All-Time Test XIs

[King Pietersen]

Jack Hobbs is far better than Sunil Gavaskar, and is widely regarded as the greatest opening batsman of all-time. So I don't agree with that selection for 1 thing. I'll let you off with Hayden, I can see why he's been picked, but his record in swinging conditions was the only thing that stopped me selecting him. His record in England and New Zealand is far from impressive.

Can't really argue with the middle order, for me it was Ponting or Pollock, and for me I preferred Pollock for the balance of the side, and because of what I've read about him and also having seen alot of footage of him batting and hearing peoples opinions of him. Being Australian I can see why you picked him though. The rest of the middle order makes good sense, would probably have Richards batting above Sobers though to be honest.

Akram and Warne are pretty good choices, and ones I agree with. I don't agree with McGrath over Marshall though. McGrath is the best bowler of his generation, but Marshall has a better record. Marshall has the best average for any bowler to ever have taken more than 200 wickets. He also has a tremendous record in the Sub-continent, which seems for some reason to be your main category for rating players, which i don't entirely agree with. But, Marshall has 36 wickets at 24 in India and 35 wickets at 21 in Pakistan. So, although McGrath has a better record in India, Marshall has a far better record in Pakistan. Personally I rate Marshall higher, but I suppose it's down to personal opinion, their stats are so close that it would be easy to pick either of them.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Marshall barely has a better record then McGrath though and McGrath played 40 odd more Tests.

Shaun Pollock also passed 200 wickets at an average of 20.26 compared to Marshall's 21.63 and up until Pollock's 78th match, he had a bowling average of under 21. His peak bowling average was 19.86 after 50 Tests.

Had Marshall played as many Tests as McGrath then I doubt that he'd still have a better average.

 

[King Pietersen]

Well, First Class record is generally a good indication of a players talents, if it wasn't they'd not be picked in the first place, and Marshall's average is better in FC cricket than in Tests. You may claim that McGrath is still better because he's playing in the best domestic competition in the world, but if that was the case, then the other class players around the world would have unbelievably better FC records than their Test record, but it doesn't work like that. Players like Jayawardene, Pietersen, Tendulkar, Kallis, etc all have very similar FC records when compared with their test records.

So, with that we return to Marshall, who's FC record reads:
Matches: 408
Wickets: 1651
Average: 19.10
Economy: 2.53
Strike Rate: 45.2

In comparison with McGrath, who's stats read:
Matches: 189
Wickets: 835
Average: 20.85
Economy: 2.50
Strike Rate: 50.0

So, even though Marshall has played over double the amount of games he's still got a comfortably better FC record, also proving that his record would not got much worse had he played more Test Matches.

 

[manee]

Pretty poorly argued in my opinion, but I am liking that side. Would probably have Sobers below Richards, merely due to convention and having the more feared batsman further up the order - though both are greats. It is interesting that you have ignored Richards' statistical deficiencies and gone on the quality of the player; something which has been neglected through the years.

Wasim, Ambrose, Warne and Mcgrath seems a very powerful attack; though I disagree with the non-inclusion of Dennis Lillee and would have likely put him in, instead of probably Mcgrath. Merely due to my preference of team structure. I'd probably have Imran Khan in for Ponting and coming in at seven. A five man attack of great bowlers will win you many a game and Imran Khan's prime is amongst the longest and one of the best amongst any all rounder: with 2028 runs at 39.76 and 236 wickets at 17.77 from 1980-1988.

 

[cricketfrantic]

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.

I am not quite sure he can make runs off almost any delivery, looks fluent I am not sure about that either. He could easily be exposed against genuine fast bowler and world class spinners. Yes he is going through a tough period but announcing him the Greatest Modern Batsman is preposterous, let him finish his career.

As pointed out statistically may be, he could go on to become one of the greatest batsman of test cricket but as they say there is more to cricket than mere statistics and to be honest, Ricky Ponting (no offence to his fans) unfortunately is not in the league of Sachin Tendulkar and Brian Lara and this is a true as the batting average and greatness of Sir Donald Bradman.

