Which country's All Time XI is the strongest?

[mr_mister]

I've actually heard Hammond was supposedly vulnerable against leg spin.

So if it's indeed true he couldn't handle leggies or pace, he was essentially only good against medium pace lol

 

[jimmy101]

If that is indeed true, and if it's also true that he was the next best batsman after Bradman during the era, then literally every batsman from that time must have been atrocious.

 

[kyear2]

While I agree that on paper Australia seems to have an advantage, I don't see any of the top 3 teams dominating any of the others.

Don't see how a teams that consists of Headley, I. V. A., Lara, Sobers, Marshall and Sobers be discounted. Similarity a team of Barry, Pollock, Kallis, Steyn, Donald and Proctor would compete vs anyone.

Even if just to focus on a WI vs Australia match up, Viv, Sobers and Lara have all scored hundreds and been successful vs members of the Aussie attack. An as great as Bradman was he never faced anything close to an attack of Marshall and Ambrose. And regarding the Don, as unquestionably great as he was and as limited as quality opposition (only England) was during his time, he lost more matches than Marshall in his career. And that's not to diminish the great man, it's just to say that having him in a team doesn't guarantee a win.

As I would have said in another thread previously, Gilchrist is the real wildcard and could be the biggest difference between these teams.

 

[jimmy101]

An as great as Bradman was he never faced anything close to an attack of Marshall and Ambrose.

I dunno, those English bowling attacks of the 1930's were all pretty fearsome. Plus he would have sided up against immensely powerful NSW bowling lineups in Shield cricket during his time.

 

[kyear2]

If that is indeed true, and if it's also true that he was the next best batsman after Bradman during the era, then literally every batsman from that time must have been atrocious.

Well to be fair to Hammond, the only really good attack of that time was Australia and in that instance the leg spin would have been primarily O'Reilly and Grimmett.

 

[jimmy101]

Interesting to see Wally chalked up an average of 46 against 1930's Australia when their attack was basically full of pacers & leg-spinners.

 

[vcs]

If you're getting peak Gilchrist (99-2004), that guy was a beast. After that, he became kind of hit and miss with the bat (not that Australia couldn't afford it lol).

Also, he was always rocks or diamonds in Asia even though he hit some stunning hundreds.

 

[Slifer]

While I agree that on paper Australia seems to have an advantage, I don't see any of the top 3 teams dominating any of the others.

Don't see how a teams that consists of Headley, I. V. A., Lara, Sobers, Marshall and Sobers be discounted. Similarity a team of Barry, Pollock, Kallis, Steyn, Donald and Proctor would compete vs anyone.

Even if just to focus on a WI vs Australia match up, Viv, Sobers and Lara have all scored hundreds and been successful vs members of the Aussie attack. An as great as Bradman was he never faced anything close to an attack of Marshall and Ambrose. And regarding the Don, as unquestionably great as he was and as limited as quality opposition (only England) was during his time, he lost more matches than Marshall in his career. And that's not to diminish the great man, it's just to say that having him in a team doesn't guarantee a win.

As I would have said in another thread previously, Gilchrist is the real wildcard and could be the biggest difference between these teams.

My thought process exactly. The fact of the matter is, Australian teams with Bradman didn't win 100% of their test series. Yeah he'd be surrounded by other atg but so too would the other teams. And each of Headley, lara, viv and Sobers has faced atg aussie bowling: lara-mcwarne, viv-Lillee, Sobers-Lillee , Davidson, Headley- Oreilly, Grimmett.

 

[Chrish]

Pollock was proper quality against pace. His eyes went in his late 30s and 40s, and the fact he played so long might be creating this impression.

He was really strong through the covers. Possibly the best. This is more of a particular strength than an indication of any weakness.

Not sure about the leg stump weakness. Makes some sense though because of how expansive he was.

IDK so much about Hammond.

There is footage of Pollock on YT. And I must say, I haven't seen him doing much on the leg side. It's almost as if he scored > 95% of boundaries on off side in those highlights.

There used to be poster named Lucky Eddie who saw Pollock playing in England. And he considered him the best batsman he ever saw. He was watching cricket since 60s iirc.

