All-Time XI

[Boy_Downunder]

This may have been discussed before but here it goes!

Batsmen:
Bradman, Hobbs, Flower, Lara, Tendulkar, Richards, Gavaskar, G. Pollack, Sutcliffe, Miandad, Kambli, S. Waugh

All-Rounders:
Sobers, Khan, Miller, S. Pollack, Dev

Wicket-Keepers:
Gilchrist, Boucher

Spin Bowlers:
Warne, Muralitharan, Kumble

Pace Bowlers:
Barnes, McGrath, Lillee, Hadlee, Ambrose, Younis

 

[Ollie_H]

If i can count that isnt 11 players, More like an All time Squad,

If im honest i wouldnt pick one because its impossible to say how somebody like WG Grace would fair today with things like Helmets better bats and all the factors that may have not been there in his own day. You can pick players from era's but in my opinion you cant compare two players from different era's

 

[Boy_Downunder]

Very hard yes but it is not impossible

It is impossible to prove it, f.e Lara is a better batsmen than Hammond. However you can make informed arguments.

Personally I think that this is a great topic.

In answear to your question, if it was one, I have always been septical of regarding W.G.Grace among the 'elite' of cricket becuase I find his stats highly unreliable. However if they are true - 55, 000 first class runs @ 39.55 and 2,875 wickets @ 17.92 then he must be considered with Sobers as the greatest all rounder ever!
Although particulary he scores 344, 172 and 318* in a single week is amazing.

All-Time XI

1. Headley - West Indies
2. Mindand - Pakistan
3. Bradman - Australia
4. Lara - West Indies
5. Richards - West Indies
6. Sobers - West Indies
7. Gilchrist (c) - Australia
8. Khan - Pakistan
9. Warne - Australia
10. Barnes - England
11. McGrath - Australia

 

[gary0808]

Why is Headley and Miandad opening and both shouldn't be near an all time team. Headley only played 22 Tests!!!

My Team

1 - Len Hutton
2 - Jack Hobbs
3 - Don Bradman
4 - Ricky Ponting
5 - Vivian Richards
6 - Garfield Sobers
7 - Adam Gilchrist (wk)
8 - Imran Khan (c)
9 - Curtly Ambrose
10 - Muttiah Muralitharan
11 - Glenn McGrath

Reserves

Batsmen
Brian Lara, Matthew Hayden

Keepers
Mark Boucher, Andy Flower

Pace Bowlers
Malcolm Marshall, Richard Hadlee

Spin Bowlers
Shane Warne, Derek Underwood

 

[Boy_Downunder]

Mindand perhaps not, although he had a lot of injuries and still remained scored nearly 9000 runs

Headley's 10 centuries in 22 tests is amazing + an average of over 60!
He lost his six best years to the war and that is why he played so few tests!
First-class: 10,000 @ 70.
IMO Headley is the 3rd best ever player, after Bradman and Sobers!

Hutton is not good enough IMO however I may replace Miandand with either Pointing or Hammond!

 

[aussie_ben91]

Ponting has a better record then all of your batsman, except Bradman over a longer course of time and looks at ease more then any other batsman I've ever seen. How on earth you can choose Miandad, Headley, Sutcliffe, Kambli and all of these players with worse records then him who haven't played in the last 20 years and not even mention Ponting is completely beyhond me.

I think apart from Bradman, every cricketer from before 1950 would be club cricketer quality in the modern day.

 

[manee]

Ponting has a better record then all of your batsman

On flatter pitches against much worse bowling. You cannot disregard Ponting's record, but you cannot take it at 100% face value.

My Team

1 - Len Hutton
2 - Jack Hobbs
3 - Don Bradman
4 - Ricky Ponting
5 - Vivian Richards
6 - Garfield Sobers
7 - Adam Gilchrist (wk)
8 - Imran Khan (c)
9 - Curtly Ambrose
10 - Muttiah Muralitharan
11 - Glenn McGrath

Good team, but I'd have Hadlee instead of Imran.

 

[Boy_Downunder]

Also in 21st century cricket all the players are much more athletic, which fitness and diet considered much more important! This is a major reason why modern batsmen are dominating the total runscores list.
Although I agree the 'Punter' is extremly good and I stated that I may replace Mindand with Pointing.

 

[Sureshot]

I think apart from Bradman, every cricketer from before 1950 would be club cricketer quality in the modern day.

That is bemusing, to say county cricketers is one thing, but club cricketers?

 

[Kev]

How anyone can comment on players that early here is beyond me, nobody has seen them play.

 

[Deleted member 9102]

Edit: Chris Gayle

 

[manee]

I don't think players from the past can be regarded as the same quality as players who have played over recent years, I think this is the same with almost all sports because sportsmen nowadays are fitter, train more, learn more techniques, have mental coaching etc.

Obviously a lot of the training is useless if it is not cricket specific (too much time in the gym is a constant criticism) and players keep getting injured. Fitness levels are not much higher if there are so many more injuries. Do not point to longer schedules either as they are not that much longer than before. There are simply more ODIs than before with slightly less Tests and much less warm up games

 

[Kev]

Also natural talent is not date specific.

 

[manee]

Also natural talent is not date specific.

Indeed it is not. Jimmy Anderson burst from club cricket to the international scene with next to no time for county coaching and still bowled at 85mph with swing. Coaching does not achieve much, it merely adds snippets like variations and accuracy only over the long term. The increases of pace with coaching are often restricted to just 1-5mph and more often than not reduces pace. This is just an example of the smallness (lack of a better word) of the affect of coaching.

 

[aussie_ben91]

On flatter pitches against much worse bowling. You cannot disregard Ponting's record, but you cannot take it at 100% face value.

Yeah against bowlers with not as good records. Let me ask you one thing, if the pitches were so bad to bat on back in the day then how come all of the great bowlers didn't have bowling averages of under 10? Because batsman still averaged 50+ back then so techniquely the bowling quality was much worse back then then it is now, isn't it?

You surely can't say players from 50 years ago are better then today's player because everything in quality evolves over time no matter what it is. Hell, in 50 years time the players playing then will be allot better then the current players. I just think the old guys who played 50+ years ago are to stubborn and proud to admit the REAL truth.

And for the record, I don't think their is much of a difference between quality over a 20 year period but when it's get to over a period of 50+ years then I think you're pushing things.

That's my theory anyway.