-
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.
Greatest Ever Test XI
- Thread starter roseboy64
- Start date
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
It is a big misconception. In majority of Tendulkar's career, Tendulkar played many knocks which helped the team win at home.FaaipDeOiad said:
Away from home, his average is superb. However, it must be remembered that bowlers win test matches and not batsmen. Also, the Indian batting line up was generally pathetic abroad.
Even at home, he faced situations like in Chennai where he played a superb knock in terrible pain. People blame the attacking shot which got him out. Well he went into an attacking mode in the session and it were the attacking shots which got him the runs. Neither the top order, nor he top got runs leading to a close defeat. Had some one made runs people would regard that knock as one of the all time best knocks. To my mind it remains one of the best regardless.
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
I would be very interested if that thread can be found some how as I am researching past eras.SJS said:I had posted figuires or maybe charts whit graphs on such info a very long time ago while discussing how standards have changed over time and what should be taken into account when comparing stats of two different eras.
Dont rmember the thread. It was a very long time ago
[EDIT] I have made a thread for discussing different eras for the same http://forum.cricketweb.net/showthread.php?t=16334
Last edited:
My all-time XI is the same as the one Richie Benaud did a while ago, instead I have Malcolm Marshall in instead of SF Barnes.
1. Sir Jack Hobbs
I refute all suggestions Hobbs doesn't deserve to be in here because he played in the amateaur era. Very few changes have occured in bowling since the 20s. Swing bowling already existed, as did most spin bowling - you had players like Grimmett bowling the best flippers. And you'd be suprised how much cricketers played domestically back then. Don Bradman played all year round, playing exhibitions games for his boss etc. You can see short clips of cricket back then and the bowling is just as fast, with reports of great swing. There's little to suggest players weren't skilled or prepared when you consider how mucht hey played and how refined bowling already was. And most important thing to consider, wickets back then weren't covered. Hobbs regularly played on wet wickets, forcing him to have this perfect technique. It's sad how people can't see this was truly a legend of the game. The best compliment one can pay Hobbs is that he did far better on wet-wickets than Bradman did. Bradman struggled on wet-wickets, while Hobbs thrived. His technique never gave in to horrible conditions... even with players like Grimmett sliding in flippers all day. When people talk about cricket not being up to the standard of today, I agree quality has gotten better, of course it has, but the 20s weren't an embrionic stage in cricket... it was a refined stage where swing was already a science. If we're talking about WG Grace then that's different, cricket was in an embrionic stage. But by the 20s the amount of domestic cricket was staggering... players were well refined.
2. Sunil Gavaskar
In an era when fast bowling was maybe at it's best, and when teams crumbled under the immense capability of the West Indies bowling attack, Sunny Gavaskar actually got better and seemed to thrive. Incredible that.
3. Sir Donald Bradman
No explanation needed.
4. Sachin Tendulkar
If Tendulkar never made another run in cricket history, he still wouldn't leave my all-time top ten best players list. It's sad how people are beginning to underrate him. I've heard people say Dravid is greater etc and it's just not true. There's even reports of people saying his peak was 1995-1999. Tendulkar's peak was much longer than that. He was still the world's best batsman in 2001! He was still excellent in 2003 at the world cup. My memories of Tendulkar are of him being impossible to bowl to. McGrath is the best example. I've seen McGrath bowl what appear to be perfect lines, only for Tendulkar to hit a four because it was a tiny bit too short. Then I've seen McGrath slightly pitch it up more, still at what you would think is an unplayable length, and get driven. That's how I remember Tendulkar, as a batsman who's batting channel was so thin you couldn't bowl to him on his best day. No wonder he was compared to Bradman back then, and that's exactly how I envision him.
5. Sir Vivian Richards
Batting averages are terrible things. Aside from the 1975 (was it 1976?) series against England where Viv Richards made Tony Grieg eat his words, Richards didn't have a lot of big scores. That isn't to say he didn't make a lot of centuries though... it's just that he didn't go on. For example, Lara could make 400* one year (and did) and not do a wole lot for the rest of the year and still have a massive average... it would take Lara eight ducks for his average to get down to 50. Great batting averages are built on huge scores. But there in lies my point, batsmen like Tendulkar and Richards are special because their batting averages are high despite few massive scores like double centuries. They can consistently make centuries which ultimately means they're winning more games for their teams and are being consistent. Ask anybody who saw Richards and they'll say nobody stole games from you like Viv. Capable of making quick fast centuries and never letting the pressure of the situation bother him. No players was so un-affected by pressure as Viv and with a hint of arrogance, the game was gone.
6. Sir Garfield Sobers
No explanation needed. I will say I think his bowling is overrated and he strikes me more as a batting all-rounder than a rounded all-rounder like Botham.
7. Imran Khan
In the era of all-rounders, ask Botham, Hadlee and Dev who the best was and they all say Khan. All who saw him felt he was just ahead of all of them, maybe not by a lot, but it was clear. Also probably the best captain ever.
