Ranking the Cricinfo All-Time XIs

[Howe_zat]

the Barbados AT XI is as good as any international team's AT XI

greenidge
haynes
weekes
worrell *
walcott
sobers
murray +
marshall
garner
hall
griffith

this is good enough to break the backs of most international XIs.....

Barbados or NSW?

Off the top of my head:

Morris
Trumper
Bradman
McCabe
Waugh
Miller
Benaud
Oldfield (?)
Lindwall
O' Reilly
McGrath

 

[Spark]

Plus you could cast the net slightly wider to include anyone born in NSW too, and pick up Gilchrist.

 

[Mike5181]

My NZ all time eleven

1.Glenn Turner
2.Stewie Dempster
3.Bert Sutcliffe
4.Martin Crowe
5.Martin Donnelly/Stephen Fleming
6.John R Reid
7.Chris Cairns
8.Ian Smith+
9.Richard Hadlee
10.Shane Bond
11.Jack Cowie

I can see a few current players pushing for that side in a few years time. .

 

[The Sean]

From among the top 5 yes, I do agree. But India just doesnt have the bowling and the other 2 couldnt even beat a Barbados 11 far less the teams above them.

A Barbados all time XI would beat most teams TBF.

I always feel England get underrated in these things and I suppose it's because most of their real greats are from bygone eras few of us saw. I'd personally place them third, and would look forward to a great battle between SA and Pakistan to join them in the last four.

 

[bagapath]

Barbados or NSW?

Off the top of my head:

Morris
Trumper
Bradman
McCabe
Waugh
Miller
Benaud
Oldfield (?)
Lindwall
O' Reilly
McGrath

Not really significantly inferior to an all-time Aussie XI.

 

[bagapath]

My NZ all time eleven

1.Glenn Turner
2.Stewie Dempster
3.Bert Sutcliffe
4.Martin Crowe
5.Martin Donnelly/Stephen Fleming
6.John R Reid
7.Chris Cairns
8.Ian Smith+
9.Richard Hadlee
10.Shane Bond
11.Jack Cowie

I can see a few current players pushing for that side in a few years time. .

good job mate

 

[ankitj]

Think England XI is being underrated here. They have arguably the most complete and versatile bowling attack (once you replace Larwood and Underwood with Lohmann and Laker respectively IMO). Which team has a unique bowler like Barnes? And their batting is bloody good too (once your replace Peitersen with Suttcliffe or Compton). No other team has a top 5 made of undisputed ATG batsmen who will all make it to most lists of greatest 25 batsmen of all time. England XI might well be the best of the lot!

 

[Ikki]

Think England XI is being underrated here. They have arguably the most complete and versatile bowling attack (once you replace Larwood and Underwood with Lohmann and Laker respectively IMO). Which team has a unique bowler like Barnes? And their batting is bloody good too (once your replace Peitersen with Suttcliffe or Compton). No other team has a top 5 made of undisputed ATG batsmen who will all make it to most lists of greatest 25 batsmen of all time. England XI might well be the best of the lot!

All the above goes for Australia; and moreso.

 

[ankitj]

All the above goes for Australia; and moreso.

Not convinced about Australia's opening pair, whoever you pick (neither sold on West Indian opening pair). Bradman and Gilchrist are a certain advantage. So they might edge out England, but not by much.

 

[BlazeDragon]

Think England XI is being underrated here. They have arguably the most complete and versatile bowling attack (once you replace Larwood and Underwood with Lohmann and Laker respectively IMO). Which team has a unique bowler like Barnes? And their batting is bloody good too (once your replace Peitersen with Suttcliffe or Compton). No other team has a top 5 made of undisputed ATG batsmen who will all make it to most lists of greatest 25 batsmen of all time. England XI might well be the best of the lot!

Both of them have very questionable records.

 

[Ikki]

Not convinced about Australia's opening pair, whoever you pick (neither sold on West Indian opening pair). Bradman and Gilchrist are a certain advantage. So they might edge out England, but not by much.

Both are ATGs, and if you want, substitute Barnes and/or Hayden. Personally, I'd have Morris and Hayden.

Anyway, the idea that any of the batting line-ups match Australia's is pretty loony. "not by much"? Bradman is effectively 2 ATG batsmen when the differences in averages between the top order batsmen between the teams are a few points. Then there is Gilchrist and there is no #7 in these teams that averages as much as he does.

Also an attack of Lillee, McGrath and Miller, with spinners Warne and O'Reilly is even better balanced and stronger than England's. Even if we contended that the pacers were equal or close enough, it's not close in terms of the quality of spinners.

I take your point re England being underrated. They're as good as, if not better than, the WIndies all things considered. But Australia is ridiculously endowed and it is being massively understated here. This discussion is akin to the Bradman discussion. He is the best, no contest, it is more a discussion about who is 2nd.

