ICC Greatest Test Team

[vcs]

If Sehwag can keep up his recent form for 3-4 more years and get past 10000 runs, with say 35 centuries, he will be a strong contender for sure. It won't matter if he averages less than 35 in a couple of countries.

 

[smash84]

Sehwag is a 'solid opener', all right, whatever that term is supposed to mean. Its strange how CW seems to have moved on to a phase where a high SR is seen as an undesirable quality. Sehwag gives you as many runs as Gavaskar does. Only he does it in 50 fewer balls. Thats not a biggie. Gavaskar/Bradman/Tendulkar/Lara/Sobers etc each get an extra 10 balls to themselves and everyone's happy.

Who is counting a higher SR against him. Only that it is not such a big advantage over other openers that some people make it out to be (in test matches)

If Sehwag can keep up his recent form for 3-4 more years and get past 10000 runs, with say 35 centuries, he will be a strong contender for sure. It won't matter if he averages less than 35 in a couple of countries.

awta

 

[Ikki]

I think it was in 99.

Yes maybe 2000. Even then considering the fact that 98-00 wasn't such a great period for Warne with all the shoulder injury stuff IIRC, Warne really should not have been in that there back then.

Warne had a huge comeback, although it was in ODIs around that time. His 99 WC was legendary. As it was, the spinner Warne was for the preceding years in his career was very rare. Warne was a great bowler, but, more importantly in some ways, an incredible spinner. He was the prime reason, more than McGrath, for Australia getting back to #1. You have to go back decades, arguably till O'Reilly and Grimmett to see someone that good. By 2000, he had played 80 tests already. Murali was also around but didn't kick off until the late 90s and more in the 00s.

I think Warne's rarity, packaged with his showmanship and ability to perform when it mattered is what ushered him so quickly in front of the line. Personally, I think he was in many ways better post 2000/this list.

 

[hang on]

Warne had a huge comeback, although it was in ODIs around that time. His 99 WC was legendary. As it was, the spinner Warne was for the preceding years in his career was very rare. Warne was a great bowler, but, more importantly in some ways, an incredible spinner. He was the prime reason, more than McGrath, for Australia getting back to #1. You have to go back decades, arguably till O'Reilly and Grimmett to see someone that good. By 2000, he had played 80 tests already. Murali was also around but didn't kick off until the late 90s and more in the 00s.

I think Warne's rarity, packaged with his showmanship and ability to perform when it mattered is what ushered him so quickly in front of the line. Personally, I think he was in many ways better post 2000/this list.

yeah. no issues at all about him being in such a list. just that he was chosen too early, which is a reflection of the demographics of the choosers. regarding murali: actually, in 2001 (i think...hope i'm not getting this date wrong too...could be 2002), when wisden came up with their lists of the best test and odi batsmen, murali was on top in tests. essentially, murali was a rara avis as well....an whirlygig offspinner who could spin the ball both ways.

 

[Ikki]

Murali until 98 IIRC was averaging in the 30s. He'd only played half as many Tests as Warne when the vote was made. It's after that he becomes incredibly explosive.

Here's a nice excerpt from that piece re Warne's selection:

Perhaps the biggest surprise is the identity of the player in fourth place. There were people among our hundred frightened to make a judgement on players they had not seen, which might have given present-day players an advantage. With perfect knowledge, maybe there would have been more votes for some of the early players, for Barnes, say, or Victor Trumper. But there are always former players who scorn the moderns, and perhaps an equal number of ballot papers reflected this factor. In any case, the votes for Shane Warne came from across the globe and across the generations. If anyone doubts his status, listen to Crawford White, 88 last year and the former cricket correspondent of the Daily Express, who watched both Warne and Bill O'Reilly. "O'Reilly didn't rip the ball through like Warne does," said White. "And I don't think he caught the imagination quite as much as this lad."

 

[smash84]

Warne had a huge comeback, although it was in ODIs around that time. His 99 WC was legendary. As it was, the spinner Warne was for the preceding years in his career was very rare. Warne was a great bowler, but, more importantly in some ways, an incredible spinner. He was the prime reason, more than McGrath, for Australia getting back to #1. You have to go back decades, arguably till O'Reilly and Grimmett to see someone that good. By 2000, he had played 80 tests already. Murali was also around but didn't kick off until the late 90s and more in the 00s.

I think Warne's rarity, packaged with his showmanship and ability to perform when it mattered is what ushered him so quickly in front of the line. Personally, I think he was in many ways better post 2000/this list.

I do think that Warne after 2001 was an absolutely fantastic bowler even though he had lost the ability to bowl the flipper but he just had so much more guile to his bowling.

yep and the stats back up my hunch

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

He was striking at 48 at an average of 23.5 and had 6 wpm which is tremendous.

Warne in the period 98-00 wasn't that great and I did feel that putting him in for his 92-98 performances was just not a quite justified

 

[bagapath]

Have those nasty Indians pre-empted the selection of a proper All-Time XI on the ICC website with their uninformed, biased voting? Truly, the apocalypse is upon us. I fear for the future of mankind.

or may be the poor innocent unbiased indians have nothing to do with it. cricket fans from karachi, wellington, port of spain, cape town, sydney and leeds must have agreed to choose kapil dev as the only allrounder in an all time xi.

