"Best ever" teams selected by former players or experts- whose is best?

[kyear2]

CricketWeb
Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, Imran, Marshall, Warne, McGrath

Geoff Armstrong
Grace, Hobbs, Bradman, Tendulkar, Pollock, Sobers, Gilchrist, Imran, Marshall, Warne, Barnes

Cricinfo
Hutton, Hobbs, Bradman, Tendulkar, Richards, Sobers, Gilchrist, Marshall, Akram, Warne, Lillee

Wisden
Grace, Hobbs, Bradman, Tendulkar, Richards, Sobers, Knott, Akram, Warne, Marshall, Barnes

Geoffrey Boycott
Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Headley, Richards, Sobers, Knott, Marshall, Warne, Lillee, Barnes

Benaud
Hobbs, Gavaskar, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers, Imran, Gilchrist, Warne, Lillee, Barnes

Christopher Martin-Jenkins
Grace, Hobbs, Bradman, Richards, Hammond, Sobers, Gilchrist, Marshall, Warne, Barnes, McGrath

Courier-Mail
Hobbs, Gavaskar, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, Akram, Marshall, Warne, Lillee

Reuters
Hobbs, Gavaskar, Bradman, Headley, Grace, Sobers, Imran, Knott, Warne, Lillee, Barnes

Kim Hughes
Hobbs, Trumper, Bradman, Richards, Hammond, Sobers, Gilchrist, Akram, Marshall, Warne, Lillee

Martin Crowe
Hobbs, Gavaskar, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, Warne, Marshall, Lillee, Barnes

DoG
Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Richards, Lara, Sobers, Gilchrist, Imran, Hadlee, Marshall, Warne

Third Man Cricket
Gavaskar, Hobbs, Bradman, Tendulkar, Richards, Sobers, Gilchrist, Akram, Warne, Marshall, McGrath

Harsh Thakor
Hobbs, Gavaskar, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, Warne, Akram, Marshall, Lillee

Fredfertang
Hobbs, Richards, Bradman, Tendulkar, Lara, Sobers, Gilchrist, Hadlee, Marshall, Warne, Laker

The Roar
Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Richards, Hammond, Sobers, Gilchrist, Warne, Marshall, Lillee, McGrath

On Drive Update
Gavaskar, Hutton, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers, Knott, Marshall, Warne, Lillee, Muralitharan

Roulette Cricket
Hobbs, Richards, Bradman, Lara, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, Akram, Warne, Marshall, McGrath

Third Umpire
Hobbs, Gavaskar, Bradman, Hammond, Sobers, Gilchrist, Imran, Hadlee, Marshall, Muralitharan, McGrath

Bleacher
Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Bradman, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, Miller, Imran, Warne, Marshall, Barnes

Votes

Openers

Hobbs: 19
Gavaskar: 08
Hutton: 06
Grace: 03
Richards: 02
Trumper: 1
Sutcliffe: 01

Middle Order

Bradman: 20
Sobers: 20
Richards: 14
Tendulkar :13
Hammond: 04
Lara:03
Headley: 02
Pollock: 01
Grace: 01
Miller: 01

Wicketkeeper

Gilchrist: 15
Knott: 05

Fast Bowlers

Marshall: 18
Lillee: 10
Barnes: 08
Akran: 07
Imran: 07
McGrath: 06
Hadlee: 03

Spin Bowlers

Warne: 19
Muralitharan: 02
Laker: 01

ATG XI
01. Sir Jack Hobbs (19)
02. Sunil Gavaskar (08)
03. Sir Donald Bradman* (20)
04. Sir I.V.A. Richards^ (14)
05. Sachin Tendulkar (13)
06. Sir Garfield Sobers^ (20)
07. Adam Gilchrist+ (15)
08. Malcolm Marshall (18)
09. Shane Warne^ (19)
10. Dennis Lillee (10)
11. Sydney Barnes (08)







Full Squad plus players with the highest votes from the two teams not represented.

 

[kyear2]

As most don't seem to like the composite XI, if everyone could make one change (as was done in another thread for the Wisden XI).

What would that be?

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Barnes for Imran.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

6 of those players are not in my ATG XI, yet they're such good players I don't think I could decide who should miss out. It's a very strong side.
Thanks for tallying it all up Kyear.

 

[ankitj]

As most don't seem to like the composite XI, if everyone could make one change (as was done in another thread for the Wisden XI).

What would that be?

Imran for Lillee

And Murali for Warne.

 

[kyear2]

Imran for Lillee

And Murali for Warne.

