How great is your all time great Team ??

[The Sean]

Macca, your mention of Ian Craig and the idea of pressure crushing potential gave me a thought - how did you rate Norm O'Neill? The few blokes I know who saw him play rave about his style and panache, yet there's always a wistful "if only" feeling to their reminiscing - it seems that the ridiculous "new Bradman" pressure and his own nervous temperament held him back from embracing the greatness that his talent warranted.

I know that Bob Simpson, when asked who he would like to watch for an hour of all the batsman he had ever seen in action, chose without hesitation Norman O'Neill. When you consider who he had to choose from, that's some compliment.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Interesting.....
Chappell
Gavaskar
Tendulkar
Lara
Richards
Miandad
Ponting

Barry richards would have ranked as one of the "all time" greats if he had not been denied the opportunity by Apartheid.

A few others that could be added to that list IMPO...May, Dexter, Graveney, Sobers to name just a few

There are other batsman from other eras that could be added but I only added Barry Richards to the original list because he's from the same era from 1970 to date.

 

[The Sean]

The best I have seen play..

Greg Chappell
Javed Miandad
Sunil Gavaskar
Viv Richards
Brian Lara
Sachin Tendulkar
Ricky Ponting

I would also slip Barry Richards in just behind Viv but obviously his lack of Test Cricket counts against him.

Barry richards would have ranked as one of the "all time" greats if he had not been denied the opportunity by Apartheid.

There are other batsman from other eras that could be added but I only added Barry Richards to the original list because he's from the same era from 1970 to date.

Neither AB nor Steve Waugh know what it means to cry, but if they did they'd be crying now.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Neither AB nor Steve Waugh know what it means to cry, but if they did they'd be crying now.

The OP said ignore statsguru.

 

[bagapath]

AB's greatness is beyond argument. that man averaged 56 oversees and 39 against west indies when the whole world have been very happy with 40 and 30 instead. I would bunch him with the same players JBMAC has ranked. My ranking would be slightly different though.

viv richards
brian lara
tendulkar
gavaskar
greg chappell

(2 to 5 could have been in any order, TBH)

border
ponting
dravid
s.waugh
pietersen
miandad
kallis
gilchrist
hayden

 

[JBMAC]

Macca, your mention of Ian Craig and the idea of pressure crushing potential gave me a thought - how did you rate Norm O'Neill? The few blokes I know who saw him play rave about his style and panache, yet there's always a wistful "if only" feeling to their reminiscing - it seems that the ridiculous "new Bradman" pressure and his own nervous temperament held him back from embracing the greatness that his talent warranted.

I know that Bob Simpson, when asked who he would like to watch for an hour of all the batsman he had ever seen in action, chose without hesitation Norman O'Neill. When you consider who he had to choose from, that's some compliment.

O'neill was aplayer "out of his time"..Saw his 180 odd in tied test against WI...from memory that was his highest test score...very useful "leggie" and could have developed in this area as well but with Benaud,arguably the second best leggie of all time, and Kline with his "offies" he stood no chance to develop. Maybe he should have taken that american baseball contract he was reputed to have been offered. The pressure on him was tremendous. The aussie public and media at the time were looking for another Bradman at 3 and the race was on between him and Harvey to fulfill some type of extraordinary batting performances.As an all round crickter O'neill was one of the best..could field devastatingly in ANY position and would rate him in this area above Symonds and Randall and maybe even Colin Blair.Maybe these expectations cut short his promise I don't know

 

[JBMAC]

AB's greatness is beyond argument. that man averaged 56 oversees and 39 against west indies when the whole world have been very happy with 40 and 30 instead. I would bunch him with the same players JBMAC has ranked. My ranking would be slightly different though.

viv richards
brian lara
tendulkar
gavaskar
greg chappell

(2 to 5 could have been in any order, TBH)

border
ponting
dravid
s.waugh
pietersen
miandad
kallis
gilchrist
hayden

Agree with this assessment..was only asked to comment on listed players who I had seen and did make mention of others who could easily have made that list without being specific.Pietersen still too early in his Hot/Cold career to comment..would mention though he is better than average on his day

 

[Lillian Thomson]

AB's greatness is beyond argument. that man averaged 56 oversees and 39 against west indies when the whole world have been very happy with 40 and 30 instead. I would bunch him with the same players JBMAC has ranked. My ranking would be slightly different though.

