Ranking the Cricinfo All-Time XIs

[Ikki]

Well, it depends if you need/want an ultra fast wicket taker like the aforementioned bowlers. The reason they often do not make AT XIs is because they're generally expensive or there is some other objection to their record. The same question of why not pick Waqar over Warne can be asked of the likes of Lillee, Hadlee, McGrath, Imran, Wasim etc too. He is superior to them as well.

I guess most people feel that an SR in the 50s does the job and then other considerations come into it. It is for that reason Warne doesn't give away much, if anything at all, for he is practically level or negligibly worse than most ATG bowlers in terms of avg and SR.

Whereas Gibbs is far from that distinction or thought. His relative slow striking, even his expensiveness, would hinder his side IMO more than the positives he might bring (balance/variety).

 

[Furball]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[hang on]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

definitely one of your better contributions, furball.

 

[smash84]

 

[kyear2]

Well Garner pretty much played the part of the spinner for the Wndies during the 80's, coming on first or second change and holding down an end for the better part of a day or session and doing so with a great econ., S/R and average. Additionally Marshall and Holding both proved that they could excell on spinning/slow decks, thus again nullifying the need for a front line spinner. Plus if the need arises there is always Sobers and Viv. So Gibbs as good as he was, really isnt required in such an 11.