Playing selector: Lets pick the best test XI of different eras

[The Sean]

Warwick Armstrong? Or Grace?

Plus Faulkner was a spinner and spinning allrounders are a fair bit thinner (Benaud, him and...) on the ground that pace bowling allrounders...

I'd forgotten about Armstrong to be honest, good call - I tend to think of him more as a batsman, forgetting how many wickets he took. Grace's allround greatness came to the fore in FC cricket, he didn't do much Test bowling.

You could add Rhodes, Woolley and Noble to the spinning all rounders too. And Phil Tufnell.

 

[silentstriker]

Might as well post it here:

1. Hobbs
2. Gavaskar
3. Bradman
4. SRT/Hammond
5. Richards/Chappell/Headley
6. Sobers
7. Gilchrist
8. Warne
9. Marshall
10. Trueman/Barnes
11. McGrath

All rounders are overrated. Sobers is picked as a batsman.

Why no all rounder? Well the two greatest sides of the last 50 years, and arguably all time (with all due respect to the invincibles): the WI of 70's and 80's and the Aussies of approx. 1996-2006 both became world beaters without an all rounder.

That of course does not mean they couldn't have been just as good or better with one, but it does show that if you have excellent bowling and excellent batting, specialists might actually be more worthwhile than an all rounder. Unless you find an all rounder whose bowling is just as good as the specialist bowlers or batting just as good as the specialist batsman.

If you use that criteria, Miller, Imran would come close for the bowling department and Kallis and Sobers would come close from the batting department. Of those four, Sobers was clearly the best bat and he would equal or exceed (with just the bat) anyone bar Bradman.

Out of the bowlers, Imran and Miller are close to each other but neither of them (IMO) in bowling prowess alone meet Warne, McGrath, Marshall or Trueman/Barnes. Close, but no cigar.

So I opted for specialists doing a specialists job, with the exception of Sobers, who is selected as a pure batsman anyway.

 

[Slifer]

Good post nothing wrong with that logic at all

 

[The Sean]

Might as well post it here:


All rounders are overrated. Sobers is picked as a batsman.

Why no all rounder? Well the two greatest sides of the last 50 years, and arguably all time (with all due respect to the invincibles): the WI of 70's and 80's and the Aussies of approx. 1996-2006 both became world beaters without an all rounder.

That of course does not mean they couldn't have been just as good or better with one, but it does show that if you have excellent bowling and excellent batting, specialists might actually be more worthwhile than an all rounder. Unless you find an all rounder whose bowling is just as good as the specialist bowlers or batting just as good as the specialist batsman.

If you use that criteria, Miller, Imran would come close for the bowling department and Kallis and Sobers would come close from the batting department. Of those four, Sobers was clearly the best bat and he would equal or exceed (with just the bat) anyone bar Bradman.

Out of the bowlers, Imran and Miller are close to each other but neither of them (IMO) in bowling prowess alone meet Warne, McGrath, Marshall or Trueman/Barnes. Close, but no cigar.

So I opted for specialists doing a specialists job, with the exception of Sobers, who is selected as a pure batsman anyway.

That might be the biggest wrap Kallis has ever received outside South Africa.

 

[silentstriker]

That might be the biggest wrap Kallis has ever received outside South Africa.

Well he is a great batsman. But as I mention, he isn't at the level of the all time batters on this list, nor is he anywhere near the bowlers on the list. Sobers, on the other hand, might be worse than any of the bowlers, but as a batsman he would be second only to the Don.

I was using Kallis as an example of why I don't select an all rounder (i.e because you might be inserting a substandard bowler and a substandard batsman).

In your own team, an all rounder is great because he is likely not the worst bowler or the worst batsman (i.e Flintoff is not the worst bowler in England team), but in an all time team, they frequently are the worst bowlers or batsmen, and you are weakening two areas IMO.

 

[aussie tragic]

It looks like the following will be the top 3 in the 1946-2006 XI:

1. Gavaskar
2. Hutton
3. Richards

Go the 1966-85 XI with 2 of the top 3......now just Chappell & Sobers to go to make it 4 of the top 5.....

 

[silentstriker]

It looks like the following will be the top 3 in the 1946-2006 XI:

1. Gavaskar
2. Hutton
3. Richards

Go the 1966-85 XI with 2 of the top 3......now just Chappell & Sobers to go to make it 4 of the top 5.....