The problem with Sachin Tendulkar is that he makes batting look so ridiculously easy that sometimes it seems there is no charm in his batting when compared to Brian Lara whose stance fascinated me most more than his fantastic batting, though he (tendulkar) is the only batsmen today who can play every shot in the book and has manufactured many of his shot himself which can be affirmed by the commentators and experts all over the globe.

PS: Ponting will be counted as one of the best batsman but not in the same league as SRT or BCL.

Any body concur with me.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

I agree. Lara and Tendulkar > Ponting any day. I'd rather have Laxman too. And Yusuf.

Ponting never looks good to me when he bats. Just too normal. It's like the kid in school who gets all the sums in maths right, does all his homework, full marks on tests, but when the teacher poses a brain teaser or a very challenging question relying on a different way of thinking, he lacks the ability. Pointing his good, but doesn't have that aura of a genius. No way he can be compared with Lara and Tendulkar, who are just incredible and impossible to stop if they want to keep going on. They literally had 3 shots to each ball. They were real geniuses.

 

[cricketfrantic]

I agree. Lara and Tendulkar > Ponting any day. I'd rather have Laxman too. And Yusuf.

Ponting never looks good to me when he bats. Just too normal. It's like the kid in school who gets all the sums in maths right, does all his homework, full marks on tests, but when the teacher poses a brain teaser or a very challenging question relying on a different way of thinking, he lacks the ability. Pointing his good, but doesn't have that aura of a genius. No way he can be compared with Lara and Tendulkar, who are just incredible and impossible to stop if they want to keep going on. They literally had 3 shots to each ball. They were real geniuses.

couldn't have put differently zorax

 

[Dare]

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.

And Marshall once came out and batted one handed with a cast on his non bowling hand because of a double- fractured left thumb. And than took 7/53 in a innings with that cast still on his hand.

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.

LOL now you are comparing Marshall to Pollock. This getting even worse. Pollocks stats in India don't even come close to Marshalls, not to mention that Pollock played most of his cricket in South Africa where its a pace bowlers paradise. Marshall was way above Pollock in every aspect of bowling and if he had played 40 more tests his record would have probably stayed the same because he was to good of a bowler and had plenty of ability to adjust. He never relied on his pace even tho he had plenty of it back in the day, he relied on moving the ball. Swinging it and moving it of the seam so conditions and age were never a problem for him.

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.

And you are saying that you don't buy into Marshall's 1st class stats.
You said "I dont buy into 1st class stats its stats on the International level that count" but here you are using them to back up one of your other points.

And no Im not arguing against the Dons stats.

 

[ChefMan21]

Nice looking side. I reckon that if everyone picked a side on here there wouldn't be too many sides the same!

 

[ChefMan21]

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.

One of the stupidest things I have ever heard!

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.

Are you serious?

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.

Do you rate any? What about players like Laker, Trueman, Miller, Harvey & Tyson? They were still going around around the time when he started.

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.

Wouldn't exactly say easily.

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.

OMG! lol!

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:

LMFAO!!!! Sorry.... having trouble breathing. I think your head is too big - it's taking up all the oxygen.

 

[bladescape]

To be honest,Lillee > McGrath.
Lara > Ponting

 

[aussie_ben91]

King Pietersen, you can't possibly justify first-class statistics as who the better player is. Australia have 6 state teams and it is extremely hard to crack into a state side in Australia. I've checked the England first-class statistics and there are county cricketers who I've never heard of that have played almost 300 first-class games. The grounds in the West Indies are bowler friendly aswell. Sabina park comes to mind, where a Test match had to be called off because the pitch was too dangerous to bat on.
Do you have any idea how good McGrath's first-class average would be if he played 16 first-class matches in England a year?
Tendulkar doesn't have a similar Test average to his first-class average either. His first-class average would be in the low-mid 60's if you take away his Tests stats, so would Ricky Ponting's.

cricketfrantic and ZoraxDoom, you both claim that Ponting isn't in the league as Lara or Tendulkar but you ignore the fact that if you deduct their statistics from games played against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe then Ponting averages 56-67 and Lara and Tendulkar both average 52.
People often ignore the fact that Lara started his career, playing in the best team in World Cricket.
Ponting looks as classy, if not more classy then both of them.

