What is your ALL TIME WORLD XI TEAM for tests?

[Eds]

Therefore, the impact of a keeper during a Test match is measured by;

1. Runs scored by the keeper.
2. Runs NOT scored by opposing batsman that would have otherwise been scored because of the keepers added ability in catching, stumping, and running-out opposing batsman.
3. Byes not conceded by the keeper.

It feels like you've shifted the goalposts here. The original basis for the [supposedly difficult to retort to] argument was that some believe #1 isn't a factor at all. That's how you brought the topic up.

Gilchrist vs Knott is an entirely different debate.

 

[fredfertang]

I don't normally stick my two penn'orth into these arguments, but I'll stick my head above the parapet this time. I think Alan Knott is the greatest wicketkeeper who ever walked on to a cricket field, bar none, but he did have one weakness imo, that being his reluctance to stand up to medium pace bowling. His logic of course was that there was more to be gained from his not missing any catches than by his taking a few that wouldn't carry whilst dropping a few that would have, and of course the occasional stumping. So if I was picking a side to play the very best, I might be more inclined to go for a Godfrey Evans type, who'll stand up when a Bradman walks to the wicket, and might just be more likely to get him before he settles

 

[watson]

Oh, I just can't envisage a situation where I'd ever choose not to select him. I'm happy for people to disagree with that; it's just a simple clash of opinions. What I'm not happy for them to do is supply logical fallacies to support their argument.

No, you took a statement and exaggerated beyond its original intention. No one who follows cricket actually believes that the batting skill of a keeper counts for nothing. They may have thought that in the 1890s, but not now. And least of all me which is why I didn't mention Strudwick, but instead keepers who could bat.

I thought all that fell into the category of the blinding obvious, and so was merely trying to comment that Evan's (for example) added keeping ability might might be equivalent to Gilchrist's added batting ability in the context of winning a Test match.

 

[watson]

I don't normally stick my two penn'orth into these arguments, but I'll stick my head above the parapet this time. I think Alan Knott is the greatest wicketkeeper who ever walked on to a cricket field, bar none, but he did have one weakness imo, that being his reluctance to stand up to medium pace bowling. His logic of course was that there was more to be gained from his not missing any catches than by his taking a few that wouldn't carry whilst dropping a few that would have, and of course the occasional stumping. So if I was picking a side to play the very best, I might be more inclined to go for a Godfrey Evans type, who'll stand up when a Bradman walks to the wicket, and might just be more likely to get him before he settles

The partnership of Knott and Underwood has legendary status and was one of the most effective during the 70s. The point being that Underwood was not particularly slow, and on some days was decidedly medium paced. Consequently, I believe that Knott could have kept to a bowler such as Bedser like Evans quite successfully.

Actually, now that I think of it, I remember watching Knott stand up to the left-armer John Lever in Tests against NZ and Pakistan in the late 70s. Now Lever was quick, and not far off the likes of Mike Whitney as I recall.

 

[fredfertang]

The partnership of Knott and Underwood has legendary status and was one of the most effective during the 70s. The point being that Underwood was not particularly slow, and on some days was decidedly medium paced. Consequently, I believe that Knott could have kept to a bowler such as Bedser like Evans quite successfully.

Actually, now that I think of it, I remember watching Knott stand up to the left-armer John Lever in Tests against NZ and Pakistan in the late 70s. Now Lever was quick, and not far off the likes of Mike Whitney as I recall.

Of course he could have, after all he was the greatest, but he generally didn't - for example I always wanted him to stand up to Geoff Arnold, but he rarely did

 

[watson]

Of course he could have, after all he was the greatest, but he generally didn't - for example I always wanted him to stand up to Geoff Arnold, but he rarely did

Well I guess it's yet another of cricket's what-ifs and frustrations that we'll have to live with Fred.

 

[kyear2]

From the list of teams from the all time xi's from past players and journalists the players most picked in order ( from memory) and thus the ones seems to be the ones closest to being locks are Bradman, Sobers, Warne, Hobbs and Marshall.
When we selected our XI open voting the unanimous selections were Bradman, Sobers, Marshall with Hobbs just behind them (belive Monk was to only did't vote for the master) and Gilchrist, Warne, Richards and Hutton trailing him in that order.

