Best all time XI for each country

[BackFootPunch]

Did he really make some good points?

Vettori was recently (sorry wish i could find it but i cant) quoted as saying the level of batting is of a much greater standard to when he started in the 90s. but he is probably wrong eh

secondly, a lot of bowlers were mentioned and they are all fantastic bowlers but people seem to forget that spin can get you out also...todays players face spinners with Doosras, Caromballs etc. Dont forget the players of the last 20 years have had to deal with comfortably the greatest spinners of all time.

At the end of the day all sport is getting better and improving. cricket is no exception. Hell, its only 30 years ago there were jugs of beer on the tables for lunch here in England for the county matches (yet these guys were so much better) it was amateur with very few good players. easy to stand out.
the standard will keep improving (obviously this cant go on forever) but i personally dont believe we are there yet

It's all relative though isn't it? Players these days have so many more advantages than their predecessors that comparing them is almost pointless.

Take golf for example, if you sent the guy who's ranked 50th in the world today (Robert Karlsson btw) back to play against Bobby Jones then I'd imagine that Karlsson would probably win comfortably. His golf ball would be better, he'd be able to hit it further, he could probably look up the course beforehand and work out exactly how to play it etc. But who's still going to be remembered in 50 years? Sure as heck won't be Robert Karlsson.

Greatness isn't defined by who comes after you. It's defined by everything you do in your own time relative to your peers and those that went before.

So yeah I agree that the quality of cricket is improving but that doesn't mean a great from 100 years ago is any less great than those of today.

Therefore if you're picking an All Time Great XI then surely you pick the 11 players who were the most great in their own period and still have an influence even today?

If you want to pick a "guys who are technically better than everyone to come before them and will eventually be outdone as well due to the advancing nature of sport XI" then feel free. Bradman would still make that team too.

 

[weldone]

If you want to pick a "guys who are technically better than everyone to come before them and will eventually be outdone as well due to the advancing nature of sport XI" then feel free. Bradman would still make that team too.

Haha gun

 

[Jager]

Really now.

The way I see it Shoaib was bowling till 2011. He started his career towards the end of Wasim and Waqar's careers. Wasim in turn started somewhere between Imran's career.

and Imran debuted 40 years ago.

Has there really been so much of a difference in standard?

Is Shoaib better than Wasim or Imran?

Are you gettin my point?

AWTA.

Also Trapol, taking one person's quote in order to make an argument is extremely weak in this situation, since there are hundreds of highly respected observers who would choose Bradman over Tendulkar in an instant.

 

[watson]

I'm going to put my head on the chopping block and say that the technical side of cricket hasn't advanced too much since the 1920's. In other words, a class player from the 1920s (eg. Hobbs, Bardsley, Tate, Gregory) could quite easily slot into their respective modern Australia or England teams.

There are only so many ways you can hit a ball with a bat, or roll your arm over, and most of those were discovered by the First World War.

 

[Jager]

I'm going to put my head on the chopping block and say that the technical side of cricket hasn't advanced too much since the 1920's. In other words, a class player from the 1920s (eg. Hobbs, Bardsley, Tate, Gregory) could quite easily slot into their respective modern Australia or England teams.

There are only so many ways you can hit a ball with a bat, or roll your arm over, and most of those were discovered by the First World War.

And test match conditions have become far, far easier to deal with for batsmen than days of old. They had sticky dogs, no head protection, no limitations on bumpers, flimsy bats, larger and rougher outfields....

 

[Migara]

And test match conditions have become far, far easier to deal with for batsmen than days of old. They had sticky dogs, no head protection, no limitations on bumpers, flimsy bats, larger and rougher outfields....

Which means current bowlers are heads and shoulders above their older counterparts

 

[trapol]

A few answers

I havent just picked one quote out (vettori) i gave you Grant Fox as well.

