How great is your all time great Team ??

[honestbharani]

As was shown with Chris Read vs WI 2004. Modern day teams cant tolerate a keeper who can't bat competently @ 7 anymore.

The only way a Evans or Grout type keeper could survive in modern day test cricket is if a side plays 6 pure batsmen & a allrounder @ 7 - thus giving a solid 4-man & keeping to excellent glovesman.

But not many sides right now have quality test all-rounders to work this balance. Plus if you add into the equation, that given the amount of flat pitches teams are looking to play 5bowlers instead of just 4. Thus more importance is there for a keeper to be able to bat well, so it close to impossible for such keepers to play regularly.

who said the team HAS to be modern??????????

 

[Lillian Thomson]

But i would say one clear positive thing Gilly's impact left was that he has made it a MUST for a keeper to be able to bat competently @ 7. .

I don't see the diluting of the art of wicketkeeping as a positive.

 

[Ikki]

It goes back to the argument that Gilchrist may give you slightly less keeping ability but a tonne more batting ability than the others. When Benaud was picking his XI he obviously took into account this fact, and that's good enough for me.

Note, not that I think Benaud's word is the be-all and end-all but that I find rating keepers difficult.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It goes back to the argument that Gilchrist may give you slightly less keeping ability but a tonne more batting ability than the others. When Benaud was picking his XI he obviously took into account this fact, and that's good enough for me.

Note, not that I think Benaud's word is the be-all and end-all but that I find rating keepers difficult.

Gilchrist isn't really the problem as he's a high class keeper. The problem has been the England selectors relentless search for a Gilchrist of their own that doesn't, and probably never will, exist.

 

[JBMAC]

Gilchrist isn't really the problem as he's a high class keeper[/B]. The problem has been the England selectors relentless search for a Gilchrist of their own that doesn't, and probably never will, exist.

Rubbish. Gilchrist is the answer maybe in shortened forms of the game....in Tests NEVER!!!..Of all the stumpers I have seen play this is my top Ten based purely on keeping ability.

1. Tallon
2....Grout
3. Evans
4. Marsh
5. Engineer
6. Maclean
7. Healy
8 Knott
9. Kirmani
10. Mohammed

Please note Gilchrist's name does not appear in top ten!
/B]

 

[SJS]

Rubbish. Gilchrist is the answer maybe in shortened forms of the game....in Tests NEVER!!!..Of all the stumpers I have seen play this is my top Ten based purely on keeping ability.

1. Tallon
2....Grout
3. Evans
4. Marsh
5. Engineer
6. Maclean
7. Healy
8 Knott
9. Kirmani
10. Mohammed

Please note Gilchrist's name does not appear in top ten!
/B]

I haven't seen Tallon, Evans and Maclean but I cant disagree much with that list. My list would include

Healy
Knott
Engineer
Kirmani
Marsh
Bari
Taylor
Grout

not necessarily in that order.

 

[aussie]

who said the team HAS to be modern??????????

Because i was talking about modern day cricket & how the game has advanced.

 

[honestbharani]

Because i was talking about modern day cricket & how the game has advanced.

As others have said, you can still have Sobers, Imran, Miller in 6,7,8 and pick a great keeper there.


Plus there is no reason an all time side has to be "modern" for it to be successful in our imaginary matches and series.

 

[GIMH]

This seems to change almost every time it's asked, but here it goes:

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Bradman
Richards
Chappell
Sobers
Miller
Gilchrist
Imran
Warne
Lillee

Not wishing to open up a can of worms here, always thought Hayden & Hobbs was your opening pair of choice. Or maybe it was your Aussie XI I saw Hayden in, dunno. Just surprised not to see him listed, I guess.

 

[Ikki]

Not wishing to open up a can of worms here, always thought Hayden & Hobbs was your opening pair of choice. Or maybe it was your Aussie XI I saw Hayden in, dunno. Just surprised not to see him listed, I guess.

IIRC, it was meant purely to rile people up. Some people were saying at the time that Hayden was not even in the top 20 openers, and I found that ridiculous. You'll often see me put players just so I can give them a "shout out", so to say.

Both Hobbs and Sutcliffe are among the very best openers of all time and even better were a pair together. Only questions I really have are about the quality of bowling they faced. It's hard to gauge and compare the eras.

Other than that, yes I do rate Hayden highly. In fact, if it were a choice between him and Gavaskar I would pick him. And I understand that most people would disagree with me on that; still, I just don't want a Gavaskar/Boycott type opener in my team. Call it a stylistic choice.

---

on another note, two other changes in my side are Chappell and Imran. Not too long ago there was a thread about him and I learned I underrated him by some fair margin. IMO he really has a legitimate case to be the 2nd best behind Bradman; especially when you look at how he fared against the WIndies in the WSC. Also Imran, who I didn't appreciate just how good he was in the 80s. Possibly, even probably IMO, the best bowler of the 80s. His record against the WIndies is nothing short of ridiculously good.

 

[aussie]

As others have said, you can still have Sobers, Imran, Miller in 6,7,8 and pick a great keeper there.


Plus there is no reason an all time side has to be "modern" for it to be successful in our imaginary matches and series.

No no, i am not talking about hypotetical All-time XIs. But modern day cricket in 2009 in which international teams clearly wouldn't play a pure keeper who cant bat well anymore.

