All-Time Test XIs

[aussie_ben91]

*Yawn*

You done yet you Zorax? You just can't handle someone else thinks differently to others but of course, being the cricket expert that you are, you can't be wrong can you? This forum is merely controlled by a few people who have no lives and constantly read over cricket articles 24/7 and let other people make their opinions for them. I don't do that and obviously you don't appreciate it. How many times do I have to say that Ricky Ponting is the best batsman that I have ever seen? I personally don't believe that most cricketers past the 1970's are as good as they are cracked up to be. I was merely having ago at that guys team for batting Gilchrist in the top 6, playing 2 bowling allrounders, one of which is in a position that a batsman who be placed in and for the fact that he selected 6 bowlers and 3 of them were spinners! Thanks for turning this thread into a sledging war, BTW. Great job!

 

[King Pietersen]

*Yawn*

You done yet you Zorax? You just can't handle someone else thinks differently to others but of course, being the cricket expert that you are, you can't be wrong can you? This forum is merely controlled by a few people who have no lives and constantly read over cricket articles 24/7 and let other people make their opinions for them.

Nice little pointless dig there Ben, further proving that it's impossible to have a normal discussion with you and come to some sort of conclusion. The difference between me and you is that I'm open to sensible thought and criticism, as I don't believe that my opinion is 100% correct. In my thread I had Jeff Thomson in my team, but due to overwhelming opinion, I replaced him with Wasim Akram, something that you'd never even consider doing, due to your immensely high levels of arrogance, and firm belief that you're always right.

As for "constantly reading cricket articles 24/7 and let other people make their opinions for them" what's wrong with that?. How else are you supposed to develop your knowledge and learn more about the game without reading articles, taking the opinions of professionals who have studied the game and have a wide knowledge of the game. I don't take every article I read a pure fact, I then do further research and then make my own opinion up. At least we bother doing our research before broadcasting our opinions in article form, judging by the evidence of this article and your past few posts I'd guess that you did very little if any research at all.

I personally don't believe that most cricketers past the 1970's are as good as they are cracked up to be.

That's because of your ignorance and distinct lack of research. You just look at the pure stats, and completely base your opinions on that, or possibly if we're really lucky come in with something like "I watched him bowl on footage, didn't look that fast/good to me". If you did some research about the players we've mentioned, the likes of Graeme Pollock, Jack Hobbs, Sydney Barnes, Barry Richards, Richard Hadlee etc then we'd take your opinions seriously. But that's the thing, you do very little research or reading about them, and just base your argument on your own warped beliefs.

 

[Dare]

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.

WTF kind of Logic is that. Your the only one on there that makes any sense to.
If I was to go by your logic I can easily say that if Marshall was to play 40 more tests and even if his average was to end up at 22 or 23 he would easily have had close to 600 wickets. Which would own McGraths any day, use the stats for what they are and don't bash the greats.

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.

Actually Sobers could bowl 3 different styles. Left arm fast medium, slow left arm orthodox and chinaman. And I'm not talking about some medium pace Ganguly stuff, he could bowl it in the 130+ range. Know what your talking about 1st.

 

[cricketfrantic]

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.

ben, I never claimed the statistics to prove anything, and I also said that let the career of ponting finish, and tendulkar is still playing.

 

[shubhrayu]

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.

Sorry I can't

Ponting>>>>>Lara any day

Ponting=Tendulkar almost

 

[age of the fall]

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.

This is what I love about all of your posts. you assume things that you have no idea about. If you have evidence that he would have deteriorated and you're not just making these Bs claims to try prove yourself right. then Ill take it back.

 

[ChefMan21]

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.

Wow... Don't watch cricket and you are trying to pick a great side. Interesting... I might go look up some stats and pick a netball side. Who needs to watch the game anyway. Seriously overrated concept huh?

Barry Richards was and always will be one of the greatest players to play the game. Ever seen him play? The massive backlift, the graceful strokeplay and the late but seemingly quick footwork that he had. He had it all. Racism sucks. Hayden is a great opener but not a great batsman. He needs conditions to be right for him to flourish.

