Ranking the Cricinfo All-Time XIs

[The Sean]

There have been a number of threads about Bradman which I generally did not post in because I knew I will get exact same reaction, in spite of the fact that I have argued ferociously against anyone trying to suggest Tendulkar > Bradman. My opinion on Bradman has slightly changed having grasped the extent of his struggle on wet wickets. 20-25% better is of course speculative and therefore I avoid stating such numbers, may be 30-35% better is more closer to reality which basically means that Bradman would average 75-80 in a full career in a different era (any era post 1950). And that should not be an outrageous assumption considering that he averaged 88 against England and West Indies combined. Still he is comfortably one or more levels above any other batsman, however his position as the greatest cricketer is more seriously threatened by Sobers and Imran than I earlier imagined. Also don't think he is worth 2 ATG batsmen.

Re his contemporaries, I do think that Hammond and Suttcliffe faced superior bowling in tests than did Bradman. Verity and Larwood were good, but not top drawer like O'Reilly and Grimmet. Hobbs and Hutton hardly played in the same era as Bradman. Hobbs averaged ~57 (?) before WWI while the second best test average was ~48 (?), which puts him quite comfortably in the highest class.

I see what you’re saying about Bradman, but you can’t reduce his average due to other factors without looking at everyone else’s either. A few years ago Charles Davis undertook quite a famous study to standardise Test averages taking into account quality of opposition and different scoring across eras etc. Bradman’s standardised average came down to about 85 IIRC, and the second highest standardised average of anyone with more than 2,000 Test runs was Graeme Pollock with something like 58. He’s still just so far ahead of the curve that he shouldn’t exist.

Zaremba to insert that great bell curve diagram any time now.

 

[The Sean]

One level below Hobbs and Hutton are likes of Sehwag, Border, Miandad, Nourse etc. Another level below are Trumper and Morris. Trumper was not even a regular opener, as a matter of fact. I know he is quite romanticized but I am not fully convinced of his greatness. May be I don't know enough so I will be happy to be told something I don't know. I have heard arguments like he played with aggression and little regard to batting average, but if that is not a legitimate defence for Sehwag, neither should it be for Trumper.

Personally I rate Trumper ahead of all those blokes you just mentioned, and I consider each of them to be greats. But then I am a hopeless cricket romantic.

 

[Ikki]

One level below Hobbs and Hutton are likes of Sehwag, Border, Miandad, Nourse etc. Another level below are Trumper and Morris. Trumper was not even a regular opener, as a matter of fact. I know he is quite romanticized but I am not fully convinced of his greatness. May be I don't know enough so I will be happy to be told something I don't know. I have heard arguments like he played with aggression and little regard to batting average, but if that is not a legitimate defence for Sehwag, neither should it be for Trumper.

Of those you named, only Sehwag is an opener and if you think