Greatest Ever Test XI

[silentstriker]

Botham takes over the Don's spot at #3, eh?

 

[silentstriker]

1. Hobbs
2. Gavaskar
3. Bradman
4. Tendulkar
5. Richards
6. Sobers
7. Gilchrist
8. Khan
9. Warne
10. Marshall
11. McGrath

 

[Ash_A55]

its more the order, and the fact it is very bowling heavy!!!

You can never have too many bowlers, or maybe you can lol. Besides i picked my team for a bowling track

 

[Ash_A55]

Botham takes over the Don's spot at #3, eh?

He does in my team, my best batter should bat the longest.

 

[silentstriker]

Second XI:

1. Hutton
2. Pollock
3. Ponting
4. Lara
5. Chappell
6. Hammond
7. Healy
8. Miller
9. Hadlee
10. Lilliee
11. Murali

I've been here for 13 months and I probably put 15 different XIs. So many good players, so its very hard

 

[Ash_A55]

I coul name plenty of XI's too.

 

[Dasgupta]

1. Hobbs
2. Gavaskar
3. Bradman
4. Tendulkar
5. Richards
6. Sobers
7. Gilchrist
8. Khan
9. Warne
10. Marshall
11. McGrath

That's a pretty good lineup. I would have Hadlee over Marshall though

 

[Richard]

and yet those who actually didnt see too much of him play put Lillees reputation down to the fact that it was all show, bizarrely enough (mentioning no names!!!)

I wonder what those who saw him bowl in Pakistan and West Indies thought...

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

He does in my team, my best batter should bat the longest.

If someone averages 99.94 in the number 3 spot, it's generally a good idea to keep him there.

 

[Prince EWS]

He does in my team, my best batter should bat the longest.

That theory is even flawed in ODIs IMO, although a lot of people will stand by it - but it's so very, very flawed in test cricket. There aren't limited overs in test cricket - there's no reason for your "best" batsman to have to open at all. In test cricket, if you want your best batsman to bat the longest, put him in the position he's most comfortable in - he'll be less likely to get out then...

 

[silentstriker]

Also, its not often that a #3 doesn't have enough time to score runs in tests anyway.

And let's say your best batsman is vunerable early against the moving ball but great against spin, would you still let him open?

 

[archie mac]

I wonder what those who saw him bowl in Pakistan and West Indies thought...

Yes I wonder, in the WI after his stress fratures, or his one 3 match series in Pakistan where no fast bowlers including Imran were able to claim many wickets

 

[Prince EWS]

Also, its not often that a #3 doesn't have enough time to score runs in tests anyway.

And let's say your best batsman is vunerable early against the moving ball but great against spin, would you still let him open?

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say, basically.

Batting for the longest time doesn't always mean opening - Sachin Tendulkar for example would bat for a longer period if he batted 4 than if he opened - purely by the fact that he'd get out early more if he opened. Now I haven't seen Bradman bat other than a few clips, but I doubt the poster of that side would have either, so to suddenly move the guy makes absolutely no sense, at all.

There's also the fact that the theory doesn't sit well with me in the first place. For example, Afridi is a horrible batsman, but it'd be better for the team if he faced 200 balls than if Inzamam did, even though Inzamam is quite obviously a better batsman, because Afridi scores more quickly. Having your best batsman bat the longest in one day cricket seems to be a popular theory (even ignoring this ridiculous suggestion of doing it in test cricket) but if your best batsman is Kallis and your worst batsman is Afridi, it actually makes little sense.

 

[archie mac]

My all-time XI is the same as the one Richie Benaud did a while ago, instead I have Malcolm Marshall in instead of SF Barnes.

[
10. Malcolm Marshall
I picked him over SF Barnes because I don't think SF Barnes' stats are as great as people think, in fact SF Barnes wasn't even close to being my pick. His strike-rate is about the same as Shane Bond's, which says a lot about Shane Bond... but on the other hand, someone like Marshall is just so proven and established on so many pitches. I thought about picking Hadlee, but I thought Marshall would compliment Lillee better... maybe that's silly since Hadlee would apply a lot of pressure. Marshall > Hadlee in bowling... but as a cricket as a whole, it's a lot closer. There's enough batting in this team that I don't need another all-rounder.

SF Barnes is the greatest bowler in the history of the game, another case of he played too long ago

 

[roseboy64]

1. Don Bradman
2. Graham Pollock
3. Ian Botham
4. Brian Lara
5. Viv Richards
6. Adam Gilchrist
7. Shane Warne
8. Dennis Lilee
9. Joel Garner
10. Muttiah Murali
11. Glen McGrath

Someone didn't read the first post...

 

[Matt79]

Posted this before but:
1. Jack Hobbs
2. Sunil Gavaskar
3. Don Bradman
4. Wally Hammond
5. Viv Richards
6. Garry Sobers
7. Adam Gilchrist
8. Shane Warne
9. Malcolm Marshall
10. Dennis Lillee
11. Curtly Ambrose

Obviously its incredibly hard to leave some players out. Here's my second XI, which would be entirely capable of upsetting the No#1 team.
1. Len Hutton
2. Vic Trumper
3. George Headley
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. Everton Weekes
6. Andy Flower
7. Imran Khan
8. Richard Hadlee
9. Ray Lindwall
10. Wasim Akram
11. Muttiah Muralitharan

 

[roseboy64]

No Lara?

 

[Matt79]

Lara would be the one of the first named for the third eleven. He's very very close.

 

[roseboy64]

Can't see why TBH. It's about Test cricket not FC cricket AFAIK.

 

[Matt79]

I'm happy to stack the Test achievements of those I've named against Lara's all day if you'd like.