Hobbs is not one of the greatest cricketers of all time? Why did he get knighted? As something to do? Why is he regularly named by many fans among the top 5 cricketers of all time? Wisden named him as on the top 5 cricketers of the 20th century. ESPN named him among the Legends of Cricket.

O'reilly is laughable? LOL.... Your selection of Ambrose is laughable. You could have picked players like Hadlee, Khan, Dev, Younis, Lindwall, Marshall, Lillee, Tyson, Trueman or Barnes and you pick Ambrose? It just doesn't make any sense. Hadlee, Lindwall, Khan & Dev could have given you more depth in your batting side and would have been extremely capable bowlers. Marshall, Younis, Tyson, Trueman & Barnes were all as good or better bowlers than Ambrose but obviously the stats don't show that.

Gilchrist at 6 is a problem? Why? Get him in earlier, give him a chance to get his eye in and let him go. Support all the way down to Warne so he doesn't need to rush and can actually score some runs.

What's the problem with having 6 capable bowlers in the side? McGrath & Akram will open the bowling - give them 10 overs, Sobers & Hadlee to follow with some left arm pace & swing respectively, O'Reilly and Warne to operate in tandem while the quicks relax a bit. What's the problem with having the two frontline spinners (with sobers as support)? Go to a ground like Sydney or the subcontinent or on a late 3rd, 4th or 5th day pitch and it's a spinners heaven. I like my bowlers fresh and at their peak.

Two less than part time batsman? This is why Gilchrist is at 6. If this side can't make a decent score with that batting lineup before Hadlee & Akram get in then there is something seriously wrong with this universe. Gilchrist is there to keep wickets mainly. But his role as a batsman is to completely take the game away from the opposition. Let him get his eye in and then let him rip. Should the top-middle order miraculously fail, Gilchrist - Hadlee and possibly Warne can try and save the game. When they bowl, there is six of the greatest players of all time to defend the total and bowl them out. Six of the freshest players...

 

[aussie_ben91]

Wow... Don't watch cricket and you are trying to pick a great side. Interesting... I might go look up some stats and pick a netball side. Who needs to watch the game anyway. Seriously overrated concept huh?

HAHA! I don't watch cricket? What a poor assumption on your part. I don't rely on stats. If I did then I would've picked Jacques Kallis over Gary Sobers, I probably wouldn't of picked Viv Richards in my side, I would've selected Muralidaran over Warne and I would've had Malcom Marshall in my side over either Ambrose or McGrath.
Speaking of which, have you ever seen Curtly Ambrose bowl? The most fearsome bowler that I have ever seen. I watched his spell of bowling against Australia in the early 1990's on youtube and it was phenomenal. 7-1, the only spell that comes close to that is Shoaib Akhtar's against Australia in 2002. McGrath has produced many great spells but none as good as Ambrose.

How you can say that you can be a great opening batsman and not a great batsman is a truly ridiculous comment. You have the field set attacking, the bowlers are fresh and they're bowling with a brand new ball.
Hayden needs the conditions to favour him? That's why his average in the 2nd innings is higher then his average in the 1st innings' when the pitch has detiorated. I've seen him play countless ammounts of good knocks when the conditions have had a bit in it for the bowlers. Of course not all of them are in England, New Zealand or South Africa so you are probably too neive to believe me.
There is nothing wrong with choosing batsman 2 batsman who have scored runs all over the world and have scored over 30 Test Hundreds. I just think it's more logical then choosing a batsman who played 4 Tests and a pioneer of cricket who only played in 3 different countries.

It is unfortunate but I'd feel more comfortable selecting players that are proven rather then myths on how good they actually were. From what I've seen, just watching cricket, Hayden is right up there with the likes of Ponting, Lara and Tendulkar, perhaps not as good but that's enough for me. Personally, in a few years time I might have Kevin Pietersen in my Alltime XI.