Again the OP specifically talked about watching players play and not statsguruing them. There's no doubting Border's contribution to Australian cricket and no doubt the statisticians purr with delight when entering his name into a spreadsheet, but he wasn't a great pleasure to watch bat.

 

[honestbharani]

Well, apologies for missing AB and SRW but I always felt both of them, while excellent fighters in any situation, were not perhaps the sort of guys you would take in your all time when it could be bristling with talent of these other guys.


But reading back, I understand where you guys come from coz Miandad and Gavaskar were perhaps similar styled players... But obviously,when picking my all time XI, I look at the ability to dominate an attack as much as anything else, so I would pick these others before AB or SRW or even Dravid for that matter...


Wonderful rankings LT and JBM.. Really interesting to see your opinions.. Personally, I have always rated Lara better than Tendulkar purely as a test batsman, so that one was quite interesting. And also interesting to note that LT had Richards at the top and JB had him below even Lara and Sachin.. He really does split opinion, doesn't he?


FWIW, I have got people in my family who have seen all these gentlemen play (from the 70s that is) and they generaly agree that Richards and Greg Chappell were a league ahead of others of that time, including Gavaskar and Miandad... Given the strength of the bowling attacks of that time, I would be inclined to rate Chappell and Richards above Lara and Sachin myself, but I do hate having to rate players I have never seen play...


But if forced, this would be my order of the players of the eras we are talking about..


Richards
Chappell
Lara
Sachin
Gavaskar/Ponting/Miandad/Border/S Waugh


Really struggling to split the last 5 coz they had such different games (maybe BOrder, Miandad and Waugh were similar but hard to tell) and also played in different eras and different roles for their teams..

 

[bagapath]

IMO, gavaskar was more "elegant" than border and waugh, whatever that means, because i thought his technique was water tight - it had to be, for an opener to be successful in his era. border and waugh had a few well known limitations. waugh was not great against the short, raising delivery. border had issues with inswingers. of course, they didnt always get out to that kind of bowling but, yes, they did look awkward when confronted with such specific weapons. gavaskar, on the other hand, seldom looked out of sorts against pace or spin. he had all the shots in the book, including a terrifc hook shot that was never used between '78 and '86. while it is difficult to split them in case of effectiveness, gavaskar should always be a notch above the other two, aesthetically. but all three were equally terrific fighters who would rather get hit than quit when the team really needed them. any bowler who bowled to them in tests would have loads of respect for all of them.

 

[asty80]

Totally agree with Warne..arguably the best spinner of all time..even against Grimmett and O'Reilly...do not agree with your selection of Gilchrist though....Good stumper/batsman for shorter forms of the game but an untidy keeper for tests...prefer (in no particular order) Tallon, Grout, Evans, Knott,Engineer to name but a few..With the batsmen named in an all time side you do not need a Gilchrist to score runs you need a stumper who can save them .

I would politely disagree here. Gilchrist has redefined the rules of a position in cricket. And that, in my humble opinion, is the mark of a genius.

The converse argument is that with bowlers of the quality you have in the side, why would you need a keeper of outstanding glovework quality? Wouldnt he be there just to pick up the clean edges that come neatly into his gloves apart from the numerous bowled and lbw's that would be there?

If this great batting team would be at 250/5, which keeper would you want to come in next?
Its not a coincidence that Australia's greatest run in test cricket came when Gilchrist finally made it to the side.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I would politely disagree here. Gilchrist has redefined the rules of a position in cricket. And that, in my humble opinion, is the mark of a genius.

If by redefined you mean he's made a load of idiots (namely the England selectors) believe a keeper can be crap behind the stumps as long as he scores runs then I suppose he has. (Not to imply that Gilchrist was crap behind the stumps but his legacy has lead to a string of inadequate keepers being selected).

