Third Name Listed for ATG XI

[watson]

Excellent summary. Gilchrist is probably the consensus choice, although according to the Richard Sydenham book that Watson discussed in the "best ever" thread, many prefer Knott. Gilchrist cannot, however, by any stretch of the imagination be described as an automatic choice comparable to those of Bradman or Sobers.

That's right. Knott's contemporaries often refer to him as genius, and the best keeper of their era. And Knott had lots of excellent competition too, like Wasim Bari, Bob Taylor, and Rod Marsh;

Geoff Boycott: Alan Knott was a genius - ask Ian Chappell, who always rated him very highly. He hardly ever missed anything, and he made runs at the times when they were most needed. It gave our bowlers confidence to know they had such a magician behind the stumps.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cr...his-all-time-England-and-Australia-teams.html

 

[kyear2]

That's right. Knott's contemporaries often refer to him as genius, and the best keeper of their era. And Knott had lots of excellent competition too, like Wasim Bari, Bob Taylor, and Rod Marsh;

He too was also no mug with the bat and the fact that he was the better keeper (and he was, and it's no disrespect to Gilchrist's game to suggest that he was) and no liability in front of the stumps and especially with the batting in front of him it;s no stretch to suggest that Knott would be a viable pick for many (as with Wisden's recent selection) though admittedly still in the minority.

Similarly with regard to Imran, with Gilchrist (or even Knott) presumably at 7 and with Marshall and Warne expected to be in the playing 11, many selectors would feel comfortable in the lower order strength of the batting line up to simply go with who they presume would simply make up the best attack as was demonstrated with both the Wisden and Cricinfo selections.

I must point out that both gentlemen make my final XI, Gilchrist, because I believe that his keeping to Warne was more than acceptable and Imran because of his skill with the older ball and I believe that in an ATG XI and being expected to perform everywhere that a bowler from the Sub Continent should be selected and I am not as high as others on Akram. Akram though seems to be the more widely preferred option of the two by most (former players, jounalist ect).

 

[the big bambino]

Yet I can remember talk at the time that Taylor a better keeper than Knott. So they had the same argument back then we are having now. Its hard to argue Knott the best of all time when his batting got him ahead of Taylor and then prefer him to Gilchrist on keeping skills alone.

 

[steve132]

Yet I can remember talk at the time that Taylor a better keeper than Knott. So they had the same argument back then we are having now. Its hard to argue Knott the best of all time when his batting got him ahead of Taylor and then prefer him to Gilchrist on keeping skills alone.

There were certainly some observers who rated Taylor as a more consistently excellent performer than Knott behind the stumps, but I'm not sure that this was ever the consensus view. Personally I admired both men very much indeed. In fact, they remain the two best wicketkeepers I have ever seen.

Most people would want the best balance between wicketkeeping and batting ability when choosing a keeper for an all-time World XI, although views will differ about where that balance should be set. There is nothing inconsistent about preferring Knott to Taylor because of his batting while at the same time preferring Knott over Gilchrist because he was a better keeper pure and simple. I would make the same argument for Gilchrist over Clyde Walcott (who was a better batsman) and Taylor, who was a better wicketkeeper. For what it's worth I have Gilly in my all-time world XI, but I can certainly understand the views of those who prefer Knott.

 

[the big bambino]

Hard to take the Walcott example as he played only 15 tests as keeper and isn't recalled as one. Whereas if you prefer Knott over Taylor you are placing a premium on run scoring when the keeping standards are close which is understandable and a common policy throughout cricket.

 

[kyear2]

My analysis is much simpler. In Imran you get a bowler who is in the same ball park as Marshall and a much better bat. A real fighter with great leadership qualities and that never say die attitude. I find it difficult to find others who bring so much to the side. So Imran it is for me.

I think it has to do with Imran's legacy. He lead Pakistan for a 10 year period which is unheard of in Pakistan add to that the fact that captaining Pak is seen as one of the toughest jobs in world cricket and you see Imran being remembered more as a captain. Secondly in the last 2 - 3 years of his career he was playing pretty much as a pure batsman in the side which also makes it easy to forget just how ridiculously good he was as a bowler. These factors do play a huge part in relegating his bowling to the back burner (which actually is his strongest suit). I also think that Wasim gets extra points for being arguably the greatest ODI bowler (which shouldn't be the case in him being evaluated as a test bowler but a lot of people lose the distinction). Even Ian Chappell commenting on Wasim's inclusion in the cricinfo ATXI when asked about Wasim pointed to Wasim's deliveries to Allan Lamb and Chris Lewis in the 1992 world cup final. Additionally Wasim could probably bowl magical deliveries like no other. I wouldn't be surprised if Wasim was the most watched bowler on youtube because of some of the most ridiculously outstanding deliveries bowled by any bowler. Perhaps the fact that Wasim was so skillful with the ball hides the fact that for all the ***y swing he didn't really get wickets a lot of times. In fact Wasim might be the bowler about whom you would see most often "Oh now how did that miss the stumps, and the keeper" and stuff like that.

