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

[Prince EWS]

And its a debate which will and SHOULD go on

But not in this thread.

 

[OverratedSanity]

But not in this thread.

Murali - Bang/Zim = Warne.
Go nuts, trolls

 

[DingDong]

this kyear2 guy

 

[harsh.ag]

Nothing is even slightly conclusive. The reasons why I pick Warne over Murali in a team is that he is a better batsman, and gives a good slip option, which make him an overall better selection for the team. But I think Murali is the better bowler. I would love to have them both in a team, as soon as they discover a player at 6 or 7 who bats like McCabe and bowls like Davidson.

 

[Red]

Why's kyear getting canned? He just collated the teams and then came to a consensus team from them.

 

[kyear2]

Not all together sure. Went through the thread too see what was said, I made comments based on observations on selections by Journalists, past players and blog sites. Never tried to say anyone should change their minds on who they choose or make anyone believe one player is better than another.

What I have said is that a trend has developed, and even on CW that there are approximately seven players that can be penciled into any ATG XI
Hobbs, Bradman, Richards, Sobers, Gilchrist, Marshall and Warne. This exercise also illustrates that Tendulkar also belongs in that group, but in the last CW vote Lara edged him out for the No. 5 spot.

The second point that I have made is that Warne in the ATG team selection perspective, seems to have separated himself from Murali, doesn't mean he is better or that that argument can't continue, it just shows that most just find Warne for various reason a better fit in an ATG team.

Additionally the notion that I hand picked teams to fit any objective is misguided and I included all credible teams I could find and it took time and effort. But since some have an issue with some of the publications cited I decided to get rid of some of the lesser regarded XI's.

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

The team would still read.

Hobbs | Gavaskar | Bradman | Richards | Tendulkar | Sobers | Marshall | Warne | Lillee | Barnes

Finally not "obsessed", thought it was an interesting idea and I wanted to see where it lead and what results it would yield. Nothing more and nothing less.

Also not or ever saying that this team is the best; Imran may be a better fit instead of Lillee (because of his batting and as first change with his reverse swing) and as I have said I would prefer Hutton over Gavaskar, so it's not my team and that's the point. It's a starting point for conversation and a compilation or consensus team that is as good as any and tries to minimize individual biases that some teams inevitably have.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Not all together sure. Went through the thread too see what was said, I made comments based on observations on selections by Journalists, past players and blog sites. Never tried to say anyone should change their minds on who they choose or make anyone believe one player is better than another.

What I have said is that a trend has developed, and even on CW that there are approximately seven players that can be penciled into any ATG XI
Hobbs, Bradman, Richards, Sobers, Gilchrist, Marshall and Warne. This exercise also illustrates that Tendulkar also belongs in that group, but in the last CW vote Lara edged him out for the No. 5 spot.

The second point that I have made is that Warne in the ATG team selection perspective, seems to have separated himself from Murali, doesn't mean he is better or that that argument can't continue, it just shows that most just find Warne for various reason a better fit in an ATG team.

Additionally the notion that I hand picked teams to fit any objective is misguided and I included all credible teams I could find and it took time and effort. But since some have an issue with some of the publications cited I decided to get rid of some of the lesser regarded XI's.

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

The team would still read.

Hobbs | Gavaskar | Bradman | Richards | Tendulkar | Sobers | Marshall | Warne | Lillee | Barnes

Finally not "obsessed", thought it was an interesting idea and I wanted to see where it lead and what results it would yield. Nothing more and nothing less.

Also not or ever saying that this team is the best; Imran may be a better fit instead of Lillee (because of his batting and as first change with his reverse swing) and as I have said I would prefer Hutton over Gavaskar, so it's not my team and that's the point. It's a starting point for conversation and a compilation or consensus team that is as good as any and tries to minimize individual biases that some teams may have.

You are obsessed!

 

[NUFAN]

I think it was slightly flawed allowing DoG and Fred's team to be counted as they are no more of a former player (apart from Fred's Friday nights out on the town) or expert than a number of others on here who have posted their teams. Also, they were already a contributor in the CW team.

One team that I note was overlooked was the Cricinfo public vote, the team that had Dev in it.

Overall though, its kinda cool I guess to have all the teams named in the one spot and the overall team is very good obviously.

 

[kyear2]

Just wanted two teams to make up the 20, DoG would have been used regardless because of his extensive work with his ratings and that insight was why I wanted to use his team. Fred was added as the second used to make up the 20 and because he is as skilled a writer as any online and his articles is a great feature of this great online community.

Regarding the ICC and Cricinfo public votes, they were both garbage and called such by members of this forum and past players and commentators alike and the inspiration for many of the teams slected above.

 

[kyear2]

You are obsessed!

thanks for your contribution.

 

[fredfertang]

An obsession with/passion for the history of cricket might well be very sad indeed, but what would be even sadder would be not being able to indulge it on a cricket forum

 

[Agent Nationaux]

thanks for your contribution.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

An obsession with/passion for the history of cricket might well be very sad indeed, but what would be even sadder would be not being able to indulge it on a cricket forum

This is different. It's not an obsession with the history or passion of the game. It's an obsession with trying to get 20 ATG teams and then picking 1 amongst them and thinking you have discovered something profound.