Bradman never played in the sub continent
never played against any spinners especially those who 'throw' like today
averaged 'only' 51 when someone was allowed to bowl at his head ie Bodyline...therefore an example that cricket was very very different back then and the bravery you need since the 80s wasnt a prequisite back then

as an aside (please dont ask why) but i watched two different series from the early 70s between Eng and India and Eng and NZ and i swear if you didnt know it was a test match you wouldve thought it was some county 2nd X1...it was very poor

in any case my point has been made, cricket is far more skilful and demanding as time has gone by, we havent seen that hit a maximum yet

people are entitled to their opinions of course but i cant for the life of me see how anyway can think amateur cricket 100 years ago is harder/tougher than today

hell i went to a match at Scarbrough a few years ago where they made a presentation to the family of a guy who scored 2000 runs and took 200 wickets in a Season!!! are you kidding me, thats never happening today as even the lesser players are too good.

 

[smash84]

so when do you say the "modern" cricket era has started?

 

[fredfertang]

A few answers

I havent just picked one quote out (vettori) i gave you Grant Fox as well.

Bradman never played in the sub continent
never played against any spinners especially those who 'throw' like today
averaged 'only' 51 when someone was allowed to bowl at his head ie Bodyline...therefore an example that cricket was very very different back then and the bravery you need since the 80s wasnt a prequisite back then

as an aside (please dont ask why) but i watched two different series from the early 70s between Eng and India and Eng and NZ and i swear if you didnt know it was a test match you wouldve thought it was some county 2nd X1...it was very poor

in any case my point has been made, cricket is far more skilful and demanding as time has gone by, we havent seen that hit a maximum yet

people are entitled to their opinions of course but i cant for the life of me see how anyway can think amateur cricket 100 years ago is harder/tougher than today

hell i went to a match at Scarbrough a few years ago where they made a presentation to the family of a guy who scored 2000 runs and took 200 wickets in a Season!!! are you kidding me, thats never happening today as even the lesser players are too good.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that if you plucked Bradman out of the 1930s and put him straight into a Test match in 2012, that he would do any better than Tendulkar would if you took him back two centuries or so to face Lumpy Stevens on a wicket that looks like it had been cut in a ploughed field.

 

[BackFootPunch]

averaged 'only' 51 when someone was allowed to bowl at his head ie Bodyline...therefore an example that cricket was very very different back then and the bravery you need since the 80s wasnt a prequisite back then

Wait, what? Bravery since the 80s? As in since they started wearing helmets to protect their heads allowing them to hook and pull with impunity?

No modern player would average 56.57 (not 51) against Larwood on those pitches with nothing more than a bat and their technique to protect them.

 

[Howe_zat]

It's almost as though professional cricketers aren't even trying to get picked in this thread. Like they're basing what they do around something as pointless as doing the best they can without a time machine. Selfish bastards.

 

[fredfertang]

No modern player would average 56.57 (not 51) against Larwood on those pitches with nothing more than a bat and their technique to protect them.

Bradman only averaged 56 against Bodyline because he took some big risks to try and score quickly - if he'd put his mind to not getting out and just swayed out of the way of the leg theory stuff rather than try and cut it into the off side then he probably wouldn't have been dismissed at all

 

[Flametree]

Bradman only averaged 56 against Bodyline because he took some big risks to try and score quickly - if he'd put his mind to not getting out and just swayed out of the way of the leg theory stuff rather than try and cut it into the off side then he probably wouldn't have been dismissed at all

Yep, send Ponting or Tendulkar out against Larwood, Allen and Voce bowling short with four short legs/leg slips and three men back on the hook, with no armguard, chest protector, barely a thighpad worth the name, and of course no helmet, and see if they could average 56....

 

[Red]

I'll bite!

Bradman never played in the sub continent

Who cares? Neither did any of his peers.

never played against any spinners especially those who 'throw' like today

If you think there were no good spinners in Bradman's era, you know nothing of cricket history.

averaged 'only' 51 when someone was allowed to bowl at his head ie Bodyline...therefore an example that cricket was very very different back then and the bravery you need since the 80s wasnt a prequisite back then

What is your argument? Bradman still averaged 51 against tactics designed to stop him. In the 80s any opposing batsman would be happy with an avg over 50 per series against the WIs. If you think cricketers weren't "brave" in bygone eras, have a look at the history of the cricket helmet, then come back and talk to me....

 

[watson]

Which means current bowlers are heads and shoulders above their older counterparts

No, it just means that they were very good bowlers on flat normal wickets and down-right impossible on sticky wickets.

