What is your ALL TIME WORLD XI TEAM for tests?

[watson]

Back to the topic:

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

12th Man Sir Richard Hadlee

Glad that you included Greg Chappell as that makes a nice change, and is perfectly justified IMO.

 

[kyear2]

Back to the topic:

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

12th Man Sir Richard Hadlee

Pretty identical to the team I have been thinking of recently.

 

[harsh.ag]

Found this from last year. Can't believe I wrote this

Sir Jack and Len to open
as true champions of yore
they faced the two great wars
and are legends of folklore


Both await on the Don
at three lies a century
it is said he is a myth
from beyond the boundary


Unleashing hell at four
Sir Viv does saunter proud
attack him at your peril
he hooks straight into crowds


At five is the prodigy
who got a nation high
with a hundred cracking hundreds
Sachin did once make Warnie cry


At six is a bag of tricks
as only Sir Garry can define
he once hit six straight sixes
then bowled three kinds of rhyme


And Adam at seven (who plunders)
to keep the guard behind
as the gentle giant unfurling
the modern twirly mime


The playboy in at eight
who leads with a hint of reverse
the minstrels pen on Imran
a thousand glorious verse


At nine, there is the heart
they said was open much
not a place exists in the land
Malcolm's terror hasn't touched


The golden boy at ten
with a belly and a devil smile
he will twirl it with a heave
far beyond a mile


To end the line is McG
the corridor of death
his tweaks and tricks were always
the source of Ashes wealth


These are the champions who make
the final eleven of ours
as CW pays homage
to the greats of all hours.

 

[Dawood Ahmad]

Since new developments have been made the last two decades, a team devoid of the legends of this era should be regarded as costless and worthless. Along with the progression of time every field in this world has gotten better and more advanced. There is no doubt that the players of the mighty Australian team should be considered among the greatests of all time.

 

[viriya]

Here goes:

Sunil Gavaskar
Matthew Hayden
Don Bradman
Sachin Tendulkar
Viv Richards
Kumar Sangakkara+
Imran Khan*
Shane Warne
Muttiah Muralidaran
Sydney Barnes
Glenn McGrath

12th man: Malcolm Marshall

Imran to captain, Sanga to keep again (I know he did worse when he kept, but that's mostly because he wasn't the batsman he became then).
I picked Imran over Sobers because it wouldn't make sense for Sobers to come that late in the batting order and the team already has great spin and medium pace options. Imran was fast and fills the all-rounder role well.

 

[kyear2]

Here goes:

Sunil Gavaskar
Matthew Hayden
Don Bradman
Sachin Tendulkar
Viv Richards
Kumar Sangakkara+
Imran Khan*
Shane Warne
Muttiah Muralidaran
Sydney Barnes
Glenn McGrath

12th man: Malcolm Marshall

Imran to captain, Sanga to keep again (I know he did worse when he kept, but that's mostly because he wasn't the batsman he became then).
I picked Imran over Sobers because it wouldn't make sense for Sobers to come that late in the batting order and the team already has great spin and medium pace options. Imran was fast and fills the all-rounder role well.

That's an interesting team.

 

[kyear2]

These teams are always fun and while hardly any two teams will be the same, 90% of them ( from historians, journalists, former players and posters on CW etc) share the same core of players.
Hobbs, Bradman, Sobers, Warne, Marshall followed by Gilchrist, Richards and Tendulkar. The remaining spots are always the most interesting and surprising selections and what makes each teams unique.

Must also add that Imran and Hadlee are also popular picks on CW but less so in other forums. Akram and Lillee are the opposite, less popular on CW but both, especially Akram of late being highly rated by journalists and past players alike.

 

[Red]

I think with Akram, it's the left arm variety and the old ball ability that people admire. I know I do. To be honest, I'd include him if I had to select a really balanced team to win a match.

 

[viriya]

These teams are always fun and while hardly any two teams will be the same, 90% of them ( from historians, journalists, former players and posters on CW etc) share the same core of players.
Hobbs, Bradman, Sobers, Warne, Marshall followed by Gilchrist, Richards and Tendulkar. The remaining spots are always the most interesting and surprising selections and what makes each teams unique.

I fail to see why Warne is an obvious pick over Murali as the first choice in an All-Time XI. If you have no objection over Murali's action, it's hard to give an objective reason why Warne is better. I feel like most England supporters' opinions are colored by Warne dominating the Ashes for years - but if you look at the stats, Murali has a better record vs England - he just didn't get to play them as much as Warne for obvious reasons.