I think that we can just about say that the whole Warne Muralitharan argument can be more or less put to bed. It was Warne who was one of Wisden's cricketers of the century, but that can be seen as before the bulk of Muralitharan's success, and that is true. But when we look at the Cricinfo's exercise where Warne along with Bradman and Sobers were unanimous selections, that spoke volumes. Warne also made the Wisden's XI and from this just concluded exercise Warne was selected to 19 of the 20 teams listed, I would say that was pretty conclusive.

I can't say for sure how credible the below article is, but at the very least it surmises why so many, and apparently Murali included, holds Warne is such high esteem.

None of this to say that Muralitharan is an inferior bowler to Warne, he was brilliant and one of the best and greatest bowlers of all time. It's just that Warne was just seen as being that little bit better and one of the few (Bradman, Sobers, Hobbs, Warne, Marshall) that can be penciled in to ATG XI before the real arguments begin.

Shane Warne was better than me - Muttiah Muralitharan's tribute to Aussie legend as 800th Test victim looms large | Mail Online

 

[subshakerz]

As most don't seem to like the composite XI, if everyone could make one change (as was done in another thread for the Wisden XI).

What would that be?

Obvious one is changing Lillee for Imran. Imran's batting adds to the team, and, dare I say it, he was an equal if not better bowler, and his reverse swing adds an extra dimension currently lacking in the team.

 

[kyear2]

My change though would be Hutton over Gavaskar. First of all there would be a clear unbroken line of the mantle of greatest batsmen from Hobbs - Bradman - Hutton - Sobers - Richards - Tendulkar. Second and most importantly Hutton just accomplished so much and had to overcome more than any other ATG batsman to succeed. He was like Gavaskar technically brilliant and fearless fighter.

Of course as I have previously stated, if the team was to take the field tomorrow then I would replace Gavaskar with Barry Richards, the batsman who Lillee rated along with IVA and Sobers as one of the three best he had bowled to.

 

[kyear2]

Obvious one is changing Lillee for Imran. Imran's batting adds to the team, and, dare I say it, he was an equal if not better bowler, and his reverse swing adds an extra dimension currently lacking in the team.

Observers like Dickie Bird and Benaud and Bradman considered Lillee the greatest ever fast bowler, and while I obviously don't agree, its makes one wonder how great he must have been. Also bear in mind he was voted 6th when Wisden voted for the cricketers of the century, not that many votes below Warne and Richards. As I said I don't rate him as highly as others, but I do acknowledge that he was one of the best and must have been amazing. Added to that, he was the fast bowlers fast bowler.

But yes Imran's batting would prove useful especially with Sobers and Gilchrist also batting down in the order.

 

[subshakerz]

I think that we can just about say that the whole Warne Muralitharan argument can be more or less put to bed. It was Warne who was one of Wisden's cricketers of the century, but that can be seen as before the bulk of Muralitharan's success, and that is true. But when we look at the Cricinfo's exercise where Warne along with Bradman and Sobers were unanimous selections, that spoke volumes. Warne also made the Wisden's XI and from this just concluded exercise Warne was selected to 19 of the 20 teams listed, I would say that was pretty conclusive.

I can't say for sure how credible the below article is, but at the very least it surmises why so many, and apparently Murali included, holds Warne is such high esteem.

None of this to say that Muralitharan is an inferior bowler to Warne, he was brilliant and one of the best and greatest bowlers of all time. It's just that Warne was just seen as being that little bit better and one of the few (Bradman, Sobers, Hobbs, Warne, Marshall) that can be penciled in to ATG XI before the real arguments begin.

Shane Warne was better than me - Muttiah Muralitharan's tribute to Aussie legend as 800th Test victim looms large | Mail Online

Well, I agree and disagree. I think Warne and Murali were so close in skill that I dont really have a problem for pundits to rate Warne ahead. However, realistically, it should be a much tighter contest rather than unanimous agreement for Warne, especially when you count the number of cricketers who have said on record that they found Murali more difficult to play. Pundits who never played with or against Warne vote for him unanimously, whereas the opinion among his actual opponents is divided with perhaps an edge to Warne. That's my problem.

For me, the real reason Warne gets put ahead is he had a massive PR machine behind him especially in the British press, that he had already established himself as a great before Murali started achieving his success, and the controversy over Murali's action.

Having said that, for some reason I feel Warne fits better in the all-time XI, even if he isnt as good a bowler, since most cricket fans would rather see a leg spinner anyways, and Warne is a decent bat and may even be a good vice captain.

