• 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?

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Lol.. I only engaged with you because I think you are capable of better than the one eyed biased drivel we get from TJB and stephen when it comes to Australian cricket, and in TJB's case, cricket in general.
How about you quit with the absurd personal attacks at other posters, stephen in particular, who are treating you with far more respect than your discourse deserves.

If you could just stick with embarassing yourself with laughable arguments like you have been, rather than just insulting people because they hurt your feelings that would be great
 
Last edited:

Arachnodouche

International Captain
@honestbharani: Not sure why you insist on touting a sample size of one innings as evidence of BD prowess against Warne. Graeme Hick made 170 and Chris Lewis his only Test century on the India tour of 93-94. Right around the time Kumble assumed home-demon form and we started fronting three decent spinners at home. Pretty sure England must have got the better of Warne on occasion through those low years too. By your own standards, which seem to consider single innings as a parameter for overall skill against a particular discipline, 90s Eng couldn't have been all that shabby against spin either then?
 

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Just saying "It's what I believe and you are free to not believe it" is not enough to be called reasonable, HB. Everyone talking to you should be able to view you as a person who is able to well defend his beliefs and change them when required. In this case, your defense is weak and you should seriously consider changing your mind. The sample size of Warne vs BD 2000s is too low and, even then, he didn't suck against them at all and wasn't smashed by them in the least. They also struggled badly against the other spinners in the world.

It's completely okay to think Murali's stats against Zim-Bang should not be removed while considering his accomplishments vis-a-vis Warne and you can believe the latter without believing the former.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
@honestbharani: Not sure why you insist on touting a sample size of one innings as evidence of BD prowess against Warne. Graeme Hick made 170 and Chris Lewis his only Test century on the India tour of 93-94. Right around the time Kumble assumed home-demon form and we started fronting three decent spinners at home. Pretty sure England must have got the better of Warne on occasion through those low years too. By your own standards, which seem to consider single innings as a parameter for overall skill against a particular discipline, 90s Eng couldn't have been all that shabby against spin either then?
Well, it was 2 tests which is what a series against BD was through that period. Murali had like 4 tests against them in BD. And it is upto you to read what you want from any sample size. And if you actually saw the game, its not just sample size anymore, is it? I feel they played him comfortably enough and were actively attacking him and he did not look like he had answers until the others got wickets or he got them out slogging. I mean, its funny how the sample size argument is toted out to excuse failures but same can't be used to explain successes? Or even Murali's failures in Australia... :laugh: If you can't see the obvious bias in these "arguments"..... And that is what I was pointing out.

And 4 innings > 1. :) Hick also took 5 wickets against India that series, bur none of that nullifies my actual point. Warne was smashed in 2 tests where Murali rolled over them in 4, playing for a much less accomplished side. Why is it fair that this needs to be "removed" when comparing the two?
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
J The sample size of Warne vs BD 2000s is too low and, even then, he didn't suck against them at all and wasn't smashed by them in the least. They also struggled badly against the other spinners in the world.

It's completely okay to think Murali's stats against Zim-Bang should not be removed while considering his accomplishments vis-a-vis Warne and you can believe the latter without believing the former.

I dont think anyone needs to believe the former to believe in the latter. But I just happen to believe in both. And it is not an empty opinion. You can search the thread in CW to see what was actually being said during the game. Which is often a better indicator as its without the contextual bias you wanna give performances based on your side of the argument.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Well, it was 2 tests which is what a series against BD was through that period. Murali had like 4 tests against them in BD. And it is upto you to read what you want from any sample size. And if you actually saw the game, its not just sample size anymore, is it? I feel they played him comfortably enough and were actively attacking him and he did not look like he had answers until the others got wickets or he got them out slogging. I mean, its funny how the sample size argument is toted out to excuse failures but same can't be used to explain successes? Or even Murali's failures in Australia... :laugh: If you can't see the obvious bias in these "arguments"..... And that is what I was pointing out.

And 4 innings > 1. :) Hick also took 5 wickets against India that series, bur none of that nullifies my actual point. Warne was smashed in 2 tests where Murali rolled over them in 4, playing for a much less accomplished side. Why is it fair that this needs to be "removed" when comparing the two?
Murali played 11 Tests against Bangladesh, and took 11% of his wickets against them (you limiting it to "in BD" is a completely nosnensical criteria clearly chosen to make your argument seem less spurious). That is as significant a sample as you're going to get, and he has the same again against Zimbabwe.
You are drawing false equivalencies. 11 Tests is a significant sample. 2 is not. It's not rocket science.

