All-Time XI

[King Pietersen]

Sachin batting at 5 isn't too bad, he's only dropped down 1 place =/ Headley's one of my favourite all-time players having read and watched alot of him recently. Probably one of the most talented batsmen to ever play the game, probably 2nd behind Bradman. I actually rate him ahead of Viv as the greatest West Indian batsman, I'd take Sobers ahead of Viv as well.

For me it's Sachin vs Viv, and although I rate Sir Viv incredibly highly, I just had to get Sachin in there. He's been playing the at the top level since he was 17 and is still going. He's scored an incredible amount of hundreds and has proven he can score runs anywhere. Viv would be the next guy to come into the batting line-up, but I had to pick Sachin.

As for Barry Richards, I posted my thoughts regarding Richards in another thread where you slagged him off. You didn't reply to that post, so I'm guessing I was proven right regarding him. One of the most talented and consistent opening batsmen the worlds ever seen, I rate him ahead of Sutcliffe, Gavaskar and miles ahead of Hayden.

What's wrong with Imran Khan? Widely regarded as the greatest fast bowler to come from Pakistan, and possibly the sub-continent. He also offers more batting down at 8, with a Test average of 37 with 6 hundreds. His Test bowling record is also superb, and he was geniunely quick. Can't see what's wrong with picking Imran.

 

[aussie_ben91]

I watched the Barry Richards clip on youtube of his innings of 129 and the bowlers are nothing short of hurendous. The pace bowlers bowl 115kph and the spinners bowl absolute pies. Sure, it was a fine exhibition of clean hitting but the quality of the bowling resembles a 3rd grade club cricket match. Modern day batsman would average over 100 if they faced that sort've bowling in first-class cricket. Virender Sehwag is even better then Barry Richards. To rate him ahead of Gavaskar is laughable. Gavaskar finished his career with statistics almost twice as good as any other Opening Batsman before Matthew Hayden appeared on the scene.

Richards could've been a flop at International cricket. Bashing around weak county attacks (like the one in the youtube clip) doesn't make you one of the finest openers. Not even close.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

I can never do this, I dunno if I'm supposed to select a proper team that would play well, (so I pick warne cause he was better at cleaning up tails and getting set batsmen out, whereas murali just tears through them, which is unnecessary if you have the 3 greatest pacers ever) also do you try and go for a combo of left and right handers, spin players and pace players. I over-think. you might even feel someone like sehwag would be best at the top of an all time team, if you're middle order is going to put on loads and you bat down to 8 or 9 then why not throw in the most ballistic opener of all time?

however, the 5 automatics would always be gavaskar, bradman, imran khan, sobers and marshall. the rest would fit around them.

 

[ouwwwolfpac]

ok..it definitely should have the likes of hadlee and bradman

 

[aussie_ben91]

20th Century XI

Sunil Gavaskar
Sir Jack Hobbs
Sir Donald Bradman (c)
Sachin Tendulkar
Sir Vivian Richards
Sir Garfield Sobers
Allan Knott (wk)
Wasim Akram
Malcom Marshall
Shane Warne
Curtly Ambrose

21st Century XI

Graeme Smith
Matthew Hayden
Ricky Ponting
Sachin Tendulkar
Brian Lara
Jacques Kallis
Adam Gilchrist (wk)
Shaun Pollock
Shane Warne
Muttiah Muralitharan
Glenn McGrath

 

[usy]

Why is it all the time that people do their XI according to their own Nationality, thus their "All time XI" is their country specific, not all the time, most of the time I guess. Myabe because everyone watches their country's players more often.

I'm not complaining, just wondering.

 

[mrtwisties]

I reckon it's hard to choose between Imran Khan and Keith Miller - both fantastic all-round pacers with X factor to spare. Perhaps it just slightly edges to Miller, though, given the variety in his bowling and sheer athleticism in the field.

That means you've got to bring in another out and out dangerman pacer for the new-ball partnership. Akram is my choice, but it's really not clear cut.

Last tricky issue is captaincy - when you've got so much batting and bowling depth it takes an inspirational figure to get the most out of each and every player, otherwise you find some players starting to underperform because they're not really needed. From everything I've read, the Don was not that captain. Miller, I grant you, is a controversial choice. But here's the logic - he was inspirational but impetuous and disorganised, so every player would want to win but fear they might lose (and therefore put in 100%).

1. Sir Jack Hobbs
2. Barry Richards
3. Sir Don Bradman
4. George Headley
5. Sachin Tendulkar
6. Sir Garfield Sobers
7. Adam Gilchrist (wk)
8. Keith Miller (c)
9. Malcolm Marshall
10. Wasim Akram
11. Shane Warne

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

I genuinely cannot believe people even contemplate leaving imran khan out.

there is a strong arguement for him being every bit the all-rounder Sobers was. his average with bat was perhaps not brilliant, but it took a while before he was at a proper batting age and I think playing as such a young fast bowler dragged it down a little.

he was absurdly fast and dominated on dead sub continent pitches like few fast bowlers ever have. he was one of the most unbelievable talismans ever, far outstripping miller in that respect, miller played 95 innings as a bowler and only got fifteen 4 or more wicket hauls. khan did play more, around a 140 but managed 40. the majority of them 5 wicket ones. that's nearly one every 3 innings. (and it's worth noting he was picked on batting and captaincy for good few years and used sparingly as a bowler)

for me an, unbelievable cricketer and the sort of guy that comes along once in many, many generations, and must be an automatic choice for an all time XI.

