrated.And I've already explained in my previous post why he was not as good a batsman as he's made out to be because of his average of 57.

From cricinfo article:The bowling positions were all decided by handsome margins. Three of cricket's most highly rated fast bowlers - Dennis Lillee, leading with 48 points, Wasim Akram and Malcolm Marshall (in addition to Sobers, who could bowl left-arm fast, spin and chinamen) - accompany Warne.

So Sobers is there because he "could" bowl three types,not because he was good at them.So even the biased idiots at cricinfo are accepting it.Those so called journalists & panel of bised selectors probaly don't even know that Sobers didn't bowl chinamen for more than 5 matches.And as a spin bowler,he always averaged above 50.

When we already have the 5 of the greatest batsmen at the top then Gilly to follow after the allrounder,I don't think there is any need of Sobers in the side.Imran is not only the greatest allrounder but also one of the greatest bowlers & captains ever.He should've been there as an allrounder.

Imran Khan was a much better bowler than Wasim & Lillee and was as good as Marshall,if not better.So,not selecting him is beyond me.Its not just me,just look how much cricinfo visitors from the world have been offended at non-selection of Imran.And they are not just fanboys but have convincing reasons why he should've been in the team.If you don't belive me,just check people's views below their article.

Cricinfo:You & your jury are a bunch of biased idiots.

 

[Dare]

Thats because he's overrated.And I've already explained in my previous post why he was not as good a batsman as he's made out to be because of his average of 57.

From cricinfo article:The bowling positions were all decided by handsome margins. Three of cricket's most highly rated fast bowlers - Dennis Lillee, leading with 48 points, Wasim Akram and Malcolm Marshall (in addition to Sobers, who could bowl left-arm fast, spin and chinamen) - accompany Warne.

So Sobers is there because he "could" bowl three types,not because he was good at them.So even the biased idiots at cricinfo are accepting it.Those so called journalists & panel of bised selectors probaly doesn't even know that Sobers didn't bowl chinamen for more than 5 matches.And as a spin bowler,he always averaged above 50.

When we already have the 5 of the greatest batsmen at the top then Gilly to follow after the allrounder,I don't think there is any need of Sobers in the side.Imran is not only the greatest allrounder but also one of the greatest bowlers & captains ever.He should've been there as an allrounder.

Imran Khan was a much better bowler than Wasim & Lillee and was as good as Marshall,if not better.So,not selecting him is beyond me.Its not just me,just look how much cricinfo visitors from the world have been offended at non-selection of Imran.And they are not just fanboys but have convincing reasons why he should've been in the team.If you don't belive me,just check people's views below their article.

Cricinfo:You & your jury are a bunch of biased idiots.

I suppose you know more then those biased idiots that actually faced Sobers when he bowled and bowled at him.