A modern era equivalent would be Derek Underwood. A very good bowler on dry wickets but "Deadly" (hence the nickname) on 'rain affected wickets' such as the Oval in 1968 where he took 7 for 50 in Australia's second innings.

5th Test: England v Australia at The Oval, Aug 22-27, 1968 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[watson]

Bradman only averaged 56 against Bodyline because he took some big risks to try and score quickly - if he'd put his mind to not getting out and just swayed out of the way of the leg theory stuff rather than try and cut it into the off side then he probably wouldn't have been dismissed at all

Just out of interest (not sure) - isn't 'Leg Theory' currently banned with certain restrictions on leg-side fieldsmen?

If this is the case then any batting average over 50 made during the Bodyline Series would be remarkable as no player in any other era has ever had to play a barrage of bouncers under such atrocious conditions. They would be the worst by a significant margin.

In other words, how would someone like Viv Richards go against Lillee, Thomson, and Pascoe bowling 5-6 bouncers an over with a leg slip, a leg gully, a short square leg, a square leg, and 2-3 men out for the hook? And NO short boundary rope. The SCG/MCG would be as big as the SCG/MCG. I doubt Richards would average 30.

 

[Red]

Just out of interest (not sure) - isn't 'Leg Theory' currently banned with certain restrictions on leg-side fieldsmen?

If this is the case then any batting average over 50 made during the Bodyline Series would be remarkable as no player in any other era has ever had to play a barrage of bouncers under such atrocious conditions. They would be the worst by a significant margin.

In other words, how would someone like Viv Richards go against Lillee, Thomson, and Pascoe bowling 5-6 bouncers an over with a leg slip, a leg gully, a short square leg, a square leg, and 2-3 men out for the hook? And NO short boundary rope. The SCG/MCG would be as big as the SCG/MCG. I doubt Richards would average 30.

Leg Theory is effectively banned as bowlers are limited in the bouncers they can bowl, and a maximum of two fielders are allowed behind square leg.

 

[Spark]

Just out of interest (not sure) - isn't 'Leg Theory' currently banned with certain restrictions on leg-side fieldsmen?

If this is the case then any batting average over 50 made during the Bodyline Series would be remarkable as no player in any other era has ever had to play a barrage of bouncers under such atrocious conditions. They would be the worst by a significant margin.

In other words, how would someone like Viv Richards go against Lillee, Thomson, and Pascoe bowling 5-6 bouncers an over with a leg slip, a leg gully, a short square leg, a square leg, and 2-3 men out for the hook? And NO short boundary rope. The SCG/MCG would be as big as the SCG/MCG. I doubt Richards would average 30.

As good a justification for banning leg theory as I've seen tbh.

 

[fredfertang]

It's always surprised me that no one realised at the time that the obvious way of stopping Bodyline was to limit the leg side field - that law didn't come in until after Jim Laker had made hay with his leg trap in 1956. The answer to Bodline was to outlaw what the laws described as "direct attack" bowling, which put the burden of interpreting intent on the umpires. Although it didn't really matter as after the England batsmen had to put up with it in the 1933 domestic season no one wanted it any more.

As for Viv Richards I think he might have been persuaded by Bodyline to wear a helmet, but I'm sure he'd have taken it on and, like Stan McCabe in the first Test of the 1932/33 series, had the close in fielders ducking and weaving

 

[trapol]

as i say ive given you my opinion

what you do with it is up to you

i think the protective gear issue is a great clue as to the standard of cricket. as the standard has improved so has the need for protective equipment. Can you imagine players of today walking out to bat facing the quicks of the last 20 years with Green dimpled gloves, towels for thigh pads etc

there was no need for better protection back in the day as they werent quick enough. Larwood, Voce, Allen please

Helmets make a huge difference. but players today still get cleaned up regularly, far more than in days gone by. why? all those fans of old school cricket im sure will say its because of their greater skill, lightning fast reflexes etc....or maybe its because they simply werent quick enough and even as was suggested during bodyline, that deliberately trying to attack the batsman isnt in the spirit of the game

as mentioned before by myself, maybe you should revisit youtube (sorry to lazy to find the link) of the 1979 speedball comp featuring all the big names. only a beamer from Thomson reached what you would termas quick 147 the rest were in the med/quick bracket if you compare to what happens today

anyway im sure youre all sick of my opinion so i will leave it there