As for Dare, it doesn't matter how great Malcom Marshall was, 40 Tests is allot and he would've slowly deteriorated. I have no doubt that he still would've averaged 22 or 23 but it's a greater testament to McGrath that he was able to dominate for so many more Tests in a batsman dominated era.
A first-class average of 95 speaks for itself. We are not talking about batting averages of over 60 or bowling averages of under 20, but a batting average of 95! A bowling average of something like 11 or 12 would be argueable though.

I'd also like to thank ChefMan21 for furthermore proving me right. He dislikes my opinion but due to my strong arguement, he can't justify his opinion. Thanks mate!

 

[ChefMan21]

ChefMan21 All Time XI

Openers
So many options but only two spots. I've narrowed it down to the following players: Hobbs, Hutton, Gavaskar, Hayden, Richards & Morris. All great players & icons of the game.

As my first choice, Sir Jack Hobbs will be it. Nothing flash about his game, just safe and quite simply the best opener the game has seen. Prolific (Average over 55 from 60 odd tests, 60000 runs in first class cricket), technically sound and the guy I want to build the innings around.

My second choice is Barry Richards. I think an opening partnership needs an exciting player to shatter the confidence of the bowlers. He only ever played four tests but it's enough for me. Brilliant. Shame about the politics/apartheid that ruined his career.

As my first drop, there can be only one. The Don. The greatest.

At number four, I had two choices. Tendulkar or Lara. I love them both. Tendulkar for his mental strength and sheer class for years and Lara with his game turning brilliance. I will go for Lara. Amazing footwork, brilliant against spin & pace and the ability to have an enormous innings. I'd love Tendulkar but I like my number five to be the one with the mental strength rather than four. Four should be a runscorer.

Number five. IMO the most important batting spot. If the top four fail, this is the guy that you need to save the game for you. The standout players to me are Steve Waugh, Sobers, Border or Pollock. This one is the toughest one so far. Do I go for Waugh who has never placed more value on his wicket than him, Border who was as tough as they come or Pollock who had the ability to take a game away from you.

But I will pick Sobers. No need to describe him - we know all about him!

At six, I am picking our keeper. Adam Gilchrist. The greatest batsman-keeper the game has seen. I had a tear in my eye when he retired.

Number seven. I've decided to go with Akram. The best fast bowler I have seen. So much control, could swing the ball both ways and in reverse, seam the ball and had a particularly good yorker. The good thing about him is he can bat also. Support for Sobers & Gilchrist.

Number eight. There are four players that I think could fill the position. Hadlee, Lillee, Lindwall or Marshall. Lillee was menacing & classy, Marshall could have been anything & Lindwall could bat & bowl. But I will go with Hadlee. I think the others were better bowlers but looking at my side and the players I will pick next, Hadlee was the best option. Why? He provided something different in attack in that he wasn't as quick as the others but bowled with control and could swing the ball. He could bat a little too.

Number nine. All hail Warney - the best leggie the game has seen. Control and variation. Could beat anyone. Often. The Bradman of Bowlers.

Number ten. I know it's not conventional but I like the idea of two spinners in tandem. I will go for O'Reilly. Old school but the Warne of his era. A notable mention must go to Saqlain Mushtaq who I thought was a truly outstanding spinner who could have been anything if for injuries. I thought about Murali but I didn't choose him. Not sure why. Maybe I like old school?

Finally, my last position must go to Barnes. The greatest fast bowler the world has ever seen.


1. Hobbs
2 Richards
3 Bradman
4 Lara
5 Sobers
6 Gilchrist
7 Akram
8 Hadlee
9 Warne
10 O'Reilly
11 Barnes

 

[aussie_ben91]

LOL

You say I have no idea and you go ahead and post a team like that?

Barry Richards as the opener? A guy who played 4 Test Matches?! You're choosing this guy over 2 guys who have scored over 30 Test Hundreds? Many players over time have played their career without playing International cricket (or very level) and have managed to produce a better first-class record. Jack Hobbs only played against 3 or 4 nations aswell? His a pioneer of cricket IMO, in the same notion that Sanath Jayasuriya is and that means that he is definately not one of the best cricketers of all time.
The only reason we don't regulary see players making more first-class runs then him is because of different forms of cricket like ODI cricket and Twenty20.

