What is your ALL TIME WORLD XI TEAM for tests?

[Agent Nationaux]

All I'm reading is arguments between Marshall fans and Lillee fans.

We need Esperance for his edgy posting.

 

[kyear2]

Sorry in advance, long hard day and need the distraction.
More importantly is there a difference between how having different perspectives affect how players are selected.

Us/ Fans/ Observers
CricketWeb
Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, Imran, Marshall, Warne, McGrath

CricketWeb Open Voting
Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Richards, Lara, Sobers, Gilchrist, Imran, Hadlee, Marshall, Warne

Writers/ Journalists
Geoff Armstrong
Grace, Hobbs, Bradman, Tendulkar, Pollock, Sobers, Gilchrist, Imran, Marshall, Warne, Barnes

Christopher Martin-Jenkins
Grace, Hobbs, Bradman, Richards, Hammond, Sobers, Gilchrist, Marshall, Warne, Barnes, McGrath

Courier-Mail (Robert Craddock)
Hobbs, Gavaskar, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, Akram, Marshall, Warne, Lillee

Experts Composite Voting
Cricinfo
Hutton, Hobbs, Bradman, Tendulkar, Richards, Sobers, Gilchrist, Marshall, Akram, Warne, Lillee

Wisden
Grace, Hobbs, Bradman, Tendulkar, Richards, Sobers, Knott, Akram, Warne, Marshall, Barnes

Third Man Cricket
Gavaskar, Hobbs, Bradman, Tendulkar, Richards, Sobers, Gilchrist, Akram, Warne, Marshall, McGrath

Past Players
Martin Crowe
Hobbs, Gavaskar, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, Akram, Warne, Marshall, Lillee

Geoffrey Boycott
Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Headley, Richards, Sobers, Knott, Marshall, Warne, Lillee, Barnes

Kim Hughes
Hobbs, Trumper, Bradman, Richards, Hammond, Sobers, Gilchrist, Akram, Marshall, Warne, Lillee


I have left out Benaud's team because 1) He himself said it wasn't the best possible team, but the players he would want to represent him, and 2) to select 3 teams and 33 players and none of them are named Knott, Marshall or Muralithran it takes away some of the credibility.

 

[watson]

The obvious question is - out of those 4 groups above, whose opinion is most reliable?

 

[Red]

Expert composites make the most sense imo....

 

[viriya]

Those are some great teams, but it's worth noting that all the past players and writers/journalists are either English or Australian. I'm not saying they are biased, but people tend to only highly rate players they have seen/focused on (unsurprisingly). This tends to be players who have done well for their country or vs their country.

For example:
- Geoff Armstrong has Grace, Hobbs, and Barnes in his side - suggesting an England bias
- Christopher Martin-Jenkins has Grace, Hobbs, Hammond, Barnes in his side - suggesting an England bias
- Robert Craddock has Bradman, Gilchrist, Warne, Lillee in his side - suggesting an Australia bias
- Wisden has Grace, Hobbs, Knott, Barnes in its side - suggesting an England bias
- Geoffrey Boycott has Hobbs, Hutton, Knott, Barnes in his side - suggesting an England bias
- Kim Hughes has Trumper, Bradman, Gilchrist, Warne, Lillee in his side - suggesting an Australia bias

This is not to say they are actively trying to pick their own countrymen/those that have done well vs their countrymen, but their worldview is skewed by what they have seen/focused on. This does not make these teams invalid, it just means the "expert" opinions are not necessarily that much different from what regular arm-chair critics (with a certain bias towards their nationality) come up with.

 

[Red]

Bradman's side is a case in point (is that the term?)

Pretty heaps of guys he played with or against. It's pretty natural to do this, but it's not very objective.

 

[watson]

Bradman's side is a case in point (is that the term?)

Pretty heaps of guys he played with or against. It's pretty natural to do this, but it's not very objective.

Actually, to be on a cricket field and either play with or against a cricketer is the most objective assessment possible. You could say that Bradman is being unimaginative and highly sceptical by not selecting more modern players, but not unobjective (I think).