 

[Pothas]

That Warne and O'Reilly pairing really gives Australia the edge for me (over West Indies as well) especially when added to the quicks, England comfortably third for me though I guess it depends on how you view Barnes (right at the very top myself)

 

[kyear2]

Both are ATGs, and if you want, substitute Barnes and/or Hayden. Personally, I'd have Morris and Hayden.

Anyway, the idea that any of the batting line-ups match Australia's is pretty loony. "not by much"? Bradman is effectively 2 ATG batsmen when the differences in averages between the top order batsmen between the teams are a few points. Then there is Gilchrist and there is no #7 in these teams that averages as much as he does.

Also an attack of Lillee, McGrath and Miller, with spinners Warne and O'Reilly is even better balanced and stronger than England's. Even if we contended that the pacers were equal or close enough, it's not close in terms of the quality of spinners.

I take your point re England being underrated. They're as good as, if not better than, the WIndies all things considered. But Australia is ridiculously endowed and it is being massively understated here. This discussion is akin to the Bradman discussion. He is the best, no contest, it is more a discussion about who is 2nd.

A middle order that includes Headley, Richards, Lara and Sobers and a fast bowling attack of Marshall, Ambrose and Holding CANNOT be be disregarded or relegated to second class regardless of opposition. Bradman cannot be seen as two batsmen, as the one time he faced a bowling attack half as good as this one he averaged about half of his career avg. while Viv in WSC was indominable. Lara essayed more match winning gems againts Warne and Mcgrath than anyone. Additionally any advantage Gilchrist gives at 7 is cancelled out considerably by Sobers at 6.
Would never say that I know for sure who would win in the finals, but to even suggest that this would be a walk over is just biases and rediculous.
When the same Cricinfo named their all time Test 11, Australia had Bradman, Warne, Gilchrist and Lille in their first team and O'Reilly in the 2nd. Thats five players. The West Indies had Richards, Sobers and Marshall in the 1st and Lara and Headley in the 2nd, wow same five. England had both openers from the 1st team and Barnes and Hammond in the second, no one team here is that far away from the other among the top 5.
Stop trying to belittle everyone else.

 

[ankitj]

Both are ATGs, and if you want, substitute Barnes and/or Hayden. Personally, I'd have Morris and Hayden.

Anyway, the idea that any of the batting line-ups match Australia's is pretty loony. "not by much"? Bradman is effectively 2 ATG batsmen when the differences in averages between the top order batsmen between the teams are a few points. Then there is Gilchrist and there is no #7 in these teams that averages as much as he does.

Also an attack of Lillee, McGrath and Miller, with spinners Warne and O'Reilly is even better balanced and stronger than England's. Even if we contended that the pacers were equal or close enough, it's not close in terms of the quality of spinners.

I take your point re England being underrated. They're as good as, if not better than, the WIndies all things considered. But Australia is ridiculously endowed and it is being massively understated here. This discussion is akin to the Bradman discussion. He is the best, no contest, it is more a discussion about who is 2nd.

Hobbs and Hutton are top drawer. Trumper and Morris are 2 levels below them IMHO. Bradman and Gilchrist cover for that deficiency leaving batting about equal. Bowling is quite even too because I rate Barnes > McGrath and Trueman > Lillee by small margins while Warne and O'Reilly pair is quite strong. On the whole I think Aus, Eng and WI are pretty close to each other with a slight edge to Aus perhaps.

I also have started feeling that Bradman is about 20-25% better than the second best batsman (which is a lot!) rather than 60-70%. This basically means that Sobers and Imran are much closer to Bradman as overall packages than I'd earlier believed.

 

[subshakerz]

Australia simply have all bases covered. True all-time great levels overall for spin, pace, and batting, and two serious batting advantages in Bradman and Gilchrist. The only questionmark is their opening pair, but that is offset by the rest of their batting lineup.

The other teams have their own serious chinks. West Indies lose a lot of their bowling fire power with Sobers and Gibbs coming after the three quicks. If they had a fourth paceman like Garner or Roberts instead of Gibbs, I would put them on near level with the Aussies.

SA are underrated, with batting up to 9 and 6 bowling options, but quantity doesn't necessarily make up for quality, and they seem to lack cricketers who can really stamp their presence.

Pakistan have the best pace attack, but their middle order is a bit shaky against worldclass attacks, and lower order pretty weak.

England are wild cards. Petersen shouldnt be there, but the batting is very strong overall. The problem is that there's questionmarks around Botham, Larwood and Barnes on how they would consistently perform and in what conditions, while the spinner is not known to bowl great outside of uncovered wickets.

 

[hang on]

it has to be australia with the relative deficiency in the opening more than made up for by the presence of bradman and gilchrist. and the bowling is superb.

the west indian middle order is something to weep over but the opening pair has a question mark over them. again, of course, relatively speaking. the bowling, is super strong with the kind of firepower that could cover for the relative lack of quality in diversity ie gibbs, though great, is not as great as warne.