Warne also has a much worse record vs India, and never had to bowl vs the best batting line-up of all-time (his own team). The tired arguments against Murali is that he got cheap wickets vs Zim and Ban, but the 90s-early 2000s Zim team was not that different from the 90s England team, they had one great batsman (Andy Flower) and a couple of other decent batsmen. Even when you remove those tests from his record (which is unfair on Murali since he doesn't get to choose who he plays), Murali still has a better average than Warne.

Also - there has never been a bigger Test match-winner than Murali. Sri Lanka went from winning 46% of their matches in the 2000s, to 23% this decade. No one in the history of Test cricket has made that much impact individually afaik. During a 50 test match period from 2001-07, Murali averaged 7.5 wickets/match. If you equate a wicket to be 20 runs (as is the average historically), that's 150 runs per match. Don Bradman averaged 140 runs per match. Murali had a 50 match span where he outdid Bradman as a bowler - unprecendented.

I feel like all these reasons make it not an obvious choice to pick Warne over Murali. Yes, the ball of the century was great, but it was just one ball. Warne is just too much myth - even though he still is the greatest leg-spinner of all-time. Murali has made much more of an impact on the game. Just look at all the off-spinners in world cricket now: Ajmal, Narine, Ashwin, Senanayake - all no doubt influenced by Murali.

To be clear, I'm not saying Murali is way better than Warne, but I think it's disingenuous to say Warne is the obvious choice for an All-Time XI. Warne is far from an obvious choice if you're going for a sole spinner.

IMO they both should be included in the team - great spinners make much more of an impact in a test match than fast bowlers (they have a higher wkts/match with a slightly higher average).

 

[Spark]

I fail to see why Warne is an obvious pick over Murali as the first choice in an All-Time XI. If you have no objection over Murali's action, it's hard to give an objective reason why Warne is better. I feel like most England supporters' opinions are colored by Warne dominating the Ashes for years - but if you look at the stats, Murali has a better record vs England - he just didn't get to play them as much as Warne for obvious reasons.

Warne also has a much worse record vs India, and never had to bowl vs the best batting line-up of all-time (his own team). The tired arguments against Murali is that he got cheap wickets vs Zim and Ban, but the 90s-early 2000s Zim team was not that different from the 90s England team, they had one great batsman (Andy Flower) and a couple of other decent batsmen. Even when you remove those tests from his record (which is unfair on Murali since he doesn't get to choose who he plays), Murali still has a better average than Warne.

Also - there has never been a bigger Test match-winner than Murali. Sri Lanka went from winning 46% of their matches in the 2000s, to 23% this decade. No one in the history of Test cricket has made that much impact individually afaik. During a 50 test match period from 2001-07, Murali averaged 7.5 wickets/match. If you equate a wicket to be 20 runs (as is the average historically), that's 150 runs per match. Don Bradman averaged 140 runs a match. Murali had a 50 match span where he outdid Bradman (50 tests) as a bowler - unprecendented.

I feel like all these reasons make it not an obvious choice to pick Warne over Murali. Yes, the ball of the century was great, but it was just one ball. Warne is just too much myth - even though he still is the greatest leg-spinner of all-time. Murali has made much more of an impact on the game. Just look at all the off-spinners in world cricket now: Ajmal, Narine, Ashwin, Senanayake - all no doubt influenced by Murali.

To be clear, I'm not saying Murali is way better than Warne, but I think it's disingenuous to say Warne is the obvious choice for an All-time XI. Warne is far from an obvious choice if you're going for a sole spinner.

IMO they both should be included in the team - great spinners make much more of an impact in a test match than fast bowlers (they have a higher wkts/match with a slightly higher average).

I like this post but that last point baffles me. The reason spinners have a higher wickets/match at a higher average is pretty obvious (to the point of tautology): they bowl more overs. Given that on most non-subcontinental decks, playing two spinners never actually means that you have twice as many overs of spin, I don't see how you can use this point to argue that two spinners would make your team more effective compared to the extra quick. That's not to say you can't make a good argument for playing two spinners given the quality of your pace-bowling all-rounder (though I wouldn't personally), but this just seems irrelevant to me.

 

[Red]

I like the idea of including both Warne and Murali. I hold Murali's action against him tbh, but I think he is a great bloke and a great match-winning bowler.

Part of the reason to include Warne for mine is reward (I know he wouldn't really care about my opinion ) for greatness. Leg spin is the hardest skill in cricket, and he was a complete master of the craft. Off spin is much easier to bowl.

I do also factor in the fact that Murali was a complete bunny and a pretty bad fieldsman. Warne could play some very significant innings at times, particularly the sort of rearguard ones he played against England in '05, against a pretty decent bowling attack.