 

[kyear2]

From AT XI Open voting thread 2013/06/30

Tally Update

Don Bradman- 150
Garry Sobers- 150
Malcolm Marshall- 150

Jack Hobbs- 144
Adam Gilchrist- 133
Shane Warne- 126
Viv Richards- 119
Len Hutton- 118

Imran Khan- 105
Richard Hadlee- 87
Brian Lara- 85
Glenn McGrath- 83
Sachin Tendulkar- 78
Muttiah Muralitharan- 75

Sunil Gavaskar- 62
Alan Knott- 58
Curtly Ambrose- 56
Wally Hammond- 54
Graeme Pollock- 49
Dennis Lillee- 47
Barry Richards- 47
Herbert Sutcliffe- 47
Greg Chappell- 47
George Headley- 42
Jacques Kallis- 37
Syd Barnes- 35
Bill O'Reilly- 32

Keith Miller- 29
Wasim Akram- 24
Fred Trueman- 15
Mike Procter- 13
W.G. Grace- 12
Clyde Walcott- 11
Harold Larwood- 10
Joel Garner- 10

Ricky Ponting- 8
Kumar Sangakkara- 8
Dale Syeyn- 6
Ian Botham- 5
Waqar Younis- 5

So seems to be 4 pretty solid locks I'm terms of unanimous selections, that doesn't mean of course that each were locks for the individual selectors.

 

[Esperance]

i'd put the maharaja of porbandar in my team for sure.

 

[watson]

I think that an early 50s Alec Bedser has a SR that is very difficult to ignore, and that Syd Barnes is just as much a spinner as a seamer. So.....

01. Len Hutton
02. Sunil Gavaskar
03. Don Bradman
04. Sachin Tendulkar
05. Viv Richards
06. Garry Sobers
07. Imran Khan
08. Godfrey Evans
09. Malcolm Marshall
10. Alec Bedser
11. Sydney Barnes

 

[OverratedSanity]

i'd put the maharaja of porbandar in my team for sure.

He's be captain of my Best Cricinfo Profile Writeups XI

 

[Esperance]

he was unfortunately handicapped.

 

[Eds]

Barry Richards with >11 votes per test match. Niiice.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

I think that an early 50s Alec Bedser has a SR that is very difficult to ignore, and that Syd Barnes is just as much a spinner as a seamer. So.....

01. Len Hutton
02. Sunil Gavaskar
03. Don Bradman
04. Sachin Tendulkar
05. Viv Richards
06. Garry Sobers
07. Imran Khan
08. Godfrey Evans
09. Malcolm Marshall
10. Alec Bedser
11. Sydney Barnes

Top class bowling attack, I've been toying with a few of the English greats of late myself. Bedsor alongside Trueman stand out for me.
Anyway, I'm just wondering what the actual makeup of the attack is. The obvious to me looks Maco and Bedsor take the new pill followed by Imran with Sydney and Sobers as the pitch wears.
Is that your ideology or the great Barnes gets the new ball every now and then? Imran on the subcontinent?

 

[Agent Nationaux]

It seems Burgey's rant went unnoticed.

 

[Red]

It seems Burgey's rant went unnoticed.

WGAF. Let them all **** off over how CW was cooler in the old days while we **** off over discussing the merits of old school players. Each to their own eh?

 

[Agent Nationaux]

 

[Watson33]

1. Hobbs
2. Gavaskar
3. Bradman
4. Ponting
5. Richards
6. Sobers
7. Gilchrist
8. Khan
9. Warne
10. Holding
11. Garner

Quite hard to be honest, left some top names out e.g; Roberts, Marshall, Lara, Tendulkar, Healy etc...

 

[Fusion]

Jack Hobbs
Len Hutton
Don Bradman
Viv Richards
Gary Sobers
Adam Gilchrist +
Imran Khan
Richard Hadlee
Malcolm Marshall
Shane Warne
Denis Lillee

I've always been partial to the 5 specialist bowlers team. Alternatively, if I did go with only 4 bowlers, then I would drop Hadlee and insert one of Tendulkar/Lara/Chappell. Sobers is on my team on the basis of his batting alone, whereas Imran would be there on the basis of his bowling alone. The fact that both can provide a little extra with their secondary skills (along with Hadlee), makes the team that much better.

 

[watson]

Top class bowling attack, I've been toying with a few of the English greats of late myself. Bedsor alongside Trueman stand out for me.
Anyway, I'm just wondering what the actual makeup of the attack is. The obvious to me looks Maco and Bedsor take the new pill followed by Imran with Sydney and Sobers as the pitch wears.
Is that your ideology or the great Barnes gets the new ball every now and then? Imran on the subcontinent?

Your first choice seems about right schearzie. Barnes did bowl successfully will the new ball, but in this team he is the spinner so he'll have to flight the ball more, and give it a rip. Something I'm sure he's more than capable off.