Ranking the Cricinfo All-Time XIs

[Himannv]

One has to also remember Garner is 6 7 and thus was never goin to get thru as many overs as his other team mates.

Not sure I get the logic of that statement. Bigger they are, the less overs they bowl?

 

[GotSpin]

Im a child of the 80s and didnt see much cricket on TV live but did listen to a lot of cricket via the radio like most west indians of the time. Garner if i recall burst onto the scene in the late 70s after Roberts and Holding were already established. He would often come on 1st or second change, when most of the shine had already been taken off the ball or to bowl at the tail. Due to competition for wkts and the fact that he was mostly use as a shock bowler he would come on and take the odd 2 or 3 wickets here while at the same time keeping run scoring to an absolute minimum. One has to also remember Garner is 6 7 and thus was never goin to get thru as many overs as his other team mates. .

I'd warrant the benefits with his heights outweighed any reason for him not being able to bowl lots of overs..which I'm not sure is related to height anyway

 

[smash84]

. One has to also remember Garner is 6 7 and thus was never goin to get thru as many overs as his other team mates. .

@ Slifer........I personally think you have some of the best posts to be found on cricketweb but I don't really quite understand this this statement of yours.

But I must say that after reading your posts I have come to realize how under rated the big bird really is in test matches.

 

[Slifer]

@ Slifer........I personally think you have some of the best posts to be found on cricketweb but I don't really quite understand this this statement of yours.

But I must say that after reading your posts I have come to realize how under rated the big bird really is in test matches.

Disregard that last part about his height was half asleep when I wrote it.

 

[bagapath]

Disregard that last part about his height was half asleep when I wrote it.

you are an awesome guy, slifer... way to go mate...

 

[kyear2]

The limited concensus here too seemed to be leading towards Aus, W.I., S.A, Pak. Eng., Ind, N.Z and S.L.

 

[kyear2]

For those of you who down grade the West Indies because of Lance Gibbs inclusion. True he was never the most penetrative, but of all bowlers with more than 200 test wickets, he is the only one with a rpo below two, so imagine him mid way through the innings stopping one one end and rotating Marshall, Holding and Ambrose from the other. Additionally he was ranked No. 1 more times over his career than greats such as Akram and yes even Garner and had a higher peak ranking and surpassed an 850 rating considerably more times than Akram and yes even Dennis Lillee. Not saying he is greater than those two, but that he is greatly a greatly under rated bowler who bore the brunt of an attack and bolwed tirelessly for houres. Remember he was also the first spinner with more than 300 test wickets and played in a time of rediculously flat pitches, but supported by these bowlers and with Sobers fielding around the corner, he would be a handfull. So best middle order, best pace attack and most economical spin bolwer and acompanied by great pure keeper and an Under rated and equally great Gordon Greenidge, not a bad team. So I maintain it would come down to Australia and W.I, with S.A, England and Pakistan right behind.

 

[marc71178]

Additionally he was ranked No. 1 more times over his career than greats such as Akram

IIRC Harmison was ranked number 1 more times than Akram.

 

[kyear2]

That is true as well. As i said wasnt trying to say he is better than akram or lillee, just trying to get across that he wasnt as bad as some think and not a glaring weak link.

 

[GotSpin]

I'd warrant the benefits with his heights outweighed any reason for him not being able to bowl lots of overs..which I'm not sure is related to height anyway

Don't remember making this post. Think I did it after coming home from a night on the flavoured waters

 

[kyear2]

So guys the top 3 teams are definately Australia, West Indies and South Africa. From a round robin tournament it would come down between England and Pakistan for the last place in the final four. Of those two teams which would make it and then of these four which team would make it to the finals and which team would reign supreme.

 

[Howe_zat]

Reckon England's is as good as South Africa's and rather better than Pakistan's. So they'd complete your four.

West Indies and Australia ahead of the other two. West Indies because of their depth, their second XI would be competitive here, Aussies largely because of Bradman.

 

[JBMAC]

For those of you who down grade the West Indies because of Lance Gibbs inclusion. True he was never the most penetrative, but of all bowlers with more than 200 test wickets, he is the only one with a rpo below two, so imagine him mid way through the innings stopping one one end and rotating Marshall, Holding and Ambrose from the other. Additionally he was ranked No. 1 more times over his career than greats such as Akram and yes even Garner and had a higher peak ranking and surpassed an 850 rating considerably more times than Akram and yes even Dennis Lillee. Not saying he is greater than those two, but that he is greatly a greatly under rated bowler who bore the brunt of an attack and bolwed tirelessly for houres. Remember he was also the first spinner with more than 300 test wickets and played in a time of rediculously flat pitches, but supported by these bowlers and with Sobers fielding around the corner, he would be a handfull. So best middle order, best pace attack and most economical spin bolwer and acompanied by great pure keeper and an Under rated and equally great Gordon Greenidge, not a bad team. So I maintain it would come down to Australia and W.I, with S.A, England and Pakistan right behind.

Nice to see someone finally give Gibbs the credit he deserves.

 

[sumantra]

In terms of strength...

1. West Indies
2. Australia
3. South Africa
4. Pakistan
5. England
6. India
7. New Zealand
8. Sri Lanka

while Sri Lanka has most number of players from the modern era, england has the least, only 1

 

[Ikki]

I think Australia being #1 is a fairly easy shout. Can't think of a strong argument otherwise.

 

[kyear2]

This is not one of those discussions. Looking at all 8 teams and which ones would make it to the top four then the finals. Lets take take it in steps shall we.
Oh, and btw everyone is entitled to an opinion.

 

[Ikki]

They can, but elaborating on their opinion would be good.

Australia has Bradman and this time - as opposed to the recent great Australian XI - the bowling attack is probably even better than the WIndies.

 

[BlazeDragon]

In terms of strength...

1. West Indies
2. Australia
3. South Africa
4. Pakistan
5. England
6. India
7. New Zealand
8. Sri Lanka

Considering the fact how debatable 90's and 00's Australia vs 70's and 80's West Indies is it should easily be Australia when if we are talking all time since there will be players like Bradman, Miller, Lillee etc.

England should be easily above Pakistan if we are talking all time. India too probably.

It would be something like this I imagine:

1) Australia

2) West Indies
3) South Africa
4) England

5) India
6) Pakistan

7) New Zealand
8) Sri Lanka

9) Zimbabwe
10) Bangladesh

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Considering the fact how debatable 90's and 00's Australia vs 70's and 80's West Indies is it should easily be Australia when if we are talking all time since there will be players like Bradman, Miller, Lillee etc.

England should be easily above Pakistan if we are talking all time. India too probably.

It would be something like this I imagine:

1) Australia

2) West Indies
3) South Africa
4) England

5) India
6) Pakistan

7) New Zealand
8) Sri Lanka

9) Zimbabwe
10) Bangladesh

Why am I not surprised.

Do everyone a favour and put Pakistan at no 10.

 

[kyear2]

similar I guess

West Indies
Australia

South Africa
England
Pakistan

India

New Zealand
Sri Lanka