Salamuddin's All Time Test Match X1

[Richard]

You're a sharp tack, you are.

Yes, he was completely out-of-sorts in the first 2 Tests, and he looked far, far better at Bridgetown (certainly the signs were there for what happened in the next game), but I wasn't purely referring to that series, also the following one (and obviously we can safely ignore the Bangladesh games in between). He gave glimpses of his masterful best, but the thing that sticks-out for me above all else is that twice in that series he failed to pick-up deliveries from Flintoff, and both times (indirectly in the first, directly in the second) it cost him his wicket. He got 1 bad decision, IIRR, but he'd already been dropped before it so that counts for little IMO.

It was, essentially, 6 bad Tests in a row (even if he wasn't completely awful in all of them), something which he never had in the 1992-1996 period, so for mine that former was slightly better than the latter 2001-2005 period.

 

[Richard]

Not one bowler from the first 70 years of Test cricket?

Well IMO the only ones that are unquestionably up there (aside from the spinners Rhodes, Blythe, Verity, Lock and Laker, in the uncovered-pitch era which no longer exists) are Statham, Trueman, Lindwall and Miller. Adcock and Heine would be if SA had played more Tests in the period but there's not really anyone else, and IMO once you go back pre-1930s it's like trying to pick from chalk and cheese, you just can't compare 1900s, 1910s and 1920s bowlers in ANY way shape or form IMO.

I'd think very seriously about having Lindwall in an all-time XI but given that Imran for his all-round skills picks himself and Marshall is somewhat impossible to leave-out (and most people would pick Warne\Murali for a spin option) that leaves just 1 spot really.

And comparing McGrath and Lindwall isn't exactly the easiest thing in The World. Both undoubtedly better than Lillee, though - even Trueman himself said such a thing!

 

[PhoenixFire]

I knew you would see it my way regarding McGrath.

Had nothing to do with you

 

[archie mac]

Well IMO the only ones that are unquestionably up there (aside from the spinners Rhodes, Blythe, Verity, Lock and Laker, in the uncovered-pitch era which no longer exists) are Statham, Trueman, Lindwall and Miller. Adcock and Heine would be if SA had played more Tests in the period but there's not really anyone else, and IMO once you go back pre-1930s it's like trying to pick from chalk and cheese, you just can't compare 1900s, 1910s and 1920s bowlers in ANY way shape or form IMO.

I'd think very seriously about having Lindwall in an all-time XI but given that Imran for his all-round skills picks himself and Marshall is somewhat impossible to leave-out (and most people would pick Warne\Murali for a spin option) that leaves just 1 spot really.

And comparing McGrath and Lindwall isn't exactly the easiest thing in The World. Both undoubtedly better than Lillee, though - even Trueman himself said such a thing!

Where to start

So batsman from the 1920s can be considered but not bowlers? Surely you have to compare players with their contemporaries.

Most judges rate Lillee still above McGrath and ahead of Lindwall, which is right imo

I would choose O'Reilly over Warne and Murali any day of the week, and SF Barnes is considered by many to be the greatest bowler of all time.

You could say you were playing your dream match on uncovered pitches, would that rule out all of the modern bowlers?

 

[Richard]

Where to start

So batsman from the 1920s can be considered but not bowlers? Surely you have to compare players with their contemporaries.

Most judges rate Lillee still above McGrath and ahead of Lindwall, which is right imo

I would choose O'Reilly over Warne and Murali any day of the week, and SF Barnes is considered by many to be the greatest bowler of all time.

You could say you were playing your dream match on uncovered pitches, would that rule out all of the modern bowlers?

Yep, you can't blur the two - where spinners are concerned at the very least. And it's important to realise that it's not just covering - there are 4 distinct eras as far as pitches are concerned IMO. the 19th-century wasn't really comparable at all, and IMO should probably be treated separately from everything else, and then you have 1900-1930, 1930-1970 and 1970-present day. You can, just, IMO compare seamers and batsmen from the last 2 eras (certainly not fingerspinners, though) but before then it's just crazy to even attempt it IMO - with batsmen or any type of bowler. Many pitches of the 1920s and the previous 2 decades would see matches abandoned without a 2nd thought today.

SF Barnes is a bit of a special case - it's a real shame he played as early as he did, because no, I don't think you can compare him to anyone beyond 1929. But I certainly don't find it inconceivable that he was the greatest bowler of all-time, he appeared capable of doing things no-one has ever done since.

As for O'Reilly-vs-Warne\Murali, I don't know. I don't know a hell of a lot about O'Reilly.

But I've said so many times why Lillee is IMO overrated compared to McGrath and Lindwall. His attitude made him seem "the complete fast bowler" when I'd say his record suggests otherwise. Lindwall and McGrath's don't, even though they didn't have the same machismo aura about them.

 

[honestbharani]

You're a sharp tack, you are.

