richie benaud's greatest 11

[Migara]

Murali's fielding is grossly underrated. Murali was a great out fielder, and had taken blinders during his youth. He's as good as or even perhaps better than Warne in the field. Unlike Warne, murali fielded well from point to mid off, mid on to fine leg every where except slips, because SL had better slippers than him.

 

[Ikki]

Murali was very good for a period, sure. Warne is one of the best slip fielders of all time. Warne's just better as a whole cricketer.

 

[Migara]

Perhaps as a "test" cricketer. As a"whole" cricketer Murali was better. in ODI game, their are not even comparable. Murali way ahead in the ODI game.

 

[Debris]

I have always thought that the Murali vs Warne comparison was condition dependent. Murali in helpful conditions and Warne in unhelpful conditions if you are purely thinking about winning.

Leg-spinners for me are always going to be more interesting to watch.

 

[Sir Alex]

There is a Warne Murali thread mates

 

[weldone]

in case everybody didn't see on the net or on the TV here's the list

1. Jack Hobbs
2. Sunil Gavaskar
3. Sir Donald Bradman
4. Sir Vivian Richards
5. Sachin Tendulkar
6. Sir Garfield Sobers
7. Imran Khan
8. Adam Gilchrist
9. Shane Warne
10. Dennis Lillee
11. Syd Barnes

12th man: keith miller

What I find interesting is that Benaud has said repeatedly that he feels Sachin is the best batsman to come after Don. Still, he picks Viv at no. 4 and Sachin at no. 5. It'll be interesting to know the reason behind this.

 

[someblokedave]

Dear C_C

A wait with baited breath.

Grimmett Wrist Spin Bowling: Clarrie Grimmett Books wrote two other books 'Getting Wickets' 1930 and Grimmett on Cricket 1948. Your Grimmett book Tricking the Batsman is the English version published a couple of years after the original Aussie version published by another publishing group.

You're wrong with regards the Flipper. The Flipper as far as all my research has found was invented by Grimmett and written about extensively and in great detail in Grimmetts first book Getting Wickets (Taking wickets - being the Aussie title). Grimmett as far as I can recall started working with the Flipper as early as 1928 and worked initially with a top-spinning flipper which Bradman referred to as Grimmetts 'Mystery ball'. Grimmett was also (as far as I can work out) the first person to describe the rotation of the wrist in terms of it 'Going round the loop' to achieve the wrist spin variations..... Leg Break, Top-Spinner, Wrong Un and Slider. Peter Philpott is somewhat credited with being the definitive expert in written form of wrist spinning when in fact his book is basically a re-write of Grimmetts 'Getting Wickets' but Philpott because he couldn't bowl or chose not to bowl the Flipper skips over the Flipper almost suggesting that Grimmetts Flippers may have been like Warnes Flippers just a part of his psychological approach to his game.

Mallett too, along with Jenner throw scorn and derision on the idea that anyone can bowl a Top-Spinning flipper YouTube - Flipper Variation No 5 Clarrie Grimmetts 'Msytery Ball' but it is possible and it's a ball I use frequently.

But without doubt unless you can find records that state otherwise and I'd love to see them the Flipper is first described in four forms using the very same 'Round the Loop' theory as expoused by Phipott back in 1930 in 'Getting Wickets'.

If you doubt Grimmetts credentials & genius, have a look at Woolmers 'Art and Science of Cricket' check out the final pages of the Wrist Spinning section and the respect and acknowledgement that Woolmer pays Grimmett.

 

[zaremba]

What I find interesting is that Benaud has said repeatedly that he feels Sachin is the best batsman to come after Don. Still, he picks Viv at no. 4 and Sachin at no. 5. It'll be interesting to know the reason behind this.

My guess is because he thinks that Viv should bat at 3, but can't do so because that place belongs to Don Bradman. So he gets shunted a place down to 4. Sachin, meanwhile, is a middle order bat so is happy at 5. That's how I look at it anyway.

 

[Furball]

What I find interesting is that Benaud has said repeatedly that he feels Sachin is the best batsman to come after Don. Still, he picks Viv at no. 4 and Sachin at no. 5. It'll be interesting to know the reason behind this.

It's where I'd put them as well, I'd want my most attacking batsman to come in at 4.

Having toiled so hard to dismiss Bradman, I can't think of a more demoralising sight than seeing Sir Viv swagger out to the middle.

 

[weldone]

I'd want my most attacking batsman to come in at 4.

Your most attacking batsman is coming in at no. 7 by the way (no. 8, in Benaud's case), isn't he?

 

[weldone]

It's where I'd put them as well

That might be because you rate Viv higher than Sachin as batman, probably. But Benaud clearly rates Sachin higher than Viv, hence the question. I think Zaremba's explanation is a one possibility.

 

[Furball]

That might be because you rate Viv higher than Sachin as batman. But Benaud clearly rates Sachin higher than Viv, hence the question. I think Zaremba's explanation is a plausible one.

