Ranking the Cricinfo All-Time XIs

[The Sean]

I kinda am, still so pissed off that the so called experts picking freaking Jackie Hendricks and Gibbs. I mean who cares about variety when u have a spinner who averages 29 and strikes damn near every 90s balls. Thats simply not good enough at this level (all time teams) especially when u have a Joel Garner who was way way more effective in all conditions and u have Sobers who could bowl spin (if necessary).

Ditto Hendricks (what a waste).

Fair enough. Agree fully about Hendricks but I feel Gibbs gets a raw deal around these parts - he was a great bowler IMO. Garner was better, sure, but I can see the merit in selecting Gibbs on certain pitches or in certain circumstances. I'd still have the Windies in my top 2, and certainly no lower than third.

 

[hang on]

gibbs was not that far behind warne and co.:

Reliance ICC Player Rankings

 

[smash84]

Can't tell if you're taking the piss there mate, but if you're serious I'd be interested yo know why you'd have the Windies so low.

awta

Fair enough. Agree fully about Hendricks but I feel Gibbs gets a raw deal around these parts - he was a great bowler IMO. Garner was better, sure, but I can see the merit in selecting Gibbs on certain pitches or in certain circumstances. I'd still have the Windies in my top 2, and certainly no lower than third.

awta

 

[kyear2]

gibbs was not that far behind warne and co.:

Reliance ICC Player Rankings

Quite interesting. But it also depends on how seriously people pay to the ICC ratings.

 

[kyear2]

S.Warne - highest rating: 905 V Eng 1994. spent 25 of his 145 Tests (17.2%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 348.
B.O'Reilly - highest rating: 901 V NZ 1946. spent 11 of his 27 Tests (40.7%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 212.
M.Muralitharan - highest rating: 915 V Pak 2002. spent 48 of his 110 Tests (43.6%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 180.
D.Underwood - highest rating: 907 V NZ 1971. spent 11 of his 86 Tests (12.8%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 213.

J.Laker - highest rating: 897 V Aus 1956. spent 14 of his 46 Tests (30.4%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 271.
L.Gibbs - highest rating: 897 V Eng 1966. spent 20 of his 79 Tests (25.3%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 133.
D.Lillee - highest rating: 884 V Eng 1977. spent 10 of his 70 Tests (14.3%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 252.


As I said, depends on how seriously one takes the ratings.

 

[The Sean]

Quite interesting. But it also depends on how seriously people pay to the ICC ratings.

S.Warne - highest rating: 905 V Eng 1994. spent 25 of his 145 Tests (17.2%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 348.
B.O'Reilly - highest rating: 901 V NZ 1946. spent 11 of his 27 Tests (40.7%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 212.
M.Muralitharan - highest rating: 915 V Pak 2002. spent 48 of his 110 Tests (43.6%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 180.
D.Underwood - highest rating: 907 V NZ 1971. spent 11 of his 86 Tests (12.8%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 213.

J.Laker - highest rating: 897 V Aus 1956. spent 14 of his 46 Tests (30.4%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 271.
L.Gibbs - highest rating: 897 V Eng 1966. spent 20 of his 79 Tests (25.3%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 133.
D.Lillee - highest rating: 884 V Eng 1977. spent 10 of his 70 Tests (14.3%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 252.


As I said, depends on how seriously one takes the ratings.

Not sure if this all means that you do or don't take the ICC rating seriously. Or that I've entirely missed the point.

 

[kyear2]

I means that I followed on from Hang on's post. Not sure how much stock I put in them either. But they do represent the era played in better than stats alone.

 

[The Sean]

Fair enough - would you play Gibbs (or Ramadhin, or Valentine) in an all time WI XI, or would you play four quicks?

 

[kyear2]

Four quicks with Garner just over Hall. Think Hall was the better strike bowler but Garner could be a strike bowler as well as well as a stock bowler and can bowl long spells and hold up an end similar to a spinner, only more economical and with a deadly yorker. His strike rate and average are just epic.
I would play Gibbs on a turner or on a dust bowl, in the Subcontinent for example.
Mainly though four quicks, and If you go four quicks, then Dujon would be your man behind the stumps. Doesn't mean Gibbs wasn't great, but the W.I. won for so long and they did it with the fast men.