 

[ankitj]

In ESPN's legends of cricket feature on G Pollock, there was a mention of Pollock's weakness on leg stump, not leggies as such. He worked on it and more than remedied it. That's what I recall.

 

[ankitj]

 

[the big bambino]

Waaaaaaaaaah.


Toughen up.

Ha, just caught up with this thread. I was talking to someone else, not you. So the advice in my last post I addressed to you still stands: Get lost - you're a bore. I'm sorry it upset you so much you're still nurturing a boowa.

 

[Jack1]

I'm also tempted to have Ponting opening the batting instead of Morris as well. Ponting, despite having batted behind a strong opening duo most of his career, has walked out to bat inside the first five overs a number of times so he should be able to open just fine although it would look bit out of place.

As for Miller, you'd have a hard time trying to convince him that he should be batting at 8

Ponting could bat 1. He would possibly do better there considering his general attitude.

 

[the big bambino]

Both Pollock and Hammond are said to have a weakness against pace bowling. Also, both are said to be off side players and had a perceived weakness around leg stumps. Would appreciate it if someone can shed a light on this topic.

I think Pollock scored runs against rebel pace attacks even in his 40s. He was sweet against pace. As for Hammond, I think he was more calculating against pace than scared of it. He would avoid it until he settled. Even after the war Keith Miller complained he couldn't get a ball past him. His weakness on leg stump was relative. I believe O'Reilly set his line there to him but it was really a containment tactic. His record v leg spin is impressive.

Well to be fair to Hammond, the only really good attack of that time was Australia and in that instance the leg spin would have been primarily O'Reilly and Grimmett.

Yet after he debuted and leading up to the war, England won more tests than Australia despite the latter possessing Bradman. You don't do that without a good attack.

 

[Coronis]

England didn’t really have any outstanding bowlers during the period, but had 4 or 5 very decent bowlers, whilst Australia’s attack was pretty poor outside of O’Reilly and Grimmett (and for a short time Ironmonger)

 

[the big bambino]

They were statistically better than both the Pakistan and SA sides from 1990-2009.

 

[Red]

England didn’t really have any outstanding bowlers during the period, but had 4 or 5 very decent bowlers, whilst Australia’s attack was pretty poor outside of O’Reilly and Grimmett (and for a short time Ironmonger)

Basically saying an attack would be poor if it only had Warne and MacGill in it. OReilly and Grimmett are both ATG, and they were bowling in tandem.

 

[Red]

Where do these myths come from, the ones like GPollock being bad against short pitched quick bowling?

As in, link some articles or something. Anything.

Same for Hammond. Remember that in those times, there were no helmets, no head protection.

No one likes super quick short pitched bowling. Remember when Mitchell Johnson went into ridic mode? Centurion, 2014? No batsman in history would have wanted to face that, or coped with it for very long. It's more or less impossible to deal with.

Using this stuff to discredit batsmen, especially earlier era batsmen, is pretty dumb.

 

[Coronis]

Basically saying an attack would be poor if it only had Warne and MacGill in it. OReilly and Grimmett are both ATG, and they were bowling in tandem.

I never said the attack was poor.... I was just attempting to explain why England still found such success despite having Bradman, Grimmett and O’Reilly to play against. Aside from also having some of the greatest batsmen of all time playing for them
during that period, their attack, whilst not necessarily spectacular was effective, and more well rounded than Australia’s.

 

[Chrish]

Where do these myths come from, the ones like GPollock being bad against short pitched quick bowling?

As in, link some articles or something. Anything.

Same for Hammond. Remember that in those times, there were no helmets, no head protection.

No one likes super quick short pitched bowling. Remember when Mitchell Johnson went into ridic mode? Centurion, 2014? No batsman in history would have wanted to face that, or coped with it for very long. It's more or less impossible to deal with.

Using this stuff to discredit batsmen, especially earlier era batsmen, is pretty dumb.

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cri...h-africa-s-greatest-batsman.html#post_3184360

Couple of people have mentioned that in the debate above.

No one is discrediting those players. Just trying to satisfy the curiosity. This is the only forum on net where I would expect people to know the answer to these questions.