What is your ALL TIME WORLD XI TEAM for tests?

[Spark]

Logic =/= your own personal opinions, especially when you discount evidence which counteracts your argument

 

[kyear2]

I actually also searched Sobers playing against Miller and Lindwall. It turns out that he only played a total of 4 matches against Miller and Lindwall right at the beginning of his career.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

As usual u are making this just about Sobers. I made reference to 3 other batsmen. But as usual you have your reasons.

 

[kyear2]

I recommend Smali reads up on Sobers and the fact he was the first modern traveling professional cricketer. He was 8 noted to play first class cricket in England and Australia as a front line batsman and bowler. Sobers destroyed his body with overuse without the benefit of modern training and conditioning. Smali ' s only objective in this thread is to tear down Sobers in his never ending quest to prove Imran was the best all rounder and second best overall player in cricket history.

To state that Bradman faced better attacks and more varied conditions that any of the 4 or 5 aforementioned batsmen is disingenuous. One good team, which was gutted the second half of your career and three minnows does not great opposition make.
To the poster who mentioned take out body line I say that is the closest he ever came to facing a modern attack. Weekes is lampooned for his record vs Australia vs Lindwall and Miller but that too was against a body line attack and vs much better bowlers. Body line was nothing compared to what the West Indies faced in 76 against Lillee and Thomson. Body line was the only thing that gave the quicks a chance considering the lbw rules etc. Then there was Hinds comments about that is a hell of a way to start a test series.

Again I am in no way stating that Bradman wasn't the best batsman ever. But was he twice as good as Viv or Sachin? No he wasn't. There is no way to reconcile the differing level of competition and rules and variance of conditions and schedules.

 

[akilana]

After reading kyear2's arguments in favour of Sobers, I'm more convinced Kallis was a better player than Sobers. Better fielders and bowlers, varied conditions, 3 different formats to adapt to, played staggering number of tests and maintaining an average in mid 50s.


If Bradman had it easier than Sobers then Sobers had it easier than Kallis.

 

[kyear2]

Why is everyone making this about Sobers, I named at least 4 batsmen. But everyone seems to have their agenda.

Sobers (and Lara, Ponting, Tendulkar, Richards) are all seen as above Kallis, not because of stats but because Kallis has a career strike rate of 45 and was seen as a batsman who played for himself and his stats and sometime irrespective of the game situation. He hardly took over a game or an attack the ways the others did and thats not only my opinion.
Bowling wise, he wasn't as integral to his teams fortunes or as heavily relied upon as Sobers was by his.

Additionally don't know what conditions Kallis faced or countries played in that Sobers didn't besides South Africa and we all know the reason for that one. Sobers also played quite a bit of List A cricket and played a hell of a lot of county cricket as well on three continents as a frontline batsman and bowler.

The sad thing is that I am not even remotely trying to challenge Braman's position as the greatest batsman ever, but the South African and Pakistani is trying to knock Sobers down.

Expect the attacks to start on Marshall next to be honest, and all because I dare suggest that Bradman wasn't twice as good as everyone else in the history of the game. The only batsmen that Bradman may have been better than are the ones he would have played with on his team and shared the exact conditions and opposition.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Amazing how defensive you're getting about this.

All people are doing was apply the same logic you applied to Sobers v Bradman to Sobers v Kallis/Sachin/Lara/Ponting. I see nothing wrong with that. They DID face a far more varied opposition, toured more countries, faced far greater bowlers than Sobers did and still averaged what he did. I don't see what's wrong with "making it all about Sobers" since this all began with you pulling down Bradman (or elevating modern batsmen) using the same criteria.

And seriously, accusing others of nationalistic bias is just poor form.

 

[akilana]

ftr, I am a South Asian tamil, not South African

 

[akilana]

Why is everyone making this about Sobers, I named at least 4 batsmen. But everyone seems to have their agenda.

Sobers (and Lara, Ponting, Tendulkar, Richards) are all seen as above Kallis, not because of stats but because Kallis has a career strike rate of 45 and was seen as a batsman who played for himself and his stats and sometime irrespective of the game situation. He hardly took over a game or an attack the ways the others did and thats not only my opinion.
Bowling wise, he wasn't as integral to his teams fortunes or as heavily relied upon as Sobers was by his.

Additionally don't know what conditions Kallis faced or countries played in that Sobers didn't besides South Africa and we all know the reason for that one. Sobers also played quite a bit of List A cricket and played a hell of a lot of county cricket as well on three continents as a frontline batsman and bowler.

The sad thing is that I am not even remotely trying to challenge Braman's position as the greatest batsman ever, but the South African and Pakistani is trying to knock Sobers down.

Expect the attacks to start on Marshall next to be honest, and all because I dare suggest that Bradman wasn't twice as good as everyone else in the history of the game. The only batsmen that Bradman may have been better than are the ones he would have played with on his team and shared the exact conditions and opposition.

Ya Marshall wasn't greatest either. It is McGrath or Lillee or somebody else but definitely not Marshall. He capitalized on some weak batting line ups and always had good bowlers around him to shoulder the responsibility of taking all 20 wickets.

 

[harsh.ag]

Again I am in no way stating that Bradman wasn't the best batsman ever. But was he twice as good as Viv or Sachin? No he wasn't. There is no way to reconcile the differing level of competition and rules and variance of conditions and schedules.

