How great is your all time great Team ??

[honestbharani]

Any keeper may let go byes in a match... But you need to check overall.. Someone like Dhoni never really drops too many chances but if you compare him to a better keeper, you will see that he doesn't go for that many half-chances in the first place. So while he may come across as a safe keeper, anyone who has kept at some level can tell you that there are much better keepers around... AS a keeper/batsman combination he is easily the best in India, but yet his footwork and his diving leave a lot to be desired as a pure keeper.


There s no reason why this should not be the case with Haddin and others. Mind you, I have seen so little of any of these Aussie keepers to have any real informed opinion about them.. I am purely guessing here.

 

[NUFAN]

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

Hartley isn't showing that he's currently the best. He's missed a few stumping chances off Simpson's bowling and he has also not gone for a couple of keeper catches that Simpson at first slip has had to pull off a screamer just to get to the ball.

 

[aussie]

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

Well firslty i'd say i shocked to hear H Mohammed ever kept much. But as aformentioned by andy_c, its crazy to put him amognst the greatest pure glovesmen in the games history based on so little performances in tests.

 

[honestbharani]

Well firslty i'd say i shocked to hear H Mohammed ever kept much. But as aformentioned by andy_c, its crazy to put him amognst the greatest pure glovesmen in the games history based on so little performances in tests.

If it is an opinion of someone who was around and has watched the man keep, I don't see why it should be construed as crazy.


It is surely possible that the fact he was such a good batsman made him neglect his keeping quite a bit and got him to play as a frontline batsman, thus depriving them of a great keeper.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

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.

I'm not sure that "interesting" is the word I'd use. The idea that Rodney Marsh is the best keeper of the past 40 years is quite frankly laughable. He doesn't even bear camparison with his comtemporaries Alan Knott, Bob Taylor or Wasim Bari.

 

[JBMAC]

I'm not sure that "interesting" is the word I'd use. The idea that Rodney Marsh is the best keeper of the past 40 years is quite frankly laughable. He doesn't even bear camparison with his comtemporaries Alan Knott, Bob Taylor or Wasim Bari.

NOBODY said he was "THE BEST" just in the top ten say since 1945

 

[Lillian Thomson]

NOBODY said he was "THE BEST" just in the top ten say since 1945

As he was Number 4 on the list and the highest one from the past 40 years it was a reasonable assumption. Either way he still doesn't qualify.

 

[bagapath]

Rodney Marsh doesn't even bear camparison with his comtemporaries Alan Knott, Bob Taylor or Wasim Bari.

Why do you say so? From what little I have seen, he seemed quite tight in his technique and didnt miss too many. He definitely had the temperament and spirit to double as his team's cheer leader as well, when necessary. Obviously Marsh didnt have as much flair as Alan Knott; but at the same time he didnt look less than world class either. He certainly was good enough to hold the world record for a decade and IIRC he also averaged more dismissals per test than Knott. (BTW, I dont consider Gilchrist to be outside the top 20 great keepers of all time)

 

[Faisal1985]

The greatest of all times in bowlers, and no Wasim Akram?????? How is McGrath ahead of Akram??? i don't get it.....

 

[bagapath]

The greatest of all times in bowlers, and no Wasim Akram?????? How is McGrath ahead of Akram??? i don't get it.....

i think mcgrath was better, marginally in some aspects and significantly in most, than akram in everything to do with fast bowling except versatility

 

[aussie]

If it is an opinion of someone who was around and has watched the man keep, I don't see why it should be construed as crazy.

I always have great respect for a person who has seen older players. But i'm not sure if he actually "saw" H Mohammed wicket keep, since Mohammed only toured AUS once in his career & he didn't wicket-keep. So JBMAC would have to tell us if he saw him keep in some pre-test warm up or was in some other country to see him keep.

It is surely possible that the fact he was such a good batsman made him neglect his keeping quite a bit and got him to play as a frontline batsman, thus depriving them of a great keeper.

Maybe. I have read similar stories about JR Reid from NZ as well. But the fact you can't pick Mohammed as one of the top 10 pure glovesmen ever, based on 3 test when they are others like Jock Cameron, Les Ames, Blackham, Bob Taylor, Bari played much more test.

 

[Uppercut]

If you don't think Gilchrist was a high class keeper then you clearly don't know a good keeper from a bad one.

Completely agree here. I think Gilchrist's keeping was excellent, but it always seems to come under unfair criticism in this particular debate because he's representing the batsman-wicketkeeper role.

 

[Goughy]

If it is an opinion of someone who was around and has watched the man keep, I don't see why it should be construed as crazy.

May not be crazy but including a guy that barely kept is at least controvrrsial.

For example the best keeper I have seen is Ismail Dawood but just because I thought he was an amazing pure keeper doesnt put him ahead of those that achieved far more.

 

[jboss]

Anyone else think that a player severely being overlooked here is MJ Procter?

 

[G.I.Joe]

We're talking Test teams, jboss, not FC teams.

 

[jboss]

I was referring to having in my test team any day. Above all the other all rounders mentioned. The man was a bowling all rounder unlike most the others who were batting all rounders.

 

[aussie]

I was referring to having in my test team any day. Above all the other all rounders mentioned. The man was a bowling all rounder unlike most the others who were batting all rounders.

Proctor was more of a batting all-rounder tbh.