EDIT: Maybe I'm confusing 'objective assessment' with 'best assessment'

 

[The Sean]

Those are some great teams, but it's worth noting that all the past players and writers/journalists are either English or Australian. I'm not saying they are biased, but people tend to only highly rate players they have seen/focused on (unsurprisingly). This tends to be players who have done well for their country or vs their country.

For example:
- Geoff Armstrong has Grace, Hobbs, and Barnes in his side - suggesting an England bias
- Christopher Martin-Jenkins has Grace, Hobbs, Hammond, Barnes in his side - suggesting an England bias
- Robert Craddock has Bradman, Gilchrist, Warne, Lillee in his side - suggesting an Australia bias
- Wisden has Grace, Hobbs, Knott, Barnes in its side - suggesting an England bias
- Geoffrey Boycott has Hobbs, Hutton, Knott, Barnes in his side - suggesting an England bias
- Kim Hughes has Trumper, Bradman, Gilchrist, Warne, Lillee in his side - suggesting an Australia bias

This is not to say they are actively trying to pick their own countrymen/those that have done well vs their countrymen, but their worldview is skewed by what they have seen/focused on. This does not make these teams invalid, it just means the "expert" opinions are not necessarily that much different from what regular arm-chair critics (with a certain bias towards their nationality) come up with.

I don't think there are too many instances of real bias in those examples.

- Armstrong only has three Englishmen - and they're three absolute immortals of the game. He also has three Australians and two West Indians. I can't see an England bias there.
- CMJ has four Englishmen so perhaps a (very) slight bias - but he also has three Australians and three West Indians. And I have no major issue with any of the four Englishmen picked.
- Craddock's four Australians may, like CMJ, suggest a very slight bias, but he also has three West Indians. And all four of his Australians are regulars in any All Time XI discussion.
- Wisden picked Knott, giving them four Englishmen but there are also three West Indians.
- Boycott's four Englishmen isn't really bias given that he also picked four West Indians and three Australians, and also openly said that Tendulkar would take a spot in that side once he retired.
- Kim Hughes is probably the most biased with five Australians - I personally think once you hit five or more players from one country in an All Time World XI, you're probably going a little overboard. That being said, it's not completely outlandish and all five of his Australians (even Trumper, who usually gets overlooked in these kind of exercises) are worthy of a spot.

The common theme with almost all ATXIs chosen are that they are dominated by Australians, Englishmen and West Indians - and given that these are the three most successful cricketing nations through history, that's not surprising. We all have our own preferences and I don't necessarily agree with all the selections, but having three or four representatives from one or more of those countries doesn't constitute any real bias in my books.

 

[kyear2]

The composite XI's should restrict any inherent individual biases as with ours and crifinfo's XIs there were selectors from every cricketing nation though still slightly more English and Australian.

Though to be fair, the game has existed in those two countries the longest.

 

[kyear2]

I don't think there are too many instances of real bias in those examples.

- Armstrong only has three Englishmen - and they're three absolute immortals of the game. He also has three Australians and two West Indians. I can't see an England bias there.
- CMJ has four Englishmen so perhaps a (very) slight bias - but he also has three Australians and three West Indians. And I have no major issue with any of the four Englishmen picked.
- Craddock's four Australians may, like CMJ, suggest a very slight bias, but he also has three West Indians. And all four of his Australians are regulars in any All Time XI discussion.
- Wisden picked Knott, giving them four Englishmen but there are also three West Indians.
- Boycott's four Englishmen isn't really bias given that he also picked four West Indians and three Australians, and also openly said that Tendulkar would take a spot in that side once he retired.
- Kim Hughes is probably the most biased with five Australians - I personally think once you hit five or more players from one country in an All Time World XI, you're probably going a little overboard. That being said, it's not completely outlandish and all five of his Australians (even Trumper, who usually gets overlooked in these kind of exercises) are worthy of a spot.

The common theme with almost all ATXIs chosen are that they are dominated by Australians, Englishmen and West Indians - and given that these are the three most successful cricketing nations through history, that's not surprising. We all have our own preferences and I don't necessarily agree with all the selections, but having three or four representatives from one or more of those countries doesn't constitute any real bias in my books.