 

[Dare]

Jack Hobbs
Matthew Hayden
Don Bradman
Sir Viv Richards (was Wally Hammond)
Garfield Sobers
Imran Khan *
Adam Gilchrist (was Clyde Walcott +)
Wasim Akram 1
Shane Warne
Malcolm Marshall
Glen McGrath 2

I still like this but I would like to make 2 changes, bring in Sir Viv for Hammond. I feel that Viv and his aggressive batting would complement Bradman. The 2nd change would be bringing in Gilchrist for Walcott, I really feel that Walcott or Weekes deserve a spot in one of these teams (and I will make a 2nd All Time XI to fit them in somewhere) but Gilly was probably a better WK than Walcott so he gets in.

All Time 2nd XI

Sunil Gavaskar
Gordon Greenidge/Desmond Haynes
Sir Everton Weekes *
Sachin Tendulkar
Ricky Ponting
Brian Lara
Ian Healey +
Sir Richard Hadlee 2
Muttiah Muralitharan
Curtly Ambrose 1
Courtney Walsh

Looks more like a all-time WI XI lol. But its the guys I felt deserve to be there, I couldn't find a spot for Walcott (again) because I didn't really feel like placing him at #7.

 

[aussie_ben91]

I genuinely cannot believe people even contemplate leaving imran khan out.

there is a strong arguement for him being every bit the all-rounder Sobers was. his average with bat was perhaps not brilliant, but it took a while before he was at a proper batting age and I think playing as such a young fast bowler dragged it down a little.

he was absurdly fast and dominated on dead sub continent pitches like few fast bowlers ever have. he was one of the most unbelievable talismans ever, far outstripping miller in that respect, miller played 95 innings as a bowler and only got fifteen 4 or more wicket hauls. khan did play more, around a 140 but managed 40. the majority of them 5 wicket ones. that's nearly one every 3 innings. (and it's worth noting he was picked on batting and captaincy for good few years and used sparingly as a bowler)

for me an, unbelievable cricketer and the sort of guy that comes along once in many, many generations, and must be an automatic choice for an all time XI.

Imran Khan was never a great allround cricketer at one time. He was a great bowler at the start of his career, but batted at number 8 and in the latter half of his career, his batting benefitted because he bowled allot less. He was like Shaun Pollock in the first half of his career and Jacques Kallis in the 2nd half of his career.

Take someone like Keith Miller, for example who always batted in the top 5 and opened the bowling. He is argubaly the best allrounder that has ever played the game, in terms allround batting & bowling ability.

 

[mrtwisties]

Take someone like Keith Miller, for example who always batted in the top 5 and opened the bowling. He is argubaly the best allrounder that has ever played the game, in terms allround batting & bowling ability.

Also:
[AWESOME]

• He'd play tennis strokes against English pie-chuckers and hit them for six.
• Few moments in cricketing history are better than him intentionally getting out first ball against Essex.
• He'd injure himself playing VFL in the off season, then turn up late and hungover without his pants on and STILL take a wicket on his third ball.

[/AWESOME]

 

[jordox]

From what I've seen XI
Phillip Hughes
Matthew Hayden

You rate Hughes, a guy who has played only 3 test matches, higher than Langer, Smith and Sehwag?

That has no credit behind it what so ever.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

Imran Khan was never a great allround cricketer at one time. He was a great bowler at the start of his career, but batted at number 8 and in the latter half of his career, his batting benefitted because he bowled allot less. He was like Shaun Pollock in the first half of his career and Jacques Kallis in the 2nd half of his career.

Take someone like Keith Miller, for example who always batted in the top 5 and opened the bowling. He is argubaly the best allrounder that has ever played the game, in terms allround batting & bowling ability.

so which was he in say, the entire 80s?

you know when he had the best average in the entire decade of dominant fast bowlers, second best strike rate to marshall (though actually took more wickets per innings than him) and managed to bat with 44 average?

you are in a sense right, but the key differences are that he was not shaun pollock, he was easily up there as one of the best fast bowlers ever when at his peak. Pollock was never nearly that good, and there was a significant over-lap of around 10 years, which is the length of keith millers career by the way.

I think a lot of 50s era players get written off myseld, but Khan was an extra-ordinary individual.

I think if you were in charge of picking an all-time XI and had first go, picked miller instead of khan and then let me pick the next best XI to play them, bradman would be in locker room at lunch giving you hell "saying how the **** did you let them have that guy???"

 

[aussie_ben91]

Wisden in 2003 described Pollock before 2003: "on a flat deck, he was unhittable; on a spicy deck, he was unplayable".

I'd say Khan was quite similar to Pollock.

 

[Dare]

In his last ten years (51 tests) Imran averaged 50 with the bat and 19 with the ball. For a guy who played most of his test cricket in the sub continent he performed really well with the ball.

For me a must in a all-time XI, if not for his batting or bowling than for his leadership.