Asia Xi vs ROW Xi

[Coronis]

Post 1970s World XI

G. Smith *
G. Greenidge
V. Richards
B. Lara
JH Kallis
S. Smith
A.C. Gilchrist +
RJ Hadlee
MD Marshall
SK Warne
GD McGrath

12th man: IT Botham

Post 1970s Asia XI

SM Gavaskar
ST Jayasuriya
R Dravid
SR Tendulkar
K Sangakkara
Imran Khan
MS Dhoni *+
Wasim Akram
Waqar Younis
Muralitharan
J Bumrah

12th man: Kapil Dev

For the first team I’d switch up the batting order a bit.

I’d rather have Lara and Viv seperated by Smith and Kallis between the other one and Gilchrist. Just a better blend of aggression and defense imo.

 

[kyear2]

That they should had voted differently and don't know much about cricket?? I mean, they also selected Lillee over McGrath.....

The fact that you may disagree with them don't mean they know little to nothing about cricket.

Multiple posters have stated that for a 5 year span, and between the "reigns" of Sobers and Richards that he was seen as the best batsman in the world. It was well documented then, and was as close to consensus as it gets.

There were the tests, first class (Australia / County / SA), WSC, ROW, he proved his quality and over a couple decades.

The same way I can say that I believe Bumrah is better than Waqar after 30 tests, yes he can have a decline, but so did Waqar. And he has quality, he's a match winner.

And while we may all disagree with the teams selected, none of the guys in the top two teams are out of place and the persons selecting them are mostly well respected.

So the fact remains that even though you may not have any respect for his career or accomplishments, many do. Many older, more experienced, more credentialed observers, coaches, former players, journalists and even posters thinks that not only the place was warranted (and voted him there), but that he also definitely belongs in the conversation.

There was even an the time, current all world team that was referenced from 1975 where Barry was a consensus selection how many years after his final test.

Anyways, the Cricinfo effort, besides Barry and possibly Trueman, who else by your estimate doesn't even belong in the conversation or such illustrious company?

Hutton | Hobbs | Bradman | Richards | Tendulkar | Sobers | Gilchrist | Wasim | Marshall | Warne | Lillee

Gavaskar | Richards | Headley | Lara | Hammond | Imran | Knott | O'Reilly | Truman | Muralitharan | Barnes

(Yes I will acknowledge that the tail for the 2nd team is untenable)

So you're telling me it isn't remotely possible that you could possibly be wrong about the brilliance and status of the man?

ESPN also did a top 25 cricketers if all time, with a video series to boot, yes I think that there are 3 names missing and some I wouldn't have included, but still to make that list is a serious endorsement and accomplishment. There were 5 openers chosen among that 25 btw
Hutton, Hobbs, Grace, Gavaskar and Richards.
Not bad company...

 

[Prince EWS]

Appeal to authority and appeal to majority are such lame fallacies. Can we stop with that in every thread?

If you rate someone then make your case without relying on **** opinions from others.

 

[capt_Luffy]

The fact that you may disagree with them don't mean they know little to nothing about cricket.

Multiple posters have stated that for a 5 year span, and between the "reigns" of Sobers and Richards that he was seen as the best batsman in the world. It was well documented then, and was as close to consensus as it gets.

There were the tests, first class (Australia / County / SA), WSC, ROW, he proved his quality and over a couple decades.

The same way I can say that I believe Bumrah is better than Waqar after 30 tests, yes he can have a decline, but so did Waqar. And he has quality, he's a match winner.

And while we may all disagree with the teams selected, none of the guys in the top two teams are out of place and the persons selecting them are mostly well respected.

So the fact remains that even though you may not have any respect for his career or accomplishments, many do. Many older, more experienced, more credentialed observers, coaches, former players, journalists and even posters thinks that not only the place was warranted (and voted him there), but that he also definitely belongs in the conversation.

There was even an the time, current all world team that was referenced from 1975 where Barry was a consensus selection how many years after his final test.

Anyways, the Cricinfo effort, besides Barry and possibly Trueman, who else by your estimate doesn't even belong in the conversation or such illustrious company?

Hutton | Hobbs | Bradman | Richards | Tendulkar | Sobers | Gilchrist | Wasim | Marshall | Warne | Lillee

Gavaskar | Richards | Headley | Lara | Hammond | Imran | Knott | O'Reilly | Truman | Muralitharan | Barnes

(Yes I will acknowledge that the tail for the 2nd team is untenable)

So you're telling me it isn't remotely possible that you could possibly be wrong about the brilliance and status of the man?

ESPN also did a top 25 cricketers if all time, with a video series to boot, yes I think that there are 3 names missing and some I wouldn't have included, but still to make that list is a serious endorsement and accomplishment. There were 5 openers chosen among that 25 btw
Hutton, Hobbs, Grace, Gavaskar and Richards.
Not bad company...

It was a joke man......

 

[Coronis]

Did you know Kobe Bryant was way better than Tim Duncan cos all the commentators said he was.

 

[smash84]

Did you know Kobe Bryant was way better than Tim Duncan cos all the commentators said he was.

And only bring in the commentators selectively for certain players.