8. Adam Gilchrist
I think people will better gauge Gilchrist's greatness when he retires because he's a true all-rounder. Before Gilchrist, teams picked wicketkeepers who were poor batsmen. After Gilchrist they tend to pick good batsman who's keeping leaves something to be desired. The truth is no team has had a Gilchrist because he's special. You don't sacrifice either with Gilchrist, he can do both and do both well.
9. Shane Warne
To be honest, I really don't want to talk about Warne.
10. Malcolm Marshall
I picked him over SF Barnes because I don't think SF Barnes' stats are as great as people think, in fact SF Barnes wasn't even close to being my pick. His strike-rate is about the same as Shane Bond's, which says a lot about Shane Bond... but on the other hand, someone like Marshall is just so proven and established on so many pitches. I thought about picking Hadlee, but I thought Marshall would compliment Lillee better... maybe that's silly since Hadlee would apply a lot of pressure. Marshall > Hadlee in bowling... but as a cricket as a whole, it's a lot closer. There's enough batting in this team that I don't need another all-rounder.
11. Dennis Lillee
Who did Malcolm Marshall say in his autobiography was the best fast bowler ever? Who does Richard Hadlee, Ian Botham, Bob Willis consider the best fast bowler ever? Who did Bradman say was the best bowler he ever saw in an interview? Who greatly impressed Gary Sobers on his debut? Who did most of the batsman in the 80s say was the best they faced? Dennis Lillee is the answer to all those. He's the goal-standard for all fast bowlers. Marshall and Hadlee looked to learn off him, as did McGrath... his performance on the deadest wicket ever in 1977 was gold as well.
12th man Muttiah Muralitharan
I wanted Murali in so bad... and as I write this I am thinking about taking out Marshall and putting him in. Lillee and Khan could open the bowling, and you'd have the two best spinners ever ripping apart teams. I just felt the side looked more balanced with Marshall in there, personally I think Murali is greater than Marshall these days... only just.
1. Sir Jack Hobbs
I refute all suggestions Hobbs doesn't deserve to be in here because he played in the amateaur era. Very few changes have occured in bowling since the 20s. Swing bowling already existed, as did most spin bowling - you had players like Grimmett bowling the best flippers. And you'd be suprised how much cricketers played domestically back then. Don Bradman played all year round, playing exhibitions games for his boss etc. You can see short clips of cricket back then and the bowling is just as fast, with reports of great swing. There's little to suggest players weren't skilled or prepared when you consider how mucht hey played and how refined bowling already was. And most important thing to consider, wickets back then weren't covered. Hobbs regularly played on wet wickets, forcing him to have this perfect technique. It's sad how people can't see this was truly a legend of the game. The best compliment one can pay Hobbs is that he did far better on wet-wickets than Bradman did. Bradman struggled on wet-wickets, while Hobbs thrived. His technique never gave in to horrible conditions... even with players like Grimmett sliding in flippers all day. When people talk about cricket not being up to the standard of today, I agree quality has gotten better, of course it has, but the 20s weren't an embrionic stage in cricket... it was a refined stage where swing was already a science. If we're talking about WG Grace then that's different, cricket was in an embrionic stage. But by the 20s the amount of domestic cricket was staggering... players were well refined.
2. Sunil Gavaskar
In an era when fast bowling was maybe at it's best, and when teams crumbled under the immense capability of the West Indies bowling attack, Sunny Gavaskar actually got better and seemed to thrive. Incredible that.
3. Sir Donald Bradman
No explanation needed.
4. Sachin Tendulkar
If Tendulkar never made another run in cricket history, he still wouldn't leave my all-time top ten best players list. It's sad how people are beginning to underrate him. I've heard people say Dravid is greater etc and it's just not true. There's even reports of people saying his peak was 1995-1999. Tendulkar's peak was much longer than that. He was still the world's best batsman in 2001! He was still excellent in 2003 at the world cup. My memories of Tendulkar are of him being impossible to bowl to. McGrath is the best example. I've seen McGrath bowl what appear to be perfect lines, only for Tendulkar to hit a four because it was a tiny bit too short. Then I've seen McGrath slightly pitch it up more, still at what you would think is an unplayable length, and get driven. That's how I remember Tendulkar, as a batsman who's batting channel was so thin you couldn't bowl to him on his best day. No wonder he was compared to Bradman back then, and that's exactly how I envision him.
5. Sir Vivian Richards
Batting averages are terrible things. Aside from the 1975 (was it 1976?) series against England where Viv Richards made Tony Grieg eat his words, Richards didn't have a lot of big scores. That isn't to say he didn't make a lot of centuries though... it's just that he didn't go on. For example, Lara could make 400* one year (and did) and not do a wole lot for the rest of the year and still have a massive average... it would take Lara eight ducks for his average to get down to 50. Great batting averages are built on huge scores. But there in lies my point, batsmen like Tendulkar and Richards are special because their batting averages are high despite few massive scores like double centuries. They can consistently make centuries which ultimately means they're winning more games for their teams and are being consistent. Ask anybody who saw Richards and they'll say nobody stole games from you like Viv. Capable of making quick fast centuries and never letting the pressure of the situation bother him. No players was so un-affected by pressure as Viv and with a hint of arrogance, the game was gone.