Your selection of Bill O'Reily is laughable? Completely out of left field. There are so many flaws with this selection that it's not funny. If not Murali then surely Kumble?

You are also batting Gilchrist at number 6? You've got 6 capable bowlers in your lineup and 3 of them are spinners (Warne, O'Reily and Sobers). Gilchrist is nowhere near a good enough batsman to bat in the top 6 when it comes to All-Time Test XI's. He was so good off feeding off a good batsman lineup that had set things up for him and punishing the opposition with late runs off with the tail.
You've also got 2 more-then-less part-time batsman in Wasim Akram and Richard Hadlee. Didn't you see the Australian vs India series? Two batsman who average in the mid 20's don't make up for a batsman averaging over 50.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Oh my God.

Have you ever watched cricket in your life??

You are basing your argument ENTIRELY on Statistics! I can tell you do not know a thing about what you are saying.

Barry Richards on played 4 tests due to the arpatheid thing. Many, including me, regard him as one of the finest players to play the game. How? BY WATCHING HIM BAT! Unlike you, we do not close our eyes to what is happening on the field, and follow only the scorecard. A man who scored a 100 HAS to be better than a man who scored an 80 in your eyes, even if the man who scored 100 was dropped 10 times, edged half his runs through slip, and faced part time bowlers, while the man who scored 80 did it against the best bowling attack in the world. You do not get it. You just want to go by stats, and when statistically proven wrong, resort to claiming 'style' and trying to argue the impossible by comparing batsmen bowled to or bowlers faced, and are still proved wrong.

You and You alone are the only one who agrees with your own opinions. Not a single person, I repeat, NOT A SINGLE PERSON here on this forum agrees with you. I can guarantee you, you present these arguements to any cricket expert in the world and they will disagree, 100%.

Ponting made his debut in the strongest team in the world as well, but never had to play in a team that could be considered the worst in the world.

Stats do now do justice to genius. You must be the only human to have watched Ponting, Lara and Tendulkar bat, and claim the Ponting to be the best of them.

Bradman said Tiger O'Reily was the best bowler he had ever faced. If that doesn't do it for you, nothing will.

McGrath is pure line and length, more than half his wickets have come from waiting for the batsmen to make an error. Ask anyone who has seen him bowl. Even he'll admit it himself. Marshall didn't wait for the batsmen to get himself out, he got them out. He had every tool in his arsenal including accuracy, and he was the bowler batsmen liked to face the least. But hey, he played less test matches than McGrath. So he can't be better.

Akram has a test 200, not bad for someone who admittedly didn't care a lot about his batting despite having the talent, and Hadlee had two test hundreds, and Cricinfo labelled him as 'A hard hitting batsman of unquestionable skill'. Unless now, ofcourse, the writers of Cricinfo are wrong too.

Your posts here and in the other thread show one thing, you know nothing about the greats of the game. You have tunnel vision, you only see things one way and refuse to see them the other way, even if you have been proven wrong countless times. You try to claim you are the only one speaking the truth and try and back up your baseless claims with useless arguements, yet you are the only one who thinks the way you do. And instead of admitting you could be wrong, you decide that everyone elses view is wrong.

So you know what, fine. I give up. On the behalf of EVERY cricket fan in the world, you are a right, we are wrong. You, a single person, know more than all of us millions do. The opinion of one person -You- has to mean the opinions of all of us is wrong. All the stats we pull up were rubbish, all the stats you pulled up were right. Your arguments were faultless. Clearly we do not know what we are talking about. Bradman, Benaud, writers at Cricinfo, all the knowledge of the experts pales to yours. You know it all. If you deem a cricketer great or worthless, so be it. If they haven't played enough tests or You haven't heard of them, well, they can't be good. No sir. We know nothing. We were wrong. All of us, agreed in opinion, are wrong because you know so much more than us. You are right.

Happy?