I do agree that a pure keeper can play in a hypotetical Greatest ATXI. I picked my side on the previous page with Knott.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Rubbish. Gilchrist is the answer maybe in shortened forms of the game....in Tests NEVER!!!..Of all the stumpers I have seen play this is my top Ten based purely on keeping ability.

1. Tallon
2....Grout
3. Evans
4. Marsh
5. Engineer
6. Maclean
7. Healy
8 Knott
9. Kirmani
10. Mohammed

Please note Gilchrist's name does not appear in top ten!
/B]

If you don't think Gilchrist was a high class keeper then you clearly don't know a good keeper from a bad one. Rodney Marsh at number 4.........hmmnn?

Also please note that Gilchrist wouldn't be in my top 10 either but that doesn't mean he's not a high class keeper.

 

[aussie]

Number 10 on JBMACs list - Mohammad somehow i dont recall any great keeper by that name.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Number 10 on JBMACs list - Mohammad somehow i dont recall any great keeper by that name.

Perhaps he mis-spelt Bob Taylor. It's hard to think of any other reason why he wouldn't be in the list.

 

[aussie]

Perhaps he mis-spelt Bob Taylor. It's hard to think of any other reason why he wouldn't be in the list.

Ye good choice. Cameron from SA is another one as well.

 

[Goughy]

If you don't think Gilchrist was a high class keeper then you clearly don't know a good keeper from a bad one. Rodney Marsh at number 4.........hmmnn?

Yeah its interesting. Maybe its just one of those things where Marsh has a far better reputation as a keeper in Aus than he does in Eng.

 

[JBMAC]

If you don't think Gilchrist was a high class keeper then you clearly don't know a good keeper from a bad one. Rodney Marsh at number 4.........hmmnn?

Also please note that Gilchrist wouldn't be in my top 10 either but that doesn't mean he's not a high class keeper.

Gilchrist not a good gloveman at all for Tests.As for nowing have kept wickets for over 40 years to the like of Jeff Thompson and Wes Hall.

Number 10 on JBMACs list - Mohammad somehow i dont recall any great keeper by that name.

Haniff Mohammed played only about a handful of Tests as Keeper but he was very stylish and extremely reiable in that role and i would definitely put him up there with the best

Yeah its interesting. Maybe its just one of those things where Marsh has a far better reputation as a keeper in Aus than he does in Eng.

Thats probably correct as the wickets in England are obviously softer and do not give as much opportunity.The harder aussie wickets seemed to suit his ability

 

[andyc]

Haniff Mohammed played only about a handful of Tests as Keeper but he was very stylish and extremely reiable in that role and i would definitely put him up there with the best

So you've included someone who doesn't even have a Test level stumping over Gilchrist? Given that he averaged considerably less than one dismissal per game, it's safe to assume that he didn't do much, and as such there's no way that he should be rated higher than someone like Gilchrist who kept in just about every game he played in. You claim that Mohammad was 'very stylish and extremely reliable,' yet of the 350+ games Gilchrist played for Australia as keeper, there are countless examples were he's been 'stylish and extremely reliable,' especially in terms of the latter.

I'll happily admit that Gilchrist isn't the best keeper that ever lived, but he was a damn good one. I really have to agree with Aussie in this argument; the idea that a very good glovesman is better for the team than a good keeper-batsman is outdated. Brad Haddin was criticised for letting through a fair few byes on his first tour of India, but have a look at the recent ODI series between Australia and India. Graham Manou is touted as the best glovesman in Australia, yet in his first game in India he let through 8 byes in total and was in general very ordinary behind the stumps. He conceded 28 byes in 4 matches, and scored a grand total of 7 runs. Look at Grout; he averaged 15 with the bat. Sure, quite possibly the the best keeper in the game, but there's no way that he made up for the difference of 25-30 runs just by saving a few byes and taking say, one catch per every 20 innings that someone like Gilchrist wouldn't have.

 

[JBMAC]

So you've included someone who doesn't even have a Test level stumping over Gilchrist? Given that he averaged considerably less than one dismissal per game, it's safe to assume that he didn't do much, and as such there's no way that he should be rated higher than someone like Gilchrist who kept in just about every game he played in. You claim that Mohammad was 'very stylish and extremely reliable,' yet of the 350+ games Gilchrist played for Australia as keeper, there are countless examples were he's been 'stylish and extremely reliable,' especially in terms of the latter.

I'll happily admit that Gilchrist isn't the best keeper that ever lived, but he was a damn good one. I really have to agree with Aussie in this argument; the idea that a very good glovesman is better for the team than a good keeper-batsman is outdated. Brad Haddin was criticised for letting through a fair few byes on his first tour of India, but have a look at the recent ODI series between Australia and India. Graham Manou is touted as the best glovesman in Australia, yet in his first game in India he let through 8 byes in total and was in general very ordinary behind the stumps. He conceded 28 byes in 4 matches, and scored a grand total of 7 runs. Look at Grout; he averaged 15 with the bat. Sure, quite possibly the the best keeper in the game, but there's no way that he made up for the difference of 25-30 runs just by saving a few byes and taking say, one catch per every 20 innings that someone like Gilchrist wouldn't have.

Who "touted" him that! IMPO Hartley is currently the best keeper in OZ

 

[andyc]

Pretty sure I've seen said here a few times, and definitely in the media. There's no doubt he's up there though, and he was selected for his keeping more so than batting.