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

[kyear2]

I gave my two cents on the first page itself - Gilly for Knott.

But since the topic has come up again, I would just like to say to the purists that get off your high horse. Cricket has always preferred the wicket-keeper batsman. Knott himself was chosen over the (marginally) better keeper Bob Taylor because he was by far the superior batsman. Taylor even lost his place sometimes to Downton and Bairstow who were superior bats.

Keith Andrew forever played in the shadow of Godfrey Evans, and was once kept out for the makeshift batsman-keeper Jim Parks.

Les Ames was the choice above George Duckworth, a better keeper.

It just makes good sense to have Gilly for Knott.

All very true, and that doesn't even include Alec Stewart keeping a far superior keeper like Jack Russell. It should also be noted that the difference between Gilchrist and Knott and nowhere as vast as Russell and Stewart.

 

[harsh.ag]

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

First test innings, Gilchrist scores 81 in 88 deliveries against Wasim, Akhtar and Mushtaq Ahmed. Then the famous 149 against Wasim, Waqar and Akhtar. I could go on and on. 204 off 213 balls against Donald, Nel, Ntini, Kallis. 133 against Hoggard, Caddick, Harmison. 83 against Bond, Martin,Vettori, Cairns. 94 off 111 against Harmison, Flintoff, Murali, Vettori, Kallis. Many others too. Gilly does not just bash mediocre attacks. Against great bowling, Knott =/= Gilly. It's an assumption that I do not concede.

 

[the big bambino]

But with only one change, as great as I feel that Gilly is, Knott is not as big a liability that I believe Barnes or Grace would be in the modern game. Barnes was good vs Australia but feasted on a weak S.A team and the disparity in his numbers from those two team should speak volumes. Added to that we are nor even sure what he bowled, but we do know he wouldn't have the benefit of those matting pitches that he performed so well on. So Lillee for me on this team would be a must to open with Marshall.

Barnes was great against Australia.

Can't see the reasoning why his even better record against SA should be held against him. Its boggling that anyone should think it speaks "volumes" with an inference to it being a mark against him without explaining why.

Barnes was a pro. He was paid to take wickets. If it was at league level he assessed his opposition and bowled accordingly. That is he conserved his energies and bowled slower as the opposition didn't demand a greater effort. However for tests, especially in Australia on wickets which were true, he bowled at full fast medium pace and demanded that he be fully compensated for the tax on his resources. If he wasn't he wouldn't tour which happened a few times. However when he did he averaged about 7 wickets a test against the best opponents on the truest wickets. No one in history can compare.

He only bowled on matting in SA. His record there is actually to his credit. Not everyone could adapt. It is farcical that in down playing his form there you are actually ridiculing a bowler for his dexterity.

Whereas Lillee was quite ordinary in certain conditions Barnes mastered them all and is clearly a class above.

 

[Red]

Just for the record, I reckon Gilchrist and Knott are about on par as cricketers, and I wouldn't care if someone had either of them in their ATG at all. I only object to the idea that Gilchrist wasn't a good keeper. He was very very good.

If I was just picking my faves (and not being pragmatic), I'd take Godfrey Evans, or maybe Syed Kirmani.

Faves

Gordon Greenidge
Barry Richards
Don Bradman
Greg Chappell
Viv Richards
Ian Botham
Godfrey Evans
Wasim Akram
Harold Larwood (respect for him has grown tenfold since reading his biography)
Dennis Lillee
Clarrie Grimmett

 

[hendrix]

Imran for Barnes.

I find it extremely unlikely that Barnes would be anything more than a handy part timer on modern pitches.

 

[the big bambino]

I wonder what is so special about modern pitches that distinguishes them from the true pitches in Aus of Barnes' era. Hmmm...Puzzling.

 

[kyear2]

To average 21 @ 54 vs Australia in that era was that outstanding. To average 9 @ 25 with 83 wickets from 7 matches shows how much weaker the South African line up was and how much they boosted his final numbers.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Barnes played in South Africa, England and Australia. How were the pitches in those countries back then during his time, considering that he was a spinner who moved the ball both in the air and off the pitch?

 

[the big bambino]

The average v Australia is compatible with ATG status. I can't review his numbers against SA when 1) they were significantly better then any other bowler's record against them and 2) you do the same for every other bowler in the history of the game and deduct matches against weaker oppenents from their record too.

To Agent N. Pitches then were left open to the elements but were true in Australia. Had to be as all games Barnes played here were timeless tests so the pitches were built to last. Pitches in England were a bit of a lottery but no better or worse than the bowler friendly English wickets in the 70s and 80s. SA had matting which was true but offered bounce and movement. Not every bowler was suited to them. Barnes uniquely prospered in all conditions presented to him. Conditions which would not surprise him if he were alive to see them today. In fact playing on matting gave him a unique experience no modern bowler has or will ever have.

 

[subshakerz]

If Barnes was able to regularly bowl a sharp cutter that goes from leg to off at medium pace, that unplayable delivery will get you cheap wickets in any era. Thats my reason for selecting him.

 

[the big bambino]

Clem Hill tells a story of facing him on a flawless pitch where he decided to turn a leg side delivery fine only to have it move across him and swipe his off bail.

 

[Red]

Seriously a shame that we can't see those early era guys in action.

 

[watson]

Imran for Barnes.

I find it extremely unlikely that Barnes would be anything more than a handy part timer on modern pitches.

A fast leg break aimed at middle & leg, and bowled on a perfect length, will dismiss quality batsman in any era, no matter the state of the pitch. Add extra pace and bounce from a tall up-right action, combine it with some over-spin, and that leg break becomes even more difficult.

At Melbourne, in December 1911, Barnes in five overs dismissed Kelleway, Bardsley, Hill and Armstrong for 1 one;

2nd Test: Australia v England at Melbourne, Dec 30, 1911 - Jan 3, 1912 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

The pitch was described at the time as being nothing remarkable yet Clem Hill described his dismissal thus: "The ball pitched outside my leg-stump, safe to the push off my pads, I thought. Before I could `pick up' my bat, my off-stump was knocked silly."

The interesting thing here is that Clem Hill was a left-hander, So Barnes must have been able to bowl an off-break that was good as his standard leg-break. Barnes was one heck of a bowler for sure.

 

[Bushranger]

Wasim Akram for

IMRAN KHAN