 

[Ikki]

This seems to change almost every time it's asked, but here it goes:

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Bradman
Richards
Chappell
Sobers
Miller
Gilchrist
Imran
Warne
Lillee

 

[Days of Grace]

Northern Hemisphere:

Hobbs
Hutton
Richards
Tendulkar
Lara
Sobers
Imran Khan
Knott
Wasim Akram
Marshall
Muralitharan

 

[aussie]

Hobbs
Gavaskar
Bradman
Tendulkar
Richards
Sobers
Imran Khan
Knott
Marshall
Warne
Lillee

squad backups: Hadlee, G Chappell, Murali, Gilly, Hutton/B Richards.

Pretty consistent for me over the past 2-3 years. Only recent change in the first XI has been Knott for Gilchrist. Since i am sort of falling into the gropup that feels given the batting strenght of this hypotetical XI - i would like to have the BEST glovesman in cricket history in the team. So Gilly's superior batting (although he was a very good glovesman) isn't that needed.

 

[aussie]

If by redefined you mean he's made a load of idiots (namely the England selectors) believe a keeper can be crap behind the stumps as long as he scores runs then I suppose he has. (Not to imply that Gilchrist was crap behind the stumps but his legacy has lead to a string of inadequate keepers being selected).

Indeed. Plus it can be argued to a degree that Gilchrist wasn't the first true quality keeper capable of such of excellent batting - Les Ames was. Gilchrist performances though had the biggest effect on any team that ever dominated test cricket though.

But i would say one clear positive thing Gilly's impact left was that he has made it a MUST for a keeper to be able to bat competently @ 7. After all the days of teams playing a Godfrey Evans, Deryck Murray or Grout are over since it really would affect a teams balance.

 

[JBMAC]

Indeed. Plus it can be argued to a degree that Gilchrist wasn't the first true quality keeper capable of such of excellent batting - Les Ames was. Gilchrist performances though had the biggest effect on any team that ever dominated test cricket though.

But i would say one clear positive thing Gilly's impact left was that he has made it a MUST for a keeper to be able to bat competently @ 7. After all the days of teams playing a Godfrey Evans, Deryck Murray or Grout are over since it really would affect a teams balance.

Codswallop

 

[honestbharani]

I would politely disagree here. Gilchrist has redefined the rules of a position in cricket. And that, in my humble opinion, is the mark of a genius.

The converse argument is that with bowlers of the quality you have in the side, why would you need a keeper of outstanding glovework quality? Wouldnt he be there just to pick up the clean edges that come neatly into his gloves apart from the numerous bowled and lbw's that would be there?

If this great batting team would be at 250/5, which keeper would you want to come in next?
Its not a coincidence that Australia's greatest run in test cricket came when Gilchrist finally made it to the side.

In a team of good bowlers, you want the best keeper, not the best batsman who can keep. Simply because "good" bowlers simply produce chances, whether they fly right into the gloves or you have to dive and take them is really not part of their skill.. It is governed purely by chance and by the glovework and footwork of the keeper in question. After all, if the keeper can pick the ball the fraction of a second earlier (juz like the best batsmen, best keepers do judge the ball a trifle earlier than the res), they will have enough time to get into a position to take the ball without having to dive. The fact that blokes like Gilchrist and Dhoni have to dive so often and also miss so many regulation takes, esp. standing up, shows that their glovework is not really at the level you want in an all time XI.


And it can be argued with the batting strength of the top 6, you don't really need runs from the #7. And the men who are in contention were not exactly mugs with the bat either.

 

[aussie]

Codswallop

As was shown with Chris Read vs WI 2004. Modern day teams cant tolerate a keeper who can't bat competently @ 7 anymore.

The only way a Evans or Grout type keeper could survive in modern day test cricket is if a side plays 6 pure batsmen & a allrounder @ 7 - thus giving a solid 4-man & keeping to excellent glovesman.

But not many sides right now have quality test all-rounders to work this balance. Plus if you add into the equation, that given the amount of flat pitches teams are looking to play 5bowlers instead of just 4. Thus more importance is there for a keeper to be able to bat well, so it close to impossible for such keepers to play regularly.

 

[Days of Grace]

Why not play two allrounders at no.6 and no.7 + a great wicketkeeper?

The world's greatest team can do this: Sobers+Imran Khan+Evans/Grout, whomever.