 

[Ikki]

A middle order that includes Headley, Richards, Lara and Sobers and a fast bowling attack of Marshall, Ambrose and Holding CANNOT be be disregarded or relegated to second class regardless of opposition. Bradman cannot be seen as two batsmen, as the one time he faced a bowling attack half as good as this one he averaged about half of his career avg. while Viv in WSC was indominable. Lara essayed more match winning gems againts Warne and Mcgrath than anyone. Additionally any advantage Gilchrist gives at 7 is cancelled out considerably by Sobers at 6.
Would never say that I know for sure who would win in the finals, but to even suggest that this would be a walk over is just biases and rediculous.
When the same Cricinfo named their all time Test 11, Australia had Bradman, Warne, Gilchrist and Lille in their first team and O'Reilly in the 2nd. Thats five players. The West Indies had Richards, Sobers and Marshall in the 1st and Lara and Headley in the 2nd, wow same five. England had both openers from the 1st team and Barnes and Hammond in the second, no one team here is that far away from the other among the top 5.
Stop trying to belittle everyone else.

This is another one of your ridiculous arguments, just so you can tout your beloved WI. I can take your stance when it was the 70s/80s WI vs the 90s/00s Aus, it was close then. The WIndies middle-order is great, but it is no match for Australia's because of Bradman and is left further behind when you consider the #7s.

But the 5 ATG v 5 ATG argument doesn't cut it. It is like mentioning that one batsman is better in 5 countries, and the other in 5; when the the former batsmen is only marginally worse in 5 countries but dominates the 5 he is better in.

Bradman is effectively 2 batsmen in terms of run scoring. The one series you happen to mention was the bodyline series. If you want to argue that Bradman would only average 50-60 and is only marginally better than the likes of Lara and Richards then you'll have a very big problem with people taking you seriously.

Hobbs and Hutton are top drawer. Trumper and Morris are 2 levels below them IMHO. Bradman and Gilchrist cover for that deficiency leaving batting about equal. Bowling is quite even too because I rate Barnes > McGrath and Trueman > Lillee by small margins while Warne and O'Reilly pair is quite strong. On the whole I think Aus, Eng and WI are pretty close to each other with a slight edge to Aus perhaps.

I also have started feeling that Bradman is about 20-25% better than the second best batsman (which is a lot!) rather than 60-70%. This basically means that Sobers and Imran are much closer to Bradman as overall packages than I'd earlier believed.

LOL, 2 levels below? That is ridiculous. How about Bob Simpson and Hayden? The differences between the averages of these men are in the single digits. The difference between Bradman and them are many times that. They do not equate even if went off pure averages.

So basically, you've arbitrarily rated every Australian down some 10%, Bradman some 30% just to equate them with the rest. Despite the fact that many of those English players were playing in the same era or just before/after his. Incredible.

 

[The Sean]

Viv in WSC was indominable.

And Greg Chappell was even better.

 

[ankitj]

LOL, 2 levels below? That is ridiculous. How about Bob Simpson and Hayden? The differences between the averages of these men are in the single digits. The difference between Bradman and them are many times that. They do not equate even if went off pure averages.

One level below Hobbs and Hutton are likes of Sehwag, Border, Miandad, Nourse etc. Another level below are Trumper and Morris. Trumper was not even a regular opener, as a matter of fact. I know he is quite romanticized but I am not fully convinced of his greatness. May be I don't know enough so I will be happy to be told something I don't know. I have heard arguments like he played with aggression and little regard to batting average, but if that is not a legitimate defence for Sehwag, neither should it be for Trumper.

So basically, you've arbitrarily rated every Australian down some 10%, Bradman some 30% just to equate them with the rest. Despite the fact that many of those English players were playing in the same era or just before/after his. Incredible.

There have been a number of threads about Bradman which I generally did not post in because I knew I will get exact same reaction, in spite of the fact that I have argued ferociously against anyone trying to suggest Tendulkar > Bradman. My opinion on Bradman has slightly changed having grasped the extent of his struggle on wet wickets. 20-25% better is of course speculative and therefore I avoid stating such numbers, may be 30-35% better is more closer to reality which basically means that Bradman would average 75-80 in a full career in a different era (any era post 1950). And that should not be an outrageous assumption considering that he averaged 88 against England and West Indies combined. Still he is comfortably one or more levels above any other batsman, however his position as the greatest cricketer is more seriously threatened by Sobers and Imran than I earlier imagined. Also don't think he is worth 2 ATG batsmen.

Re his contemporaries, I do think that Hammond and Suttcliffe faced superior bowling in tests than did Bradman. Verity and Larwood were good, but not top drawer like O'Reilly and Grimmet. Hobbs and Hutton hardly played in the same era as Bradman. Hobbs averaged ~57 (?) before WWI while the second best test average was ~48 (?), which puts him quite comfortably in the highest class.

 

[ankitj]

And yes, I can't help it if only saying that Aus will crush Eng and WI will satisfy you. I certainly think the these 3 are very close and I will give a slight edge to Aus