These are the main reasons I feel that lead people to choose Wasim a lot of times in an ATXI and to forgo Imran.

I must disagree and argue that Imran is not in the same ball park as Marshall. When one is picking an ATG side, it is assumed that they will be playing all over the world, particularly In Australia, England, South Africa, the West Indies, India ect.

The only countries that Imran Khan averaged below 24 was Pakistan and the then minnow Sri Lanka. In Australia he averaged 28 with a strike rate of 67, In England his avg was 24 and s/r 62, playing in India he averaged 28 and struck every 61 deliveries. Versus the W.I in the Caribbean he performed much better averaging 25 with a s/r of 45, and that was partially due to the way they went after bowlers.

Away from Pakistan he averaged 25.76 with a strike rate of almost 60 and that was partially aided by a handful of games vs Sri Lanka where he averaged 18 while taking his wickets every 46.4 deliveries.

This is not to say that Imran wasn't a great or even ATG bowler, he just isn't a lock to be among the top 3 or even 6 bowlers to be included in an ATG team based purely at what would be his primary function on the team and that would be as one of the three main fast bowlers and that is probably the reason why he isn't selected as much for these teams.
It was mentioned earlier in the thread that Imran probably makes about 80% of these types of teams, but from the 13 credible and 20 overall teams I painstakingly collected in the "Best Ever" thread (an exercise derided by Agent, Pews and others I acknowledge) he was selected to 5 and 7 of them respectively. It's apparently really only on CW where he is rated as highly and that's likely because they are many who are as compelled by bowling all rounders as I am by great slip fielders.

 

[kyear2]

A few weeks back I had emailed a well known and respected cricket writer and historian (don't want to mention his name as I didn't ask his permission to post his response) when I was collecting teams for the ATG XI's from past players thread and asked what he was. I only read his response today but he replied that he has never done one as it was a difficult task (across era etc) but went on further to say "But I guess I would regard the following as non-negotiable: Bradman, Hobbs, Sobers, Warne, Marshall and possibly Tendulkar now too"

More or less the same list as above. Really difficult to argue against those names.

The writer referenced above, Gideon Haigh, on subsequent emails also questioned some of my current ATG XI team selections, namely Barry Richards and Syd Barnes. Richards short comings would be obvious to most, and Barnes criticism went along a similar vein, also paired with the fact that he played in the leagues rather than true first class cricket. Legitimate arguments both, and further validation that for some of these spots there is no right or wrong answer.

Finally, watching the S.A vs India match today, there was a graphic showing most 5 wicket hauls and of course Murali was at the top of the list and his 67 (paired to his 800 wickets) just seem as untouchable and legendary as 99.94 and illustrates why Warne probably only got 1 vote (L.Trumper voted for everyone) in the pole in the thread. They are of course factors that contribute to Murali being that high above Warne and everyone else for that matter, but it is astounding to look at.
For me personally to remove Warne from my XI for Murali would lead to further changes (eg Tendulkar making way for Lara or Chappell or Hutton officially making way for Richards) to shore up my cordon, (no use having the greatest bowlers and not being assured of taking the edges) but Murali does deserve more of a mention when these teams are discussed.
It also seems to suggest, as Ankit advocates, that more than cricket is factored in by all of the publications that unanimously include Warne, unless they are using the same criteria that I am. Of course I could just be wrong and persons just overwhelmingly believe Warne to be the better bowler and cricketer, after all Kallis has similar overwhelmingly better numbers than Viv, yet Viv is similarly acclaimed and seen as the better player. I guess that sometimes it just comes down to watching them play and deciding.
Just thinking aloud.

 

[fredfertang]

Can you tell us any more about his (clearly misguided) views on Barry Richards?

 

[kyear2]

Can you tell us any more about his (clearly misguided) views on Barry Richards?