 

[Red]

I like this post but that last point baffles me. The reason spinners have a higher wickets/match at a higher average is pretty obvious (to the point of tautology): they bowl more overs. Given that on most non-subcontinental decks, playing two spinners never actually means that you have twice as many overs of spin, I don't see how you can use this point to argue that two spinners would make your team more effective compared to the extra quick. That's not to say you can't make a good argument for playing two spinners given the quality of your pace-bowling all-rounder (though I wouldn't personally), but this just seems irrelevant to me.

This is true. Particularly in modern cricket. It's very rare for a team to play two spinners, even when they are both excellent. As seen with Warne and MacGill.

Here's a question....if Murali was Australian and if the Australian team could've selected Murali and Warne during their period of dominance, would they have played both in the same time regularly?

 

[viriya]

I like this post but that last point baffles me. The reason spinners have a higher wickets/match at a higher average is pretty obvious (to the point of tautology): they bowl more overs. Given that on most non-subcontinental decks, playing two spinners never actually means that you have twice as many overs of spin, I don't see how you can use this point to argue that two spinners would make your team more effective compared to the extra quick. That's not to say you can't make a good argument for playing two spinners given the quality of your pace-bowling all-rounder (though I wouldn't personally), but this just seems irrelevant to me.

What I mean is spinners can bowl more overs, and great spinners have comparable strike rates to great fast bowlers. Shane Warne has a strike rate just 5 balls higher that McGrath, but he can bowl way more overs before tiring. I would argue that if you have a great spinner on your side, he would be effective even in non-subcontinental conditions, so in general they can have more of an impact in a match.

Would you rather have a bowler who gets one more wicket per match for you but gives away 25 more runs, or save the 25 runs and lose the wicket? I would think in a Test match since wickets are paramount, the more successful wicket-taker would get the nod.

 

[viriya]

This is true. Particularly in modern cricket. It's very rare for a team to play two spinners, even when they are both excellent. As seen with Warne and MacGill.

Here's a question....if Murali was Australian and if the Australian team could've selected Murali and Warne during their period of dominance, would they have played both in the same time regularly?

I think yes, because Murali and Warne were exceptions. They could both win you the match on their own. MacGill even though he was a great leg-spinner, wouldn't bring the variety or the potency Murali brings.

 

[Red]

Do you think in modern cricket in order to play 2 spinners you need a viable allrounder, like Flintoff or even Watson?

 

[viriya]

I like the idea of including both Warne and Murali. I hold Murali's action against him tbh, but I think he is a great bloke and a great match-winning bowler.

Part of the reason to include Warne for mine is reward (I know he wouldn't really care about my opinion ) for greatness. Leg spin is the hardest skill in cricket, and he was a complete master of the craft. Off spin is much easier to bowl.

I do also factor in the fact that Murali was a complete bunny and a pretty bad fieldsman. Warne could play some very significant innings at times, particularly the sort of rearguard ones he played against England in '05, against a pretty decent bowling attack.

If you have a problem with Murali's action, you would have trouble with the direction spin-bowling in the world is going. I realize his action looks dodgy at first sight, but there was never a wrist-spinning off-spinner before him, and he could almost dislocate his shoulder during his action. Both the flex in his shoulder and wrist gave the illusion that he was bending his elbow more than he actually was.

Leg-spin is traditionally known to be the hardest skill yes, but wrist-spinning off-spin didn't even exist before Murali - so i'm not sure that's a great argument.

Warne was definitely a better batsman than Murali, but I don't really see the point of picking a bowler because he averaged 6 runs more an innings in an all-time XI, Surely you don't need to help out the batting line-up? You expect that batting line-up to do its job. You would have to pick Warne as an all-rounder then, which is not an obvious choice.

I don't agree that Murali was a bad fielder - he was actually a great ground fielder and safe catcher - he never was a slip fielder like Warne was, I imagine that's why you rate his fielding to be significantly better. Warne was good but he was no Jonty.

 

[viriya]

Do you think in modern cricket in order to play 2 spinners you need a viable allrounder, like Flintoff or even Watson?

The only reason you would bowl 2 spinners is if it's helpful conditions I think. If not, the only reason would be if you have 2 great spinners which is extremely rare. I think that only happened with Grimmett and O'Reilly in the history of cricket (I don't think Warne-MacGill or Bedi-Chandrasekhar compare).