And even if we forget about your ridiculous claim that England in the 90s were worse at playing spin than Bangladesh in the 00s, or even if we pretend against all indications and evidence that it's true, it still doesn't do anything to support the reason you brought it up in the first place.
You were trying to claim that Warne's stats benefit from beating up on England in the 90s. Yet, for the 3rd time in this thread now, I will again point out that Warne averaged 24.28 against England in the 90s. He objectively, and statistically, did not get any significant advantage out of playing them a lot.
So you can forget about that whole line of argument, that you've already comprehensively lost, because even if you were right, it's completely irrelevant to your argument anyway.

No one has to "remove" anyone's stats against anyone. If you want to rate Murali highly because of the beating up of minnows part of his career that's fine, but it's perfectly reasonable and sensible for someone else to consider it something that bares consideration because it clearly has had a massive statistical influence on his career. None of which you can say about Warne v England. It's a really bad false equivalency.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Apparently, "in BD" is beyond the comprehension of some. :laugh:

Unfortunately, the rest of their biased false drivel throughout the thread has not been funny at all.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
HB looking like the debating equivalent of Apollo Creed in round two of his fight with Ivan Drago here.
 

_00_deathscar

International Regular
Can we stop categorising 90s Zimbabwe as minnows? As long as they had Flower and Streak, along with a couple of others, they were not minnows. Them and Bangladesh of the 00s aren't comparable at all.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Can we stop categorising 90s Zimbabwe as minnows? As long as they had Flower and Streak, along with a couple of others, they were not minnows. Them and Bangladesh of the 00s aren't comparable at all.
They had a couple good players, and were easily better than 00s Bangladesh but still very fair to call them minnows in Tests. They were comfortably weaker than every other side and barely won a game. Other than Flower and, briefly Murray Goodwin, their batting wasn't even FC level for most countries. They were a very solid ODI side in the 90s though.

Definitely unfair to put them in the same bracket as Bangladesh though, and it was only done because of the context of the discussion.
 
Last edited:

Ymaxxx

School Boy/Girl Captain
If youre gonna call that 90s Zimbabwe team "minnows". Then youre basically tagging New Zealand as minnows as well
 

Ymaxxx

School Boy/Girl Captain
What you can classify as nearly same level between the two is, 90s Zimbabwe and post 2011 Bangladesh
 

Ymaxxx

School Boy/Girl Captain
Anyways since i havent listed my ATG Test XI her before, here's my take.

  1. Jack Hobbs

  2. George Headley (great fc opening record and ig i trust him)

  3. Don Bradman

  4. Kumar Sangakkara/Viv Richards/Sachin Tendulkar

  5. Jacques Kallis

  6. Andy Flower

  7. Garfield Sobers

  8. Imran Khan

  9. Richard Hadlee

  10. Wasim Akram/Malcolm Marshall

  11. Shane Warne (Rashid Khan soon, this guy has twice the grips of warne and plays for a much weaker team. He just needs games and he'll be in. Inspirational character and an all round beast.)


    This lineup accomodates both BATdeep to 11 and BOWLdeep with 7.5 options.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
People have terrible memories. That 90s Zim team was awful. They were at best passable in ODIs (though they did finish behind both England and Australia A in a quad series they played here during the time period). But in tests they were bad. They literally had 3 test victories in the 90s, which is the same number as Bangladesh won in the 00s. Bangladesh were way worse, of course, but Zimbabwe were truly deserving of the minnow moniker.

Bangladesh between 00 and 10 were not test standard. They were barely first class standard. Beating the West Indies in 09 was considered the nadir of Windies cricket for a reason.

But don't get romantic about Zimbabwe in the 90s, they were awful too.
 

Fuller Pilch

Hall of Fame Member
After NZ beat England 2-1 (should have been more) in 1999, England fell to the bottom of the world test rankings (below Zimbabwe).
 

AndrewB

International Vice-Captain
It's some evidence of how bad Zimbabwe were that they managed to lose to that England team by an innings and 209 a year later.
 

ataraxia

International Coach
George Headley (great fc opening record and ig i trust him)
I'm not opposed to Headley opening - I've got him opening in my WI AT XI - but I'm just intrigued as to what that FC opening record is? AFAIK no site has FC averages in batting position, sadly.
 
Last edited:

maddgenius

Cricket Spectator
Sunil Gavaskar
Jack Hobbs
Don Bradman
Sachin Tendulkar
Jacques Kallis
Sir Garry Sobers
Adam Gilchrist
Imran Khan
Wasim Akram
Shane Warne
Malcolm Marshall
 

Top