He actually said nothing bad about him.

"That's a very good team, Kirk. B Richards was certainly one of the best of my time, but I think he's too difficult to assess - he played most of his career at below his capacity that he don't know whether he could have sustained a peak of proficiency in the same way as the others in your team. Likewise Syd Barnes who spent a lot of his career playing in the Lancashire Leagues."

 

[the big bambino]

Warne isn't a lock for me Barnes is.

 

[fredfertang]

He actually said nothing bad about him.

"That's a very good team, Kirk. B Richards was certainly one of the best of my time, but I think he's too difficult to assess - he played most of his career at below his capacity that he don't know whether he could have sustained a peak of proficiency in the same way as the others in your team. Likewise Syd Barnes who spent a lot of his career playing in the Lancashire Leagues."

An objective and understandable display of caution I suppose - perhaps I saw him more bat often, or maybe I look at him through the rosiest of rose-tinted spectacles but for me Richards was one of the very best, and I shall be waxing lyrical about him in a feature that is due up on the front page in a week or so

 

[Red]

Get Gideon Haigh posting in here. That'd be something. Invite him kyear.

 

[subshakerz]

I must disagree and argue that Imran is not in the same ball park as Marshall. When one is picking an ATG side, it is assumed that they will be playing all over the world, particularly In Australia, England, South Africa, the West Indies, India ect.

The only countries that Imran Khan averaged below 24 was Pakistan and the then minnow Sri Lanka. In Australia he averaged 28 with a strike rate of 67, In England his avg was 24 and s/r 62, playing in India he averaged 28 and struck every 61 deliveries. Versus the W.I in the Caribbean he performed much better averaging 25 with a s/r of 45, and that was partially due to the way they went after bowlers.

Away from Pakistan he averaged 25.76 with a strike rate of almost 60 and that was partially aided by a handful of games vs Sri Lanka where he averaged 18 while taking his wickets every 46.4 deliveries.

This is not to say that Imran wasn't a great or even ATG bowler, he just isn't a lock to be among the top 3 or even 6 bowlers to be included in an ATG team based purely at what would be his primary function on the team and that would be as one of the three main fast bowlers and that is probably the reason why he isn't selected as much for these teams.
It was mentioned earlier in the thread that Imran probably makes about 80% of these types of teams, but from the 13 credible and 20 overall teams I painstakingly collected in the "Best Ever" thread (an exercise derided by Agent, Pews and others I acknowledge) he was selected to 5 and 7 of them respectively. It's apparently really only on CW where he is rated as highly and that's likely because they are many who are as compelled by bowling all rounders as I am by great slip fielders.

I do feel Imran belongs in the same bracket as Marshall and Hadlee, perhaps just slightly below. If you take the period of his when he was a full-time bowler (1976-1988, before which he was not much of a batsman or bowler, and after which he only played on due to his batting) his figures are better, especially in England. (All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo) And I am not aware of any other away major pace bowler who has done as well as he has in WI. Also, let's not forget that he achieved the highest ranking of any post-war bowler at his peak in 1983. (Reliance ICC Player Rankings)

 

[watson]

Warne isn't a lock for me Barnes is.

As the spinner or the first~change?

 

[the big bambino]

Whatever he wants to be.

 

[kyear2]

To me he was at his best in Australia when he opened the bowling with fast medium. So for me he would probably open the bowling.

 

[watson]

To me he was at his best in Australia when he opened the bowling with fast medium. So for me he would probably open the bowling.

Fair enough. Although there will be plenty with the opinion that Barnes is even too slow to be the first-change bowler, let alone the new-ball bowler. For me it depends on who the openers are. If they happen to be Morris, Hayden, or Gooch for example, then I wouldn't hesitate opening the attack with Barnes.

 

[the big bambino]

In all seriousness kyear is right. When Barnes summoned his best it was moving the ball in the air and off the seam at fast medium. You'd open with faster bowlers if you were prepared to weather the abuse he'd bring down upon you.

 

[watson]

In all seriousness kyear is right. When Barnes summoned his best it was moving the ball in the air and off the seam at fast medium. You'd open with faster bowlers if you were prepared to weather the abuse he'd bring down upon you.

When I hear 'fast-medium' I think of bowlers like Mike Hendrik and Peter Siddle - so I have a minor problem defining Barnes' bowling as fast-medium.

 

[the big bambino]

Well the keep stood up to him but the slips look deep.