 

[kyear2]

I fail to see why Warne is an obvious pick over Murali as the first choice in an All-Time XI. If you have no objection over Murali's action, it's hard to give an objective reason why Warne is better. I feel like most England supporters' opinions are colored by Warne dominating the Ashes for years - but if you look at the stats, Murali has a better record vs England - he just didn't get to play them as much as Warne for obvious reasons.

Warne also has a much worse record vs India, and never had to bowl vs the best batting line-up of all-time (his own team). The tired arguments against Murali is that he got cheap wickets vs Zim and Ban, but the 90s-early 2000s Zim team was not that different from the 90s England team, they had one great batsman (Andy Flower) and a couple of other decent batsmen. Even when you remove those tests from his record (which is unfair on Murali since he doesn't get to choose who he plays), Murali still has a better average than Warne.

Also - there has never been a bigger Test match-winner than Murali. Sri Lanka went from winning 46% of their matches in the 2000s, to 23% this decade. No one in the history of Test cricket has made that much impact individually afaik. During a 50 test match period from 2001-07, Murali averaged 7.5 wickets/match. If you equate a wicket to be 20 runs (as is the average historically), that's 150 runs per match. Don Bradman averaged 140 runs per match. Murali had a 50 match span where he outdid Bradman as a bowler - unprecendented.

I feel like all these reasons make it not an obvious choice to pick Warne over Murali. Yes, the ball of the century was great, but it was just one ball. Warne is just too much myth - even though he still is the greatest leg-spinner of all-time. Murali has made much more of an impact on the game. Just look at all the off-spinners in world cricket now: Ajmal, Narine, Ashwin, Senanayake - all no doubt influenced by Murali.

To be clear, I'm not saying Murali is way better than Warne, but I think it's disingenuous to say Warne is the obvious choice for an All-Time XI. Warne is far from an obvious choice if you're going for a sole spinner.

IMO they both should be included in the team - great spinners make much more of an impact in a test match than fast bowlers (they have a higher wkts/match with a slightly higher average).

Love your post and I have made a similar argument of late that for a spinner in the modern era and for statistical domination that Murali is for me on par with or not too far below the Don. His WPM and 5 wickets hauls are ridiculous and his average strike rate and percentage of top order wickets are all superior to Warne's. Of course he was aided by being a lone wolf and having the opportunity for more wickets and top order wickets. Another counter arguments is that he also feasted on the minnows and had his home pitches tailored for him. Of greater consequence is that many believe that Warne had an equal or greater impact on the game and match winning efforts and was also the better bat and a great slip fielder which evens the field for some.
Warne for primarily the last two reasons mentioned used to be an automatic pick for me, but as I mentioned either in this thread or another one, Murali and Warne are now near impossible to separate but replacing Warne would also call for further changes especially in the middle order for the team.

Letg me also clarify that my previous post wasn't my opinion but a fact based on hours of research and searching for ATG teams listed online and in books. It is a shame though that Murali is seen to be so far behind Warne though as as I have come to appreciate, he clearly isn't.

 

[kyear2]

I think with Akram, it's the left arm variety and the old ball ability that people admire. I know I do. To be honest, I'd include him if I had to select a really balanced team to win a match.

Him and Barry Richards. Just too much natural and match winning ability. For an All Time great XI based purely on performance and test cricket though, not so much. For a cricket XI covering all the formats (test, odi and FC) both should make it.

I like this post but that last point baffles me. The reason spinners have a higher wickets/match at a higher average is pretty obvious (to the point of tautology): they bowl more overs. Given that on most non-subcontinental decks, playing two spinners never actually means that you have twice as many overs of spin, I don't see how you can use this point to argue that two spinners would make your team more effective compared to the extra quick. That's not to say you can't make a good argument for playing two spinners given the quality of your pace-bowling all-rounder (though I wouldn't personally), but this just seems irrelevant to me.

For all of their records and brilliance, for me neither are the best bowler in history as both have holes in their records and both, again for me, are behind at least a few (3) quicks. Spinners do have more wpm, but on average they do bowl more and have higher averages and s/r and having great fast bowlers have been the primary factor for ATG teams and that great W.I team proved you could win without them. Of course of having one of the three top tier spinners who have played this great game would only make any team better and an ideal foil for the quicks. After those three it is murkier.

 

[smash84]

Murali has made much more of an impact on the game. Just look at all the off-spinners in world cricket now: Ajmal, Narine, Ashwin, Senanayake - all no doubt influenced by Murali.

I liked your post and thought it was pretty good in all aspects except the part above. At least for Ajmal, Saqlain would have been the inspiration. The bowling action, the variety, the doosras were what Saqlain first brought to the table. He made off spin bowling "***eh"