Did you not read my explanation?

 

[weldone]

Did you not read my explanation?

Yes, and replied to it earlier in the last page too, I think.

 

[G.I.Joe]

It's where I'd put them as well, I'd want my most attacking batsman to come in at 4.

Having toiled so hard to dismiss Bradman, I can't think of a more demoralising sight than seeing Sir Viv swagger out to the middle.

That's not likely to happen, though. Bradman averages twice what the other batsmen do. It's more likely that Viv would have to walk in while Bradman was still batting, and either or Tendulkar or Sobers would be the ones walking in after Bradman was dismissed.

 

[weldone]

Marshall seems a slightly more glaring omission IMO..

Marshall was an amazing bowler, and would be in my all-time XI (and Hadlee, too).

But I can see Benaud's logic here.

He takes a champion spinner, which is understandable (for one moment, not going into the debate about which champion spinner he takes and why). Sobers complements that champion spinner as a part-timer with completely different variety.

Benaud takes Imran who is among the best of bowlers, and adds immense value in terms of battting depth.

He takes Barnes either because he thinks he's the best of bowlers, or because he thinks he adds exceptional variety to the attack. Both of these reasons are understandable.

Then he takes Lillee as a fast bowler. Now, I or you might rate Marshall a better bowler than Lillee, but there are many who played with or against at least one of them rate Lillee as the better bowler. Lillee was extremely successful in the World Series cricket, which is considered by many the highest level of cricket ever played. Lillee's test bowling stats are exceptional, but a shade below Marshall's. But there's a high chance that he was an even better bowler than what those stats suggest. Sobers rates Lillee as the best fast bowler ever, Hadlee considered Lillee his idol. And there are many many other champion players who rate Lillee as the best fast bowler ever.

 

[Slifer]

I would rate MM above Lillee as well. but at no point did Benaud say Lillee was better or the best, just the side he would like to see play together and what else would one expect from an aussie (tongue in cheek)

 

[someblokedave]

Dear C_C

A wait with baited breath.

Have a look at page 58 -59 in the book Getting Wickets (Clarrie Grimmett) Hodder and Stougton 1930, not 1934 as you say. The description across these two pages follows a series of descriptions decribing the basic wrist spin deliveries. Then Grimmett goes on to say that he demonstrates the variety of spin (off/top/leg and backspin) using a simple method over a distance of 8-10 yards by turning the wrist (round the loop) and flicking the ball to impart spin on it "The method of spinning is similar to that used in clicking the finger and thumb to attract attention". The explanations and descriptions thereafter are of the four different Flippers that over the ensuing years he developed.

 

[smash84]

Marshall was an amazing bowler, and would be in my all-time XI (and Hadlee, too).

But I can see Benaud's logic here.

He takes a champion spinner, which is understandable (for one moment, not going into the debate about which champion spinner he takes and why). Sobers complements that champion spinner as a part-timer with completely different variety.

Benaud takes Imran who is among the best of bowlers, and adds immense value in terms of battting depth.

He takes Barnes either because he thinks he's the best of bowlers, or because he thinks he adds exceptional variety to the attack. Both of these reasons are understandable.

Then he takes Lillee as a fast bowler. Now, I or you might rate Marshall a better bowler than Lillee, but there are many who played with or against at least one of them rate Lillee as the better bowler. Lillee was extremely successful in the World Series cricket, which is considered by many the highest level of cricket ever played. Lillee's test bowling stats are exceptional, but a shade below Marshall's. But there's a high chance that he was an even better bowler than what those stats suggest. Sobers rates Lillee as the best fast bowler ever, Hadlee considered Lillee his idol. And there are many many other champion players who rate Lillee as the best fast bowler ever.

The Benaud XI more balanced than the ESPN World XI IMO. Richie has given his team more batting depth while having more depth in the bowling by adding a bowling all-rounder (Imran),

 

[kingkallis]

Load of bull .... Shane Warne is there but no Murali....and the excuse he gives is....<no comment> crap basically

As usual, Sri Lankans or us Asians wont like the XI just cause Murali is not included.

Keep 1 thing in mind, its HIS eleven and he is free to pick whoever he wishes.

In fact half of the CWers would have picked Warne over Muralitharan.

 

[ankitj]

The Benaud XI more balanced than the ESPN World XI IMO. Richie has given his team more batting depth while having more depth in the bowling by adding a bowling all-rounder (Imran),

I will actually go a step further, and replace one batsman with a very good bowler who can bat a bit - Richard Hadlee. With Bradman, almost as good as 2 batsman, and Gilchrist, I will definitely push for 5 bowlers, specially when two of them can bat.

As for Warne's selection, even though I will take Murali, it's not really outrageous. Lillee over Marshall is a bigger oversight.

Ya ya, I know he chose an XI that he wanted to see but if we all just accepted that, what will be the fun