6. Sir Garfield Sobers
No explanation needed. I will say I think his bowling is overrated and he strikes me more as a batting all-rounder than a rounded all-rounder like Botham.
7. Imran Khan
In the era of all-rounders, ask Botham, Hadlee and Dev who the best was and they all say Khan. All who saw him felt he was just ahead of all of them, maybe not by a lot, but it was clear. Also probably the best captain ever.
8. Adam Gilchrist
I think people will better gauge Gilchrist's greatness when he retires because he's a true all-rounder. Before Gilchrist, teams picked wicketkeepers who were poor batsmen. After Gilchrist they tend to pick good batsman who's keeping leaves something to be desired. The truth is no team has had a Gilchrist because he's special. You don't sacrifice either with Gilchrist, he can do both and do both well.
9. Shane Warne
To be honest, I really don't want to talk about Warne.
10. Malcolm Marshall
I picked him over SF Barnes because I don't think SF Barnes' stats are as great as people think, in fact SF Barnes wasn't even close to being my pick. His strike-rate is about the same as Shane Bond's, which says a lot about Shane Bond... but on the other hand, someone like Marshall is just so proven and established on so many pitches. I thought about picking Hadlee, but I thought Marshall would compliment Lillee better... maybe that's silly since Hadlee would apply a lot of pressure. Marshall > Hadlee in bowling... but as a cricket as a whole, it's a lot closer. There's enough batting in this team that I don't need another all-rounder.
11. Dennis Lillee
Who did Malcolm Marshall say in his autobiography was the best fast bowler ever? Who does Richard Hadlee, Ian Botham, Bob Willis consider the best fast bowler ever? Who did Bradman say was the best bowler he ever saw in an interview? Who greatly impressed Gary Sobers on his debut? Who did most of the batsman in the 80s say was the best they faced? Dennis Lillee is the answer to all those. He's the goal-standard for all fast bowlers. Marshall and Hadlee looked to learn off him, as did McGrath... his performance on the deadest wicket ever in 1977 was gold as well.
12th man Muttiah Muralitharan
I wanted Murali in so bad... and as I write this I am thinking about taking out Marshall and putting him in. Lillee and Khan could open the bowling, and you'd have the two best spinners ever ripping apart teams. I just felt the side looked more balanced with Marshall in there, personally I think Murali is greater than Marshall these days... only just.
Last edited:
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
I'd bat Gilly over Khan, put McGrath in for Lillee, and otherwise you're gold .
.Yeah I have no problems with Gilly batting over Khan. But Gilly might be better suited at 8 since Khan might need time to get going, while Gilly can just get in a go with the tail. Then again, Gilly is the better batter so I think you're right.
I once heard McGrath say Lillee was the best fast bowler ever. It's just a rule of thumb for all who saw Lillee play. Most fast bowlers rank him the best fast bowler ever. Even when McGrath retired from Test cricket and Allan Border was throwing out many incredible superlatives to describe him, when asked if he was Australia's best bowler he politely insinuated Lillee had the edge on him. Marshall nearly missed out... if I wanted McGrath in he'd be in there instead of Marshall. It could have been Murali (I desperately wanted him in) or Hadlee. Both had strong cases.
I once heard McGrath say Lillee was the best fast bowler ever. It's just a rule of thumb for all who saw Lillee play. Most fast bowlers rank him the best fast bowler ever. Even when McGrath retired from Test cricket and Allan Border was throwing out many incredible superlatives to describe him, when asked if he was Australia's best bowler he politely insinuated Lillee had the edge on him. Marshall nearly missed out... if I wanted McGrath in he'd be in there instead of Marshall. It could have been Murali (I desperately wanted him in) or Hadlee. Both had strong cases.
Shaggy Alfresco
State Captain
Gavaskar
Hobbs
Bradman
Lara
Tendulkar
Gilchrist
Sobers
Imran
Marshall
Murali
McGrath
12th man WG Grace
Hobbs
Bradman
Lara
Tendulkar
Gilchrist
Sobers
Imran
Marshall
Murali
McGrath
12th man WG Grace
Fusion
Global Moderator
Enjoyed reading your post Francis. My XI changes from time to time, but it would match yours very closely. The only change I would make is Hadlee in place of Lillee. Imran would Captain the side.
Swervy
International Captain
and yet those who actually didnt see too much of him play put Lillees reputation down to the fact that it was all show, bizarrely enough (mentioning no names!!!)
Swervy
International Captain
now that is an odd looking line up
Ash_A55
U19 Captain
Then i fulfilled my purpose, i thought i would throw in a few different names in a rather different looking team.
Swervy
International Captain
its more the order, and the fact it is very bowling heavy!!!