Gilchrist at 6 is a massive problem. I doubt he would've even played much Test Cricket if he was purely a batsman. Everyone that's been in the Australian lineup over the past decade for an extended period of time has been a better batsman then he is in Tests.
Yes, he is the greatest keeper-batsman of all time by a country mile but his merely not good enough to bat in the top 6. Atleast not in an Alltime World Test XI.

Saying that if 5 of the best batsman can't get the job done is like saying if 5 bowlers can't get the job done then what makes you think that 6 will? I selected batsman based on who I thought were the best batsman and I selected bowlers on who I thought were the best bowlers. I didn't select bowlers because I thought they could bat a bit or batsman because I thought they could bowl a bit, which is sort've what you did. I selected on who I thought were the best.

 

[aussie_ben91]

This is what I love about all of your posts. you assume things that you have no idea about. If you have evidence that he would have deteriorated and you're not just making these Bs claims to try prove yourself right. then Ill take it back.

And posts like this is what make me sick and how I hate to repeat myself to newcomers of the thread.

In Pollock's hayday, he was probably as GOOD as McGrath (who I rate higher then Marshall) and after similar ammount of matches played Pollock had a better average then Marshall. However, Pollock deteriorated with age and finished with a bowling average of 23 after 110 odd matches after having a bowling average of 20.80 after 78 matches. Marshall had a bowling average of 20.94 after 80 matches.

You think that bowlers would get better after they retire? Strange logic mate.

 

[Dare]

And posts like this is what make me sick and how I hate to repeat myself to newcomers of the thread.

In Pollock's hayday, he was probably as GOOD as McGrath (who I rate higher then Marshall) and after similar ammount of matches played Pollock had a better average then Marshall. However, Pollock deteriorated with age and finished with a bowling average of 23 after 110 odd matches after having a bowling average of 20.80 after 78 matches. Marshall had a bowling average of 20.94 after 80 matches.

You think that bowlers would get better after they retire? Strange logic mate.

Nobody says that people will get better after they retire but you logic doesn't make any sense too.

You are making blind predictions. Is it ok for me to say that if Bradman played 120 test his average would be in the 70s or 60s. No because we have no idea how thing would have ended up. Take the stats for what they are and don't try to belittle a legends accomplishments.

 

[aussie_ben91]

'Belittle a legends accomplishments' :

I'm trying to be realistic. No other cricketer in the history of the game compares to Bradman and it's pointless bringing him into arguements like this.
I originally said that McGrath dominated a longer period of time in International cricket, with similar statistics and that's why I believe he deserves more credit then Marshall.

When comparing 2 legends together, I am not belittling ones acchievements but instead making a case for why ones better then the other.

 

[Dare]

'Belittle a legends accomplishments' :

I'm trying to be realistic. No other cricketer in the history of the game compares to Bradman and it's pointless bringing him into arguements like this.
I originally said that McGrath dominated a longer period of time in International cricket, with similar statistics and that's why I believe he deserves more credit then Marshall.

When comparing 2 legends together, I am not belittling ones acchievements but instead making a case for why ones better then the other.

even tho Pollock is a great fast bowler comparing him and Marshall is in my opinion belittling Marshall accomplishments. Marshall was head and shoulders above Pollock in all aspects of the game.

 

[ChefMan21]

even tho Pollock is a great fast bowler comparing him and Marshall is in my opinion belittling Marshall accomplishments. Marshall was head and shoulders above Pollock in all aspects of the game.

yep - no question....

 

[Dare]

Alright here we go.

Openers
Opening batsman #1 will be Jack Hobs. He has one of the highest averages of all time and as far as I can see the highest among openers (might be wrong so correct me). 60 000+ runs in 1st class and still managed to keep his average over 50. He opened for so many test and only had 4 ducks and to me that is impressive.
Opening batsman #2 Matthew Hayden. A powerful batsman but not a sloger, plays excellent aggressive cricket but still manged to get 30 centuries. In my opinion he is a excellent companion to Hobs, he can score the runs quickly but if need be slow it down and play according to the teams needs.