 

[GotSpin]

How the **** did courtney walsh not make it.

Damn biased indians!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[weldone]

Have those nasty Indians pre-empted the selection of a proper All-Time XI on the ICC website with their uninformed, biased voting? Truly, the apocalypse is upon us. I fear for the future of mankind.

While I absolutely can't digest the inclusion of Kapil and Sehwag in such a team, I absolutely concur with your emotion here.

Some people here make it feel as if when ex-cricketers choose an All-time XI they are absolutely unbiased.

With due respect, I believe Sir Donald Bradman's all-time XI was much much more biased than this one.

 

[Howe_zat]

The thing that really strikes me here is the number of modern players. I mean, the entirety of cricketing history to choose from, and the only pre-1990 players are two Indian auto-selects and Don Bradman? It's not so much the Indian bias as the youth bias that stands out.

 

[vcs]

or may be the poor innocent unbiased indians have nothing to do with it. cricket fans from karachi, wellington, port of spain, cape town, sydney and leeds must have agreed to choose kapil dev as the only allrounder in an all time xi.

While I absolutely can't digest the inclusion of Kapil and Sehwag in such a team, I absolutely concur with your emotion here.

Some people here make it feel as if when ex-cricketers choose an All-time XI they are absolutely unbiased.

With due respect, I believe Sir Donald Bradman's all-time XI was much much more biased than this one.

It's not really about the bias, we are all biased, so naturally the country with the greater population will influence it more (doesn't matter which country that is). It was more sarcasm over the fact that people are surprised and outraged and calling it a "sad day for cricket" etc., as if a dream team voted on a website is some divine gospel. It is what it is, a popularity contest.

 

[Cevno]

How the **** did courtney walsh not make it.

Damn biased indians!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Awta.

All of them should post in the Hot Women thread more,instead

 

[bagapath]

With due respect, I believe Sir Donald Bradman's all-time XI was much much more biased than this one.

i agree. but that was an individual's team and you expect it to reflect his preferences.

but a team like this one put together with the ICC's approval is supposed to be represent the opinion of cricket lovers from around the globe. one group hijacking it with sheer numbers is sad. inevitable, but sad. it speaks more of modern indian fans' lack of cricketing knowledge than anything else.

i am actually pleasantly surprised that gilly managed to sneak into the final XI somehow. i can bet my house dhoni got more than 80% of the votes gilly got.

 

[bagapath]

It was more sarcasm over the fact that people are surprised and outraged and calling it a "sad day for cricket" etc., as if a dream team voted on a website is some divine gospel. It is what it is, a popularity contest.

you are right. it is just a popularity contest and deserves no more attention. but i had to let out some steam since idiots are beginning to have a say in everything because of internet.

 

[weldone]

i am actually pleasantly surprised that gilly managed to sneak into the final XI somehow. i can bet my house dhoni got more than 80% of the votes gilly got.

Ha ha, yeah.

Don't remember if Dhoni was among the options given, though...

 

[Xuhaib]

I find Wasim to be quite underrated here, he's not my favourite pacer not even top 5 but sometimes the way he is bashed around here it seems he is some 30's averaging rubbish which ever way you look at it he is the best left arm pacer ever anyways I believe his biggest problem was his length with the new ball either he was too short or too full and i also think he had trouble controlling his swing.

 

[Xuhaib]

Don't mind Sehwag selection its arguable but not shocking rate him ahead of Hayden,Langer,Anwar,Kirsten, Haynes,Gordon and Boycott.Hobbs and Hutton could feel aggrevied but cricketers pre 1970's unless named Sobers or Bradman get under appreciated and understandably so.

 

[gvenkat]

Anyone who questions Sehwag's inclusion is oblivious to the following facts,willfully or otherwise!

His SR in tests since 2007 is 90. His career average is over 50 and SR is 80. That's unheard of for an opener in the whole history of the game.

He has 2 triple 100s and among the multiple triple centurions, only his triple hundred won a match for his team.

His incredible SR and voluminous scoring help his team win matches like no other opener does..

It's time for all the ole timers to brush the cobwebs,adjust their lenses and appreciate this phenomenon, for we will not see his like again!

P.S: A post from my buddy in another forum

 

[smash84]

I find Wasim to be quite underrated here, he's not my favourite pacer not even top 5 but sometimes the way he is bashed around here it seems he is some 30's averaging rubbish which ever way you look at it he is the best left arm pacer ever anyways I believe his biggest problem was his length with the new ball either he was too short or too full and i also think he had trouble controlling his swing.

dwt swing control part.

I also think that Wasim getting rubbished here is because of how highly he is rated by the general public who take his ability to swing the ball as his ability to pick up wickets.

 

[GotSpin]

If Sehwag can maintain this form for a few more years I think he'd deserve his place in the AT XI. I'd have Hobbs or Hutton over him at the moment though