 

[steve132]

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

I think that it would be a bit unfair to describe Gavaskar as "a fair weather batsman." He was a truly great player who deserves to be ranked among the best of all time. Having said that, he doesn't really belong in an all-time World XI. His greatness has been exaggerated, largely because he scored a lot of runs against the West Indies at a time when they had the most fearsome pace attack in history. Many observers failed to notice that his most successful series against WI (1970-71, 1978-79) occurred when he was NOT facing Roberts, Holding, Marshall and Garner.

Barry Richards, Gavaskar's slightly older contemporary, was unquestionably a greater player - technically at least as sound in defence and much more brilliant in attack. Richards, of course, played very little Test cricket, which is why he is often underrated by those who did not see him. But in the early 1970's he was regarded as the world's best batsman, something that was never true for Gavaskar. That title was held successively by W.G. Grace, Trumper, Hobbs, Hammond, Bradman, Hutton, Sobers, Barry Richards, Viv Richards, Lara and Tendulkar. Most people considered Sobers the world's best during the 1960's. He had his last great series in 1970-71, the same season in which Barry Richards produced a series of breathtaking innings in Sheffield Shield cricket. After that Richards was generally acknowledged as the world's best until his namesake Viv began his great run in 1976. You will find many journalists and players stating that Hutton was the world's best batsman after Bradman's retirement, and the same would be true of Barry Richards in the first half of the 1970's. There were few such claims made for Gavaskar at any stage during his career.

 

[kyear2]

Excellent post!!

 

[Red]

This is different. It's not an obsession with the history or passion of the game. It's an obsession with trying to get 20 ATG teams and then picking 1 amongst them and thinking you have discovered something profound.

I really can't understand why you're being such a jerk about this. What's the big deal?

 

[OverratedSanity]

This is different. It's not an obsession with the history or passion of the game. It's an obsession with trying to get 20 ATG teams and then picking 1 amongst them and thinking you have discovered something profound.

He's just taking a consensus of all the ATG teams picked by prominent experts. It doesn't settle any debates but it gives a good idea of which players generally make the cut in such teams. It's a fair enough exercise although it's not going to change any one person's list

 

[watson]

I think that it would be a bit unfair to describe Gavaskar as "a fair weather batsman." He was a truly great player who deserves to be ranked among the best of all time. Having said that, he doesn't really belong in an all-time World XI. His greatness has been exaggerated, largely because he scored a lot of runs against the West Indies at a time when they had the most fearsome pace attack in history. Many observers failed to notice that his most successful series against WI (1970-71, 1978-79) occurred when he was NOT facing Roberts, Holding, Marshall and Garner.

Barry Richards, Gavaskar's slightly older contemporary, was unquestionably a greater player - technically at least as sound in defence and much more brilliant in attack. Richards, of course, played very little Test cricket, which is why he is often underrated by those who did not see him. But in the early 1970's he was regarded as the world's best batsman, something that was never true for Gavaskar. That title was held successively by W.G. Grace, Trumper, Hobbs, Hammond, Bradman, Hutton, Sobers, Barry Richards, Viv Richards, Lara and Tendulkar. Most people considered Sobers the world's best during the 1960's. He had his last great series in 1970-71, the same season in which Barry Richards produced a series of breathtaking innings in Sheffield Shield cricket. After that Richards was generally acknowledged as the world's best until his namesake Viv began his great run in 1976. You will find many journalists and players stating that Hutton was the world's best batsman after Bradman's retirement, and the same would be true of Barry Richards in the first half of the 1970's. There were few such claims made for Gavaskar at any stage during his career.

Gavaskar V Holding + Roberts 1976-1983
Tests = 9
Runs = 690
Ave = 53.07
100s = 3
HS = 236

Gavaskar V Marshall + Holding 1983
Tests = 11
Runs = 745
Ave = 41.38
100s =3
HS = 236

Gavaskar in the West Indies 1976 -1983
Tests = 9
Runs = 630
Ave = 42.00
100s = 3
HS = 156

Gavaskar did score a lot of runs against the easier West Indian attacks of the early 70s. However, IMO he still did enough between 1976 and 1983 to prove his greatness as an opening batsman, and therefore be bracketed with the likes of Hutton, or maybe Hobbs.

 

[steve132]

Watson: There's no doubt that Gavaskar was a great player. In fact, the second sentence of my original post reads " He was a truly great player who deserves to be ranked among the best of all time." I just believe that Hutton and Barry Richards have stronger claims for inclusion in an all time World XI. The comparison with Richards is especially revealing, because they were fairly close contemporaries. Virtually everyone who saw them both in action regarded Richards as the greater batsman.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah no one's saying Gavaskar isn't a great player... I'm indian for god's sake, he's rightly hailed as a legend. But honestly, Hobbs and Hutton most definitely were greater if you ask me. Barry Richards is an arguable one.