Middle Order
Is there even a question as to who the #3 is. Don Bradman the best to ever play the game and is surely going to stay there for a long time.

#4. Well now its not so easy to pick the rest of the middle order because only one guys was a sure thing. #4 was between Wally Hammond and Ken Barrington and I decided to go with Hammond only because of his better First Class average and his better conversion rate. He was a little more consistent as I can tell from his First Class average but having Barrington wouldn't have been a bad thing.

#5. This one might be a bit controversial and not because of the batsman I chose but because I chose him to be my wicket keeper. I know that there are better WK out there but I chose to play him because I wanted to make room for another all-rounder. The decision was between Everton Weekes and Clyde Walcott and it ended up being Walcott. He was a great attacking batsman and a stroke maker and one of the best batsman to come out of the West Indies.

#6. Well there is no doubt that Garfield Sobers deserves to be in every world eleven. The greatest all-rounder to play the game and one of the best batsman ever. One of the best attacking batsman of his time and the 1st man to hit 6x6. He could bowl 3 different styles and his pace bowling didn't lack speed as I saw in a clip where he was bowling bouncers at a batsman.

#7. This one is related to my choice and number 5. I decided to pick Imran Khan. The greatest leader to ever lead a team and his captaincy was brilliant too. He is the man who took Wasim and Waqar under his wing and turned them into the players that they became. His bowling was brilliant, one of the fastest men of his time and a great swing bowlers. He finished his career with 362 wickets and averaged 22.8. And his batting wasn't anything to be ignored he is more than capable of batting in the middle order and that's what he did for Pakistan in his playing days. He is also the captain of the squad.

#8. And its Wasim Akram. The greatest swing bowler ever and one of the most accurate. He could bowl many different deliveries but it was his swing that was his greatest asset. 414 wickets at 22.6 with most of his matches played in the sub continent is absolutely amazing. The most amazing this about Wasim to me is the pace that he got from such a short run up, it looked as short as a spin bowlers run up. Hes reverse swing was only matched by his playing partner Waqar Younis and their yorkers were deadly. He is also a handy batsman with a double century to his name.

#9. This one was probably the toughest one to decide. Muralitharan or Warne, not an easy decision. Me being a Murli fan I was leaning towards him but I had to go with Warne because of the pitches he had to ply on in his home country. Muralis stats are absolutely incredible and if its not Warne than its definitely him but Warne was a master of the leg break. He could turn the ball a long way and he had plenty of deliveries to leave batsman looking foolish.

#10. This man in my mind is the greatest pace bowler of all time. And his name is Malcolm Marshall, the man with one of the most beautiful bowling styles to ever play the game. His accuracy was amazing his pace wasn't express but he had enough of it to give the English batsman nightmares. He could seam the ball just as well as he could swing it and he had a good bouncer which surprised batsman because Marshall wasn't really a tall bowler. Marshall's stats speak for them self, 1651 first Class wickets at a average of 19 is mind boggling to me. Only man I would consider placing into his spot is Curtly Ambrose.

#11. This one is another no brainier for me. Glen McGrath arguably the greatest modern era bowler and one of the best of all time. His accuracy was as good as anyone's and he had incredible control when he was bowling. He didn't generate allot of pace but his bowling action was just beautiful to watch. Everything seemed easy when he was bowling.


There are 2 men that I feel really bad about leaving out and those are George Headley (black Bradman) and Sir Viv one of my favorite players of all time. Headley was one of the best batsman of his time its just too bad that he couldn't play more matches because that's the only reason I didn't include him. And Sir Viv well that's just self explanatory.

So to sum it up.

Jack Hobbs
Matthew Hayden
Don Bradman
Wally Hammond
Clyde Walcott +
Garfield Sobers
Imran Khan *
Wasim Akram 1
Shane Warne
Malcolm Marshall
Glen McGrath 2

Please comment and leave opinions.

 

[aussie1st]

Ok since we seem to be getting a lot of all time XI teams I've created a thread and moved it to the Cricket Discussion forum.