Well said.

 

[smash84]

The common theme with almost all ATXIs chosen are that they are dominated by Australians, Englishmen and West Indians - and given that these are the three most successful cricketing nations through history, that's not surprising. We all have our own preferences and I don't necessarily agree with all the selections, but having three or four representatives from one or more of those countries doesn't constitute any real bias in my books.

Haven't the WI been quite ****e either side of their total dominance period? If so then what criteria are you using to label them as the third most successful cricketing nation? In fact their last 2 decades have caused their win/loss ratio to fall below 1 I believe (cbf looking it up)

 

[watson]

Haven't the WI been quite ****e either side of their total dominance period? If so then what criteria are you using to label them as the third most successful cricketing nation? In fact their last 2 decades have caused their win/loss ratio to fall below 1 I believe (cbf looking it up)

The enormity of their peaks periods where great teams and great players dominated.

 

[The Sean]

Haven't the WI been quite ****e either side of their total dominance period? If so then what criteria are you using to label them as the third most successful cricketing nation? In fact their last 2 decades have caused their win/loss ratio to fall below 1 I believe (cbf looking it up)

Notwithstanding the fact that their era of dominance was a genuine sporting phenomenon, the West Indies had their share of success in the '50s and '60s before that as well. Sure, they did take a while to get going at international level, and yes the past two decades have seen a sad decline to the point that South Africa now have a better overall Test win % and both South Africa and Pakistan have slightly better win/loss ratios.

Yet I'm more than comfortable in saying that the West Indies have achieved a considerably higher level of success over a longer period of time - not to mention having produced more genuinely top-tier greats - than either of those countries, and I don't think it remotely contentious to do so.

I suppose the key "criteria" - for want of a better word - behind my statement about the three most successful cricketing nations is that, in the 137-year history of Test cricket, there are probably only a handful of years where the title of “Best Team In The World” wasn't considered to be held by one of those three teams.

 

[Coronis]

Notwithstanding the fact that their era of dominance was a genuine sporting phenomenon, the West Indies had their share of success in the '50s and '60s before that as well. Sure, they did take a while to get going at international level, and yes the past two decades have seen a sad decline to the point that South Africa now have a better overall Test win % and both South Africa and Pakistan have slightly better win/loss ratios.

Yet I'm more than comfortable in saying that the West Indies have achieved a considerably higher level of success over a longer period of time - not to mention having produced more genuinely top-tier greats - than either of those countries, and I don't think it remotely contentious to do so.

Wonder if we'd be saying the same if South Africa hadn't been banned.

 

[The Sean]

Wonder if we'd be saying the same if South Africa hadn't been banned.

Indeed. It's a fascinating - though ultimately depressing - thought. South Africa vs the resurgent Chappelli-led Australia in the early '70s and then against Lloyd's West Indies later in the decade could have been some of the best cricket anywhere ever.

 

[Ace4]

Indeed. It's a fascinating - though ultimately depressing - thought. South Africa vs the resurgent Chappelli-led Australia in the early '70s and then against Lloyd's West Indies later in the decade could have been some of the best cricket anywhere ever.

Couldn't agree more. More competition is always good.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Indeed. It's a fascinating - though ultimately depressing - thought. South Africa vs the resurgent Chappelli-led Australia in the early '70s and then against Lloyd's West Indies later in the decade could have been some of the best cricket anywhere ever.

I also wonder if NZ would've stayed unbeaten at home in the 1980s (whole decade), had South Africa been playing.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I disagree

Pak has a better win/loss ratio and that in my eyes makes them better overall than the Windies.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

The enormity of their peaks periods where great teams and great players dominated.

Using that criteria, I can say Imran is the greatest fast bowler ever since his peak was the greatest.

 

[watson]

Using that criteria, I can say Imran is the greatest fast bowler ever since his peak was the greatest.

I wouldn't overly disagree with your statement, although it's just as likely that SF Barnes holds that particular title;

Reliance ICC Player Rankings