• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

What is your ALL TIME WORLD XI TEAM for tests?

Slifer

International Captain
Think I've settled on my team finally after going back and forth for years:

Hobbs
Hutton
Bradman
Sachin
Viv
Sobers
Gilchrist +
Imran*
Hadlee
Marshall
Warne

***Steve Smith to likely replace Viv by the time his career is over.
 

Fuller Pilch

Hall of Fame Member
Think I've settled on my team finally after going back and forth for years:

Hobbs
Hutton
Bradman
Sachin
Viv
Sobers
Gilchrist +
Imran*
Hadlee
Marshall
Warne

***Steve Smith to likely replace Viv by the time his career is over.
And Kane to replace Bradman, oops Tendulkar.
 

KINGOFKINGS

Cricket Spectator
McGrath was a greater bowler than Hadlee, more bounce, equal at control of runs and a greater ability to bowl in the corridor of uncertainty where a batsman cannot decide whether to attack or defend. Plus McGrath has also bowled to more dangerous batsmen in a period where pitches were batsmanf friendly compared to Hadlee who wasn't that great on the dead tracks.
Also Akram was better than Imran, Check Imran's record in the 4th innings of a test, loads of rubbish he has bowled.

Also guys who played before Bradman are all mostly outdated, in those days cricket was play so slow, batsmen used to hit runs and then jog to the crease, players were unfit, they were shorter and physically less strong, the tall ones were awkward, unlike the modern day dudes who are physically clearly superior.

We shouldn't even be picking anyone prior to the 60s, lol ... from the 50s and before that maybe just Bradman is worth the pick because of his records that are twice as good as anyone, or else whom have we seen from those times to know that they were better ? Sports always evolves and players get better, if you send Virat Kohli in a time machine back to the 40s then he would possibly average 100. So it is pointless to even pick guys like Hobbs now lol
 

Gob

International Coach
if you send Virat Kohli in a time machine back to the 40s then he would possibly average 100. So it is pointless to even pick guys like Hobbs now lol
What if Hobbs was conceived by future Kohli who was sent in to the past to reset test cricket after its being killed off by a post apocalypse regime in favour of t20 cricket #toomuchdark
 

Gob

International Coach
Hadlee was a faster, more coordinated version of McGrath who could bat and field.
What does coordinated mean here?

I don't think he was significantly faster unless you are counting the tear away days when he wasn't very good. I always felt Hadlee a more accurate and slower version of Steyn.
 

Fuller Pilch

Hall of Fame Member
McGrath was great, but looked a bit gangly and unco (especially in the field but even slightly in his delivery). Hadlee looked like an Italian sports car.
 

Line and Length

Cricketer Of The Year
KoK's theories about players pre '60s fail to impress. Whenever players from different eras are discussed, in any sports, it is customary to acknowledge the cream of each era. If we were to take his theories/opinions into account and apply them to any sport, the likes of Jesse Owens, Herb Elliott, Joe Louis and Juan Fangio would be consigned to the ranks of also-rans. When looking at these champions of yesteryear, we need to consider how they would perform given modern training, sophisticated equipment and financial rewards that are available today.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
KoK's theories about players pre '60s fail to impress. Whenever players from different eras are discussed, in any sports, it is customary to acknowledge the cream of each era. If we were to take his theories/opinions into account and apply them to any sport, the likes of Jesse Owens, Herb Elliott, Joe Louis and Juan Fangio would be consigned to the ranks of also-rans. When looking at these champions of yesteryear, we need to consider how they would perform given modern training, sophisticated equipment and financial rewards that are available today.
Disagree, you don't "need" to. You set the parameters you want. There's no necessity to adjust past players standards to match modern professionalism if you don't want to.
 

Fuller Pilch

Hall of Fame Member
KoK's theories about players pre '60s fail to impress. Whenever players from different eras are discussed, in any sports, it is customary to acknowledge the cream of each era. If we were to take his theories/opinions into account and apply them to any sport, the likes of Jesse Owens, Herb Elliott, Joe Louis and Juan Fangio would be consigned to the ranks of also-rans. When looking at these champions of yesteryear, we need to consider how they would perform given modern training, sophisticated equipment and financial rewards that are available today.
Completely agree. The great Peter Snell (probably NZ's greatest ever sportsman - only man since 1920 to win the 800/1500 double at the Olympics which he did in '64) still has the NZ 800m record which he set in 1962. Imagine how fast he would have been with modern training, shoes, tracks, diet etc. Even great middle distance runners like John Walker and Nick Willis (admittedly both better at 1500) never beat Snell's 800m time.
 
Last edited:

Top