The only batsmen that Bradman may have been better than are the ones he would have played with on his team and shared the exact conditions and opposition.

Okay, given this, what is your opinion of Stan McCabe. Does his record and average of 48 place him far below the batsmen of the 70s and 80s and 90s? Does he, according to you, belong with the guys who averaged in the mid-to-late 30s from these periods?

 

[kyear2]

Ya Marshall wasn't greatest either. It is McGrath or Lillee or somebody else but definitely not Marshall. He capitalized on some weak batting line ups and always had good bowlers around him to shoulder the responsibility of taking all 20 wickets.

Apparently you are just baiting at this point so I will just ignore.

 

[kyear2]

Amazing how defensive you're getting about this.

All people are doing was apply the same logic you applied to Sobers v Bradman to Sobers v Kallis/Sachin/Lara/Ponting. I see nothing wrong with that. They DID face a far more varied opposition, toured more countries, faced far greater bowlers than Sobers did and still averaged what he did. I don't see what's wrong with "making it all about Sobers" since this all began with you pulling down Bradman (or elevating modern batsmen) using the same criteria.

And seriously, accusing others of nationalistic bias is just poor form.

Thing is they did none of those things.

And regarding poor form, Smali attacks Sobers every single time I mention him, look back you will see for yourself. It used to be just the bowling but apparently it has evolved. Akilana just comes on here to quote my posts and argue about them.

In any even will drop the topic. Everyone if free to believe what they want.

 

[smash84]

I recommend Smali reads up on Sobers and the fact he was the first modern traveling professional cricketer. He was 8 noted to play first class cricket in England and Australia as a front line batsman and bowler. Sobers destroyed his body with overuse without the benefit of modern training and conditioning. Smali ' s only objective in this thread is to tear down Sobers in his never ending quest to prove Imran was the best all rounder and second best overall player in cricket history.

WTF.......

The sad thing is that I am not even remotely trying to challenge Braman's position as the greatest batsman ever, but the South African and Pakistani is trying to knock Sobers down.

Expect the attacks to start on Marshall next to be honest, and all because I dare suggest that Bradman wasn't twice as good as everyone else in the history of the game. The only batsmen that Bradman may have been better than are the ones he would have played with on his team and shared the exact conditions and opposition.

, I had a good laugh at the part in bold.

 

[smash84]

And regarding poor form, Smali attacks Sobers every single time I mention him, look back you will see for yourself. It used to be just the bowling but apparently it has evolved. Akilana just comes on here to quote my posts and argue about them.

.

Dude, all I do is apply the same filters to Sobers's record that you apply to everyone else bar your favorites.

 

[Migara]

Tend to agree with th basic concept of kyear2's argument. Bradman if played the modern game would still had been the master blaster. But will never manage to average 99. Somewhere around 70-75 would be my guess. Bradman was the best, but he's not as twice as good as Lara or Tendulkar.

 

[harsh.ag]

Okay, given this, what is your opinion of Stan McCabe. Does his record and average of 48 place him far below the batsmen of the 70s and 80s and 90s? Does he, according to you, belong with the guys who averaged in the mid-to-late 30s from these periods?

Kyear, I really want to know your take on this. Could you try and answer, if only via a message?

 

[kyear2]

Kyear, I really want to know your take on this. Could you try and answer, if only via a message?

No I don't rate McCabe that highly. Thirty nine tests in that era with an average of 48 and after a boost of averaging 84 in tests in S.A. is not that impressive. Additionally there is somewhat of a trend from the era where players averages against England was somewhere in the middle while they averaged the most against South Africa and the least vs the W.I.

Also his first class average fails to impress given how even Headley dominated the first class seasons in England and Australia when he toured.

You asked a question, I answered please don't use it an excuse for a new round of attacks, really ready to end this conversation.

 

[fredfertang]

Stan McCabe was a genius, but a flawed one in the sense that he couldn't, much like Keith Miller a generation later, play at his best against weak opposition or where his team was coasting something which, thanks to Bradman, it often was

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Kyear, you really make yourself an easy target by ass kissing all the WI greats.

 

[Slifer]

Back to the topic:

Hutton
Hobbs
Bradman
G Chappell
Viv
Sobers
Gilchrist+
Imran*
MM
Murali
Mcgrath

12th Man Sir Richard Hadlee

 

[watson]

Okay, given this, what is your opinion of Stan McCabe. Does his record and average of 48 place him far below the batsmen of the 70s and 80s and 90s? Does he, according to you, belong with the guys who averaged in the mid-to-late 30s from these periods?

This is a very clever question. Given McCabe's talent and excellent footwork against both spin and fast bowling I see no obvious reason why he couldn't maintain his average of 48 over 39 Tests or so in a modern setting. Especially as his cavalier temperment would most likely be suited to the Test/ODI mix.

After all, we are not asking or expecting McCabe to maintain an average of 99.94. Maintaining an average of around 40-50 is perfectable achievable for a talented batsman as the margin for error is far less, and the tolerance of low scores far greater.

In order for a batsman to maintain an average of 99.94 then he would need to score regular double centuries to offset the occasional duck (Bradman scored 9 x 200s, and 1 x 300). We are not requiring McCabe to score regular double centuries, 'just' centuries. There is a very big difference between the two.