That would suck. Then we'd have to have an all rounder taking a crap all over our team. Sobers at #6, no all rounder.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Might as well post it here:

1. Hobbs
2. Gavaskar
3. Bradman
4. SRT/Hammond
5. Richards/Chappell/Headley
6. Sobers
7. Gilchrist
8. Warne
9. Marshall
10. Trueman/Barnes
11. McGrath

Why have Gilchrist, a gloveman that is nothing special, when you have Hobbs, Gavaskar, Bradman, Hammond, Richards and Sobers in the batting, you may as well have an awesome golvesman and an average batter when you have a lineup that's that strong.

 

[The Sean]

Probably works well for Chappell too, depending on if he is up for no.4 or 5. - I don't think he was any chance to knock off Tendulkar, but he would probably get more votes against Lara/Worrell.

 

[silentstriker]

Why have Gilchrist, a gloveman that is nothing special, when you have Hobbs, Gavaskar, Bradman, Hammond, Richards and Sobers in the batting, you may as well have an awesome golvesman and an average batter when you have a lineup that's that strong.

Very true, and I might be convinced to go that route, but Gilchrist isn't a bad gloveman. In fact, he's pretty good, so his batting makes up for it.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Who was the best Glovesman of all time though, I'd probably have him in my team.

 

[The Sean]

Why have Gilchrist, a gloveman that is nothing special, when you have Hobbs, Gavaskar, Bradman, Hammond, Richards and Sobers in the batting, you may as well have an awesome golvesman and an average batter when you have a lineup that's that strong.

That's actually a dilemma I always consider when picking any all-time team - Gilly is seemingly a unanimous choice for for the keeper role these days, and there can be little argument that he is the most valuable batsman-keeper who has ever played the game. But granted, if we talk about picking specialists, do we pick the most valuable cricketer, or the best pure gloveman of all time, given that in a batting order like that he's coming in at 5-for-plenty.

And if you are picking the best pure gloveman, that of course begs the next question - who is it?

Incidentally, I reckon Gilly has actually developed brilliantly as a keeper (admittedly as his batting has declined) - not the best ever, but he's certainly a lot more than the great-batsman-who-also-keeps that he began as.

 

[silentstriker]

Who was the best Glovesman of all time though, I'd probably have him in my team.

But here is the thing: the difference between the glovework of the best ever and Gilchrist might be small (say one extra dropped catch and 30 runs saved per series).

But his ability with the bat wouldn't even be close (he'd add a 150 runs on average per series).

 

[PhoenixFire]

My point is, is that he would have little or no influence with the bat, considering what he would be surrounded with. I wouldn't mind at all if my keeper batted like a no.11, if he was the best keeper of all time, in that line-up.

 

[aussie tragic]

And if you are picking the best pure gloveman, that of course begs the next question - who is it?

Well your choices for the 1946-2006 XI are Gilchrist, Knott and Waite, although maybe Walcott should be included as he's in the 1946-65 XI as the # 3 and he kept for 15 tests?

Even though I rate Knott the better keeper, I'll still go Gilly for any XI as he re-defined the wk/batsman standards IMO....

 

[PhoenixFire]

What is the likley batting lineup for the 1946-2006 team, Aussie?

 

[silentstriker]

My point is, is that he would have little or no influence with the bat, considering what he would be surrounded with. I wouldn't mind at all if my keeper batted like a no.11, if he was the best keeper of all time, in that line-up.

Presumably, if we make this all time side, then they would be playing against other all time sides. In that case, he would very much be a huge influence. You might bat him up the order for some quick runs because not even Viv Richards scored as fast as him. Plus in terms runs or wickets lost due to his 'inferior' keeping, you aren't losing much.

And he has proven himself in keeping with the best spinner of all time, and the best pace bowler and keeps well to express bowlers too.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I refuse to believe that Gilchrist can score faster than Richards, too far. Richards might not have done it, but he showed he could, for instance when he scored 100 of 54 balls, the fastest in history. He is a damn sight more reliable too.

 

[The Sean]

No question that Gilly has redefined that role mate - the point is just that if you're assembling an all time top 6 that looks the way most of us envisage it to, it doesn't really matter if your keeper can bat or not. So for the same reason you pick the best bowlers (as opposed to the bowlers who can bat the best) there's an argument that you should just pick the best keeper, regardless of whether he can bat or not.

I still have no idea who I'd pick - Heals is the best pure gloveman I've seen in my time, and going back further I've heard everyone from Blackham to Evans to Tallon to Knott called the best ever.

 

[silentstriker]

I refuse to believe that Gilchrist can score faster than Richards, too far. Richards might not have done it, but he showed he could, for instance when he scored 100 of 54 balls, the fastest in history. He is a damn sight more reliable too.

Yup, it would be close, but as Benaud said "No one hits the ball cleaner, and as often as Gilly, not even Richards."

Even if you believe that to be false, he would add a second attacking option who would be almost as good.