 

[subshakerz]

Observers like Dickie Bird and Benaud and Bradman considered Lillee the greatest ever fast bowler, and while I obviously don't agree, its makes one wonder how great he must have been. Also bear in mind he was voted 6th when Wisden voted for the cricketers of the century, not that many votes below Warne and Richards. As I said I don't rate him as highly as others, but I do acknowledge that he was one of the best and must have been amazing. Added to that, he was the fast bowlers fast bowler.

But yes Imran's batting would prove useful especially with Sobers and Gilchrist also batting down in the order.

Had Lillee debuted a decade later, i have 0% doubt that he would not have been rated as highly. He got a special gloss for being the first of the modern age age of fast bowlers, Andy Roberts too to a lesser extent. There is little in Lillee's dossier outside of peer rating to suggest he was better than Imran. But even if he was better, it wasnt by that much. Once again, it has a lot to do with PR.

I am glad to see more experts in favor of Marshall rather than Lillee though, it is contrary to what I earlier thought was unanimous support for Lillee.

 

[kyear2]

Had Lillee debuted a decade later, i have 0% doubt that he would not have been rated as highly. He got a special gloss for being the first of the modern age age of fast bowlers, Andy Roberts too to a lesser extent. There is little in Lillee's dossier outside of peer rating to suggest he was better than Imran. But even if he was better, it wasnt by that much. Once again, it has a lot to do with PR.

I am glad to see more experts in favor of Marshall rather than Lillee though, it is contrary to what I earlier thought was unanimous support for Lillee.

Some excellent points the last two posts. Especially agree with the last sentence, but I am a bit biased as I believe Marshall is one of the three greatest players to have played the game and personal favorite of my elite 7 players.

Also agree that while I believe that Warne is better he isn't 20-0 or 19-1 better.

 

[ankitj]

I think that we can just about say that the whole Warne Muralitharan argument can be more or less put to bed. It was Warne who was one of Wisden's cricketers of the century, but that can be seen as before the bulk of Muralitharan's success, and that is true. But when we look at the Cricinfo's exercise where Warne along with Bradman and Sobers were unanimous selections, that spoke volumes. Warne also made the Wisden's XI and from this just concluded exercise Warne was selected to 19 of the 20 teams listed, I would say that was pretty conclusive.

I can't say for sure how credible the below article is, but at the very least it surmises why so many, and apparently Murali included, holds Warne is such high esteem.

None of this to say that Muralitharan is an inferior bowler to Warne, he was brilliant and one of the best and greatest bowlers of all time. It's just that Warne was just seen as being that little bit better and one of the few (Bradman, Sobers, Hobbs, Warne, Marshall) that can be penciled in to ATG XI before the real arguments begin.

Shane Warne was better than me - Muttiah Muralitharan's tribute to Aussie legend as 800th Test victim looms large | Mail Online

In every statistical analysis* though, Murali trumps Warne. Consistently.

* Except the ones that Ikki runs

 

[OverratedSanity]

I think that we can just about say that the whole Warne Muralitharan argument can be more or less put to bed. It was Warne who was one of Wisden's cricketers of the century, but that can be seen as before the bulk of Muralitharan's success, and that is true. But when we look at the Cricinfo's exercise where Warne along with Bradman and Sobers were unanimous selections, that spoke volumes. Warne also made the Wisden's XI and from this just concluded exercise Warne was selected to 19 of the 20 teams listed, I would say that was pretty conclusive.

I can't say for sure how credible the below article is, but at the very least it surmises why so many, and apparently Murali included, holds Warne is such high esteem.

None of this to say that Muralitharan is an inferior bowler to Warne, he was brilliant and one of the best and greatest bowlers of all time. It's just that Warne was just seen as being that little bit better and one of the few (Bradman, Sobers, Hobbs, Warne, Marshall) that can be penciled in to ATG XI before the real arguments begin.

Shane Warne was better than me - Muttiah Muralitharan's tribute to Aussie legend as 800th Test victim looms large | Mail Online

It puts nothing to bed. No one can be forced to change their own opinion just because "experts" think differently.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The team looks perfect to me... It's a magnificent side from 1-11 capable of beating any team

Except for Gavaskar. Hutton and Hobbs simply have to open the batting. While I didn't see Gavaskar bat, he's always seemed to me to be an opener who was a touch below the greatness of the two greatest. My opinion of Gavaskar probably stems from my father's utter disdain for his batting.... A fair weather batsman who doesn't deserve his status, he'd always say. While he was exaggerating greatly I've never seen a reason to put Gavaskar in an AT XI. Rest of the players, they feel like they belong there

 

[kyear2]

The team looks perfect to me... It's a magnificent side from 1-11 capable of beating any team

Except for Gavaskar. Hutton and Hobbs simply have to open the batting. While I didn't see Gavaskar bat, he's always seemed to me to be an opener who was a touch below the greatness of the two greatest. My opinion of Gavaskar probably stems from my father's utter disdain for his batting.... A fair weather batsman who doesn't deserve his status, he'd always say. While he was exaggerating greatly I've never seen a reason to put Gavaskar in an AT XI. Rest of the players, they feel like they belong there

Exactly how I feel.