 

[jboss]

Proctor was more of a batting all-rounder tbh.

With a S/R of 46 + 70 five wicket hauls and 15 10 wicket hauls @ ave of 19.0 I would put him in my side as a bowler any day. Shane warne has less first class wickets at a worse trike rate and a worse average o.O" we talking completed f/c careers here.

I had a look on cricinfo and the only player I can compare him too is Rhodes who played 3 times more games than him. If we were to triple proctors record then we would no doubt have a better record than rhodes. Additionally all batting records from rhodes erra are inflated due to smaller grounds.

 

[SJS]

Like all cricket lovers one has made dozens of all time sides but what fascinates me most is the sides made by great players and put on record. I am going to try and locate such teams and put them here. Others are welcome to do the same. Please indicate the source and the year of publication for that is always relevant to the selection.

One of the lesser known such lists is the one made by Frank Woolley and put in his autobiography, The King of Games.

The legendary left hander names a first eleven and then goes on to name a second eleven. Even more interestingly he discusses his reasons for the selections. Here are excerpts :-

When I first began to play in the big game it was a rare thing for even an accredited critic of cricket to announce to the world what would be his England Eleven. Still less did members of the public write to the papers to proclaim their views on the same topic.. . .

I am going to exercise the right of every individual and lay myself open to the wind from every quarter of criticism by stating that my World XI, chosen only from men with and against whom I have played, would be sent into bat in this order :

1. Victor Trumper
2. Jack Hobbs
3. K S Ranjitsinhji
4. John T TYldesley
5. Charlie Macartney
6. Mr. J R Mason (Captain)
7. Mr F R Foster
8. Harold Larwood
9. Bill Oldfield (keeper)
10. Sid Barnes
11. Colin Blythe

What no Bradman ? We scream. Woolley himself shows not enough confidence to put his shirt on the team. He goes on. . .

I must confess that I should not expect My XI to beat the following team with confidence overflowing to the extent of planking down a large sum of money in order to back my fancy. But can not the same thing be said about any world XI as compared with the next best?

Here is the "second" XI that would, I think, make a match of it with mine.

1. Mr AC MacLaren (Captain)
2. Cdr. CB Fry
3. GA Faulkner
4. DG Bradman
5. WR Hammond
6. MA Noble
7. W Rhodes
8. HB Cameron (keeper)
9. JM Gregory
10. EA Macdonald
11. CV Grimmett

What would I do if I was to combine the two sides? I would have taken Bradman and Hammond from the second XI and put them in the first to replace Tyldesley and Macartney in the batting. Noble or Gregory to replace Mason and Grimmett to replace either Foster or Blythe depending upon the wicket conditions. But then I would be making the decision in 2009. Woolley was writing at the end of 1935 by which time

• Bradman had scored 3849 Test runs with 15 centuries. His average was already 98 plus.
  
• Hammond had scored 4500 odd runs at 56 plus.
  
• Grimmett had 172 Test wickets at 26.7.

Only Noble, from those I want to bring in had completed his career. All those Woolley preferred had already done so. Maybe he would have thought more highly of Bradman after 1948; maybe.

to be continued. . .​

 

[SJS]

Then the elegant left hander goes on to explain his selections.

I gave Trumper and Macartney the preference over Macartney as I have not seen Bradman get scores after rain and he has not yet had the class of bowling to compete against that both the others had. I have also in mind the flawlessly straight bats of Trumper and Macartney and the occasionally very cross bat of the present idol of Australia. Bradman is not a better field than were the other two in their respective positions and, in fact, is not as good as Trumper was in the deep field. Trumper could throw well over a hundred yards and his return from the deep was always quicker than the more leisurely but otherwise perfect return of the Don. I am not suggesting that Bradman can not throw in fiecely from the outfield, as I have seen him do it, but well I have my preference and I have stated it.

Trumper is superior for certainty of scoring off the good length ball _ the supreme test, this of batsmanship- I have ever known. . .

Trumper was a beautiful player. He raised batting higher than anyone else I have seen. He, if any one ever did, made of it a physical fine art. What a pity he was born too soon and there is, therefore, no cinematographic record to show the world in slow motion how graceful a man can be when wielding a cricket bat.

In a much more sedate way, our own Willie Quaife was the nearest approach to Trumper in this matter of perfect execution. I did not see the late Lionel Palairet so can not give my own opinion where is his place among batsmen to watch whom was a sheer pleasure.

Trumper's movements to batting were what those of Barnes were to bowling. A more beautiful, though hostile, action than Barnes I never saw. I can npt see how it could have been improved upon. The more sinuous and limpid swing of Mr FR Foster, for all its smoothness, was almost clumsy by comparison to Sid's. A great and workman like pair these two, so opposite in style as well as angle of delivery, and such attackers both of them!

Friendly opponents of my World XI may pick and chose and sort and sift where they like. I defy them to name, as a pair, a better (one) than Mr Foster and Barnes anong bowlers of my time, 1906-1935.

Very interesting indeed. Great to hear of the comparison between Trumper and Bradman's fielding and even for those who violently disagree with Bradman not being in the XI, the description of the beauty of Trumper's game from one of the most beautiful looking left handed batsmen by all accounts must come as absolutely delightful.

I love the description of Barnes bowling, again against a stylish left armer like Foster.
Lovely.

- to be continued​