Yes, he was completely out-of-sorts in the first 2 Tests, and he looked far, far better at Bridgetown (certainly the signs were there for what happened in the next game), but I wasn't purely referring to that series, also the following one (and obviously we can safely ignore the Bangladesh games in between). He gave glimpses of his masterful best, but the thing that sticks-out for me above all else is that twice in that series he failed to pick-up deliveries from Flintoff, and both times (indirectly in the first, directly in the second) it cost him his wicket. He got 1 bad decision, IIRR, but he'd already been dropped before it so that counts for little IMO.

It was, essentially, 6 bad Tests in a row (even if he wasn't completely awful in all of them), something which he never had in the 1992-1996 period, so for mine that former was slightly better than the latter 2001-2005 period.

yeah, you are right. 6 bad tests out of 8 is a bit of a rarity with him, but like I said, I have seen people with similar runs (batsmen, actually)...


And he has looked waaaaaaay more woeful than that. Around the 2000 tour to Australia, I think. I don't count his 2002 struggles against INdia at home because he was playing through his chipped and fractured wrist bone and couldn't play the cut, the pull and the power sweep and his down the track power shot. You take away that many shots from any player and they will struggle, IMHO. It is a testimony to the batting talent (or the lack of it) in the Windies that he still played and didn't have as poor a series as most people think (he scored nearly 3 fifties, I think).

 

[a massive zebra]

Gordon Greenidge
Sachin Tendulkar
Viv Richards
Brian Lara
Dean Jones
Michael Bevan
Adam Gilchrist+
Richard Hadlee
Curtley Ambrose
Joel Garner
Muttiah Muralitharan

 

[Salamuddin]

Gordon Greenidge
Sachin Tendulkar
Viv Richards
Brian Lara
Dean Jones
Michael Bevan
Adam Gilchrist+
Richard Hadlee
Curtley Ambrose
Joel Garner
Muttiah Muralitharan

This is your test X1 ? Think you have the threads mixed up.....

 

[a massive zebra]

Most judges rate Lillee still above McGrath and ahead of Lindwall, which is right imo

I would choose O'Reilly over Warne and Murali any day of the week, and SF Barnes is considered by many to be the greatest bowler of all time.

You could say you were playing your dream match on uncovered pitches, would that rule out all of the modern bowlers?

Hello Archie, long time no speak, how are you doing mate.

Richard has done a good job explaining that Lillee had that Warneesque X-Factor which led to them both becoming possibly the most overrated bowlers in cricket. Any claim that Lillee was 'the complete fast bowler' is easily disproven by the fact that he often found left-handers a far more challenging propostition, was not among the elite at running through the tail due to the lack of a good yorker, and his record in the subcontinent does not compare with Marshall and McGrath who performed everywhere and anywhere.

I would agree that O'Reilly was undeniably the pre-eminent bowler of the inter-war period and also has a justifiable claim to the title of greatest Australian spinner, but would be interested to know your reasoning for ranking him above Murali.

 

[a massive zebra]

This is your test X1 ? Think you have the threads mixed up.....

Ooops, yes, maybe I need to read more slowly next time or or go back to primary school and learn comprehension before I make a fool of myself.

My Test XI would be:

J Hobbs
S Gavaskar
D Bradman*
G Pollock
W Hammond
G Sobers
A Gilchrist+
Imran Khan
M Marshall
M Muralitharan
S Barnes

 

[Richard]

amz is back!

 

[a massive zebra]

Hello Richard, thanks for the welcome. I've just been really busy with work and all manner of things recently, so not had any time to come to cricketweb, but its good to be back.

What have I missed since I last came on here?

 

[Richard]

............

Oh, yeah, and ..........

Which I personally rate even higher than

h

 

[PhoenixFire]

Hello Richard, thanks for the welcome. I've just been really busy with work and all manner of things recently, so not had any time to come to cricketweb, but its good to be back.

What have I missed since I last came on here?

I saw your bro yesterday

 

[a massive zebra]

............

Love it.

Oh, yeah, and ..........

Which I personally rate even higher than

Wow....that truly is a huge effort. Not just the typing, but the planning and the thought involved most have taken an eternity. I can't believe you wrote that off the top of your head. What motivated you to do it?

Thanks for the kind words, and it probably is only fair if I return the compliment. Although we not agree on everything, you are a very original thinker and during your breaks from posting the messageboard is much poorer for your absense.

 

[a massive zebra]

I saw your bro yesterday

Good for you, don't you think he really needs a haircut, surprised it doesn't obscure his vision when batting.

 

[Richard]

Wow....that truly is a huge effort. Not just the typing, but the planning and the thought involved most have taken an eternity. I can't believe you wrote that off the top of your head. What motivated you to do it?

Thanks for the kind words, and it probably is only fair if I return the compliment. Although we not agree on everything, you are a very original thinker and during your breaks from posting the messageboard is much poorer for your absense.

Post in the thread concerned, then.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Good for you, don't you think he really needs a haircut, surprised it doesn't obscure his vision when batting.

Hmm yes, nice Brazil shirt though. Never seen him bat before however.

 

[Krishna_j]

i would suggest go for a period 70's or 80's or last 25 yrs - an all time label really smarts of gross ignorance

 

[Richard]

tec?