If you could make 1 change from the Wisden All time 11...

[watson]

Don't have a problem with WG opening, Knott as keeper, or Wasim as the 'mandatory' ATG left-armer. In this team, Marshall and Barnes will take the Top Order wickets and then Wasim and Warne will clean up the Tail. Happy with that.

Viv Richards batted more times at No.5 (63) than at No.3 (59), so he's quite at home there. And Sobers is the second best batsman after Bradman, so he stays at No.6.

So the obvious change is Brian Lara at No.4 rather than Tendulkar. Given the choice, I prefer my natural genius' to be mercurial.

 

[watson]

Semi-related to this whole concept: Someone pick a best xi from the beginning of Wisden to 1914

PRE-WWI Team
01. WG Grace
02. Victor Trumper
03. Clem Hill
04. George Gunn
05. Kumar Ranjitsinhji
06. Aubrey Faulkner
07. Monty Noble
08. Arthur Lilley
09. Sydney Barnes
10. Tom Richardson
11. Fred Spofforth

 

[centurymaker]

Alan Knott batted against some of the best bowling attacks ever assembled and equipped himself very well. For example;

ENG V AUS 1974/75: Ave = 36, HS = 106*
ENG V AUS 1975: Ave = 37, HS = 69
ENG V WI 1976: Ave = 30, HS = 116

I am sceptical that Gilchrist could have done any better at the time.

In other words, Gilchrist was excellent at pulverising mediocre bowling attacks because his power and timing far exceeded Knott's. However, batting against quality attacks with ATG bowlers is a completely different art, and in that context I believe Gilchrist and Knott to be a lot closer than most people assume;

Against mediocre attacks: Gilchrist >> Knott
Against great bowling attacks: Knott = Gilchrist
Wicket-Keeping skill: Knott > Gilchrist

Probably the best argument I have seen anyone pose in favour of Knott.

 

[watson]

It is interesting to contemplate whether the PRE-WWI team would beat a modern team if they played a series or two on 'Golden Era' wickets.

PRE-WWI Team
01. WG Grace
02. Victor Trumper
03. Clem Hill
04. George Gunn
05. Kumar Ranjitsinhji
06. Aubrey Faulkner
07. Monty Noble
08. Arthur Lilley
09. Sydney Barnes
10. Tom Richardson
11. Fred Spofforth

VERSUS

CRICINFO Team
01. Len Hutton
02. Jack Hobbs (played more Tests after the War than before)
03. Don Bradman
04. Sachin Tendulkar
05. Viv Richards
06. Garry Sobers
07. Adam Gilchrist
08. Malcolm Marshall
09. Wasim Akram
10. Shane Warne
11. Dennis Lillee

 

[morgieb]

I'll say Gilly for Knott.

Though obviously Wasim and Grace are arguable.

 

[harsh.ag]

If it's just one, Lillee for Barnes.

Next in order of importance Hutton for Grace and Gilchrist for Knott.

Lillee and Gilchrist being omitted were the biggest shocks for me though.

Your own Xi does not have Lillee in.

 

[GIMH]

Was expecting GIMH to come here and say "BARNES OUT"

OMG that's genius. A wasted opportunity, like the time Allan Donald tried to get Freddie to change his action.

Jono you're a genius

 

[silentstriker]

Hmm, Gilchrist for Knott would yield the biggest improvement. That's an extremely weak #7 in your batting department. Yes, the keeping is measurably better too, but you'll be going up against all time sides and those runs will matter more than the difference in keeping.


Grace for Hutton or Gavaskar or someone else is something I'd think about but you can't really argue his dominance compared to his peers. But it's so difficult to judge that era, so I left him in.

 

[VKN payyans]

Gavaskar for Hobbs.
Gavaskar - undisputed greatest opening batsman of modern era ( if not the greatest batsman )
I would like another change.. Procter for Barnes

and WHY NO LOVE FOR pre 70s bowlers ( except for SFB )

 

[Agent Nationaux]

VKN you remind me of a certain other poster I knew.

 

[smash84]

 

[benchmark00]

Can not believe people are trying to argue Knott with a straight face. Come on man, give me a break. Gilchrist is close to the best cricketer to ever play the game. Don't kid yourself.

 

[Spikey]

I just think this team needs another bowler so Knott stays in.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Can not believe people are trying to argue Knott with a straight face. Come on man, give me a break. Gilchrist is close to the best cricketer to ever play the game. Don't kid yourself.

I think people are thinking the gap between their choice of change and the change between Knott and Gilly isn't as big. If you could make more than one change then I think most would go with that but Knott was a better keeper and the batting might not be needed so much in a line up like this.

 

[Camo999]

Bit rough those arguing to leave out WG. The guy was probably the best cricketer in the world for at least a few decades of the 150 years. Was the selection based on tests only? Surely it should take into account all the cricket covered by Wisden. If ODIs are also given some consideration, that may have been what's got Wasim over the line too.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

I think I'd take a swing with Keith Miller in for either Warne on a green top or Tendulkar on a flat pitch.

O think Gilly's batting is a VERY cheap version of Viv's and he's already in the side. I appreciate the argument for having him in the side for that aggressive batting but Viv's already there and Knott isn't a bad batsman either.

 

[kyear2]

Your own Xi does not have Lillee in.

With the existing attack around him I prefer Lillee's extra pace and aggression. Lillee for me isn't that far behind McGrath and as I have said McGrath like Sachin makes my XI more for their overall body of work, consistency and sheer force of numbers. For a team to actually take the field to play for earth Barry, Lillee, Wasim and Lara makes the team.

 

[OverratedSanity]

After Bradman, Gilchrist and Sobers are imo absolute lock-ins for an AT XI. Feel the same way about keepers as I do about slips. I don't need the greatest ever keeper because Gilchrist is a very good keeper in his own right... He hardly dropped any during his career and kept to Warne superbly. Add in his batting and he provides far far superior value to the team

 

[kyear2]

Really think Gilly is extremely under rated as a keeper. Kept superbly to Warne, McGrath and Lee. That's as varied and challenging as it gets. So even though admittedly Knott keeping to Underwood on a sticky wicket beats all doesn't mean Gilchrist wasn't a master keeper and his batting adds such great value at 7 that he just must be a lock.

 

[subshakerz]

Alan Knott batted against some of the best bowling attacks ever assembled and equipped himself very well. For example;

ENG V AUS 1974/75: Ave = 36, HS = 106*
ENG V AUS 1975: Ave = 37, HS = 69
ENG V WI 1976: Ave = 30, HS = 116

I am sceptical that Gilchrist could have done any better at the time.

In other words, Gilchrist was excellent at pulverising mediocre bowling attacks because his power and timing far exceeded Knott's. However, batting against quality attacks with ATG bowlers is a completely different art, and in that context I believe Gilchrist and Knott to be a lot closer than most people assume;

Against mediocre attacks: Gilchrist >> Knott
Against great bowling attacks: Knott = Gilchrist
Wicket-Keeping skill: Knott > Gilchrist

Gilchrist was quite capable of bashing world class attacks, he did so in his first and second tests in fact. Knott was not capable of match-changing knocks the way Gilchrist was, Gilchrist's specialty was turning the match on its head in super quick time at a time when the opponents feel they are close to the tail, he switches momentum. Yet even by this logic, Gilchrist is still superior to Knott as a batsman, and I feel that while Knott was the best glovesman of all, Gilchrist was world class in this as well. In the end, I feel how little the team will suffer by replacing the greatest keep with merely a great keeper, they gain much more by having a decent bat replaced by a world-class bat.

Gilchrist may perhaps be the only example of a world class keeper being a world class bat. That's what makes him so special.