 

[Prince EWS]

It puts nothing to bed. No one can be forced to change their own opinion just because "experts" think differently.

Yeah look, I found the idea of doing a few sums with the players selected in various people's all-time elevens vaguely interesting at first (even though it wasn't even the original idea for the thread ), but kyear2 really seemed to be develop more and more of an odd obsession with the process as if it was going to definitively solve the greatest cricketing debates in history. Which organisations made the list at all became an extremely subjective process - I mean, The Roar FFS - not to mention the fact that people all have vastly different criteria for judging these things.

It was always going to be interesting. But it was always ultimately going to change absolutely no minds and it certainly wasn't going to show or prove anything definitively. Find me the man who changes his personal all-time team based on a collection of twenty various takes on the idea by ex-players/journalists/other sports sites hand picked by kyear2 and I'll show you a very puzzling individual. A hand-picked collection of the nineteen finest pre-Galileo scientists kyear2 could find and uvelocity would unanimously confirm the flatness of the earth, afterall.

 

[smash84]

Yeah look, I found the idea of doing a few sums with the players selected in various people's all-time elevens vaguely interesting at first (even though it wasn't even the original idea for the thread ), but kyear2 really seemed to be develop more and more of an odd obsession with the process as if it was going to definitively solve the greatest cricketing debates in history. Which organisations made the list at all became an extremely subjective process - I mean, The Roar FFS - not to mention the fact that people all have vastly different criteria for judging these things.

It was always going to be interesting. But it was always ultimately going to change absolutely no minds and it certainly wasn't going to show or prove anything definitively. Find me the man who changes his personal all-time team based on a collection of twenty various takes on the idea by ex-players/journalists/other sports sites hand picked by kyear2 and I'll show you a very puzzling individual. A hand-picked collection of the nineteen finest pre-Galileo scientists kyear2 could find and uvelocity would unanimously confirm the flatness of the earth, afterall.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah look, I found the idea of doing a few sums with the players selected in various people's all-time elevens vaguely interesting at first (even though it wasn't even the original idea for the thread ), but kyear2 really seemed to be develop more and more of an odd obsession with the process as if it was going to definitively solve the greatest cricketing debates in history. Which organisations made the list at all became an extremely subjective process - I mean, The Roar FFS - not to mention the fact that people all have vastly different criteria for judging these things.

It was always going to be interesting. But it was always ultimately going to change absolutely no minds and it certainly wasn't going to show or prove anything definitively. Find me the man who changes his personal all-time team based on a collection of twenty various takes on the idea by ex-players/journalists/other sports sites hand picked by kyear2 and I'll show you a very puzzling individual. A hand-picked collection of the nineteen finest pre-Galileo scientists kyear2 could find and uvelocity would unanimously confirm the flatness of the earth, afterall.

Wasn't trying to change anyone's mind. What I should have said that for me the great argument for me, is pretty much put to bed. Warne is almost now universally regarded as the better player and while some of the publications used are not as well respected some are and it is staggering how much better Warne did. Even in the cricinfo exercise, in was unanimous.

Nothing though changed my mind from what I believe except for that I now firmly believe that Barnes was a legitimate fast medium bowler and that was from extra reading that I did while putting the teams together and looking for the pics I collected.

Additionally never said the selection was conclusive as the 2nd opener spot and last two seamer spots are anything but, and Gavaskar or Hutton or even Richards are all deserving and Marshall, Barnes and Imran would probably be as good as the alternative.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Wasn't trying to change anyone's mind. What I should have said that for me the great argument for me, is pretty much put to bed. Warne is almost now universally regarded as the better player and while some of the publications used are not as well respected some are and it is staggering how much better Warne did. Even in the cricinfo exercise, in was unanimous.

We sort of know that already though... Most experts do rate Warne greater. The debate has never been whether Warne or Murali is considered greater by the experts. The debate is whether Warne SHOULD be considered greater... And its a debate which will and SHOULD go on