 

[Slifer]

of course bradman makes all the difference. and even if you leave him aside, other all time great teams can only be on par with the aussies at best. their bowling, for instance, is so beautifully balanced that taking 20 wickets is a mere formality for lillee and co. there are other attacks that can match them, yes, but i cant see anyone surpassing them. in fact, an attack which has miller as the fifth bowling option is the scariest one ever assembled on planet earth. similarly in batting the australians can put together a lineup that is as good as anyone else's. their no.7 is as good as the no.3 of most teams. i dont see a weak link anywhere in fielding either.

after matching every other team at 10 slots, here comes don bradman at no.3. who is actually two great batters rolled into one. it is correct to assume that this team is made of 12 greats while all other teams have one player less. i expect them to win every series they play anywhere in the word against any opponent. their worst scoreline could be 2-1 against the windies in windies. not willing to give anything more than that to any other opponent.

Might also be a bit of a challenege winning in India seeing how well Indians play leg spin and the fact that Lillee is unproven in SC conditions. But Apart from that, Oz seriously has a super intense team. 2nd XI not too bad either:

Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Hussey
S Waugh*
N Harvey
I Healey+
A Davidson
R Lindwall
Spofforth
Grimmett

 

[hang on]

ratings are by no means the be all and end all of a measure of a player's quality but they do give one a reasonable guide as to how the players did. i have watched gibbs but was to young to understand his art but have spoken to many who watched and played with or against him and he was quite superb. it is really not the case that he was an average spinner who would bring down the quality of the all time windian lineup! in fact, given the quality of the pacers at hand, he would end up enhancing the bowling.

for example, if it is strike rate that is most important, then australia would be better served by a fast bowler instead of warne. but that is not really the way to look at it.

 

[Ikki]

The difference between Warne's SR and other pacers is negligible - and it could be argued it is as good as theirs seeing as he comes on when the ball is older and batsmen are often set. Gibbs though is a mile off the WI pacers - some 30+ points.

 

[hang on]

am just using warne as an example to illustrate that gibbs wasn't the mug that he has been made out to be, such that his presence in the team, instead of garner, should cause the windies bowling threat to plummet so alarmingly. (admittedly, am not taking the keeper part into account.)

for argument's sake, would/should warne be chosen for an all time world 11, given that there are many more 'effective' bowlers than him (in terms of strike rate and average), mostly fastmen? to name just two prominent ones, donald and waqar. the difference in the strike rates there is certainly not negligible.

my point being, again, that variety adds a lot to an attack.

 

[Ikki]

It really depends. Warne's average and SR are that of a spinner; not an opening strike bowler. He bowls in different periods of the game than the aforementioned bowlers. Would they be as affective as him and have his stats if they bowled at the same time is the question. It is likely their stats would be worse - opening pace bowlers tend to get their cheaper/faster wickets earlier on with the new ball.

Some don't pick a spinner at all and some do for variety/balance. Personally, if I had to choose between a 4th pacer and Gibbs for the WI XI, I would pick the pacer. There is too much gap in quality for me to carry a spinner like him. Whereas with Warne the difference between him and others is negligible, and certainly worth the variety and balance. If I am that desperate for a spinner I'd let Sobers roll his arm.

 

[hang on]

that is the point, ikki. there is not really such a 'quality' gap between gibbs and the other west indian pacer, be it garner or anyone else, given that gibbs was a spinner and has the stats of a spinner PLUS was a bowler of his times when more defensive batting etc. were generally the norm.

context - times, batting styles, bowling roles and a host of other factors - is the issue here. where does one draw the line? to continue playing the devil's advocate, if a SR differential of 17ish is equivalent to a negligible quality gap, why is a SR rate differential of 27ish suddenly such a vast one?

 

[smash84]

that is the point, ikki. there is not really such a 'quality' gap between gibbs and the other west indian pacer, be it garner or anyone else, given that gibbs was a spinner and has the stats of a spinner PLUS was a bowler of his times when more defensive batting etc. were generally the norm.

context - times, batting styles, bowling roles and a host of other factors - is the issue here. where does one draw the line? to continue playing the devil's advocate, if a SR differential of 17ish is equivalent to a negligible quality gap, why is a SR rate differential of 27ish suddenly such a vast one?

I reckon Fred Truman and Gibbs's careers overlapped quite a bit. Check the difference b/w their SRs and between that of Warne and Waqar (the best SR in Warne's era). You'll see the difference.

Trueman SR 49 Gibbs SR 88

Waqar SR 43 Warne SR 56

 

[Ikki]

that is the point, ikki. there is not really such a 'quality' gap between gibbs and the other west indian pacer, be it garner or anyone else, given that gibbs was a spinner and has the stats of a spinner PLUS was a bowler of his times when more defensive batting etc. were generally the norm.

context - times, batting styles, bowling roles and a host of other factors - is the issue here. where does one draw the line? to continue playing the devil's advocate, if a SR differential of 17ish is equivalent to a negligible quality gap, why is a SR rate differential of 27ish suddenly such a vast one?

I am not sure how you've come to that conclusion. To me, looking at the stats, there is nothing to take away but the enormous gulf between them. Also, a bowler would need an SR of 40 to be 17 superior to Warne. SR is important but those in the 50s do the job fine - look at McGrath, Lillee, Hadlee, etc; Warne is only a handful off them - that's what I mean when I say negligible. The same goes for average. Whereas Gibbs is some 30 points off them for SR alone, and 7-8 run when it comes to average. Is he worth the variety? No IMO.

If you want context; here is a comparison between Gibbs and the average and SR for all bowlers of his era (his career-span).

           [B] Avg          SR[/B]
[B]Gibbs[/B]      29.09        87.7
[B]His Era[/B]    32.02        79.5

Now, for Warne:

           [B] Avg          SR[/B]
[B]Warne[/B]      25.41        57.4
[B]His Era[/B]    32.62        67.2

Or, I'll put it to you this way: Gibbs was worse than the average pacer of his time - he was 1 run cheaper but 17.7 balls slower. Warne on the other hand is comfortably better than the average pacers of his time and in fact is only bested by the ATG pacers of his time.

 

[hang on]

the sr difference of 17 was based on the early 40s strike rates of waqar and steyn and donald and co., off the top of my head.

the strike rate difference of 27 was the difference between garner and gibbs. (looked them up).


the fact that gibbs was the preeminent bowler of his time (including pacers) for long periods of time (including pacers), the fact that the game was different plus the fact that i value variety is why i think that gibb's inclusion is not a bad one at all. at least not as bad as is made out to be, which was my main gripe to begin with. it is really not like they picked up a nobody as a nod to variety!


this is another riff, but were the medium pacers and fastmen of gibb's time worse than those of warne's era? on average? there were certainly more weak teams with their corresponding pacers during warne's period than during gibb's, even though there might have been a slew of greater bowlers too.

yet another riff, but are the ratings so off that gibb's stupendous high ratings and ranking belie his actual stats and quality? or did he end up picking up a higher proportion of top order wickets and influence matches in a big way or something along those lines to have managed to have a rating of 850 for a large chunk of his career?

 

[Ikki]

Well then, you are being selective if you compare Waqar (who is probably the faster wicket taker in history with 300+ wickets) to Warne and then comparing Garner to Warne. Warne and Garner have a difference of 7 balls per wicket which is about the difference between Waqar and Garner. And again, it should be reiterated that Warne bowled at times when naturally wicket-taking would be harder to do. That's why the difference between them is negligible. Having a spinner who takes wickets almost as cheaply and as fast as ATG bowlers is wonderful.

Gibbs, however, is not such a spinner. It's not that Gibbs is a bad spinner or anything, he is among the very good ones. However, in general, spinners have an inferior output to that of pacers bar a very select group - namely, Warne, Murali, O'Reilly and probably Grimmett.

As to your other question; I'd say yes - the pacers of Warne's era were superior. Both in number and quality, I'd argue. I am not sure about the ICC ratings, I don't consider them much of a guide really.

 

[hang on]

no, ikki, i am not being selective. or, rather, am being selective in the sense that i am trying to figure out the point at which warne would replace someone like waqar or steyn or donald or a. nother in an all time world team. so, purely a thought experiment with the analogy of garner for gibbs in an all time windian 11 being extended or heightened to waqar or donald or steyn for warne in an all time world 11.

the difference in strike rates was, thus, between garner and gibbs and between waqar and co. and warne. not between garner and warne. but this does not matter. i would take warne or murali in a world 11. i wanted to see how the lines are drawn and, as stated earlier, make the point that gibbs is not a mug by any means! certainly not such that the windian all time 11 drops to 5th in the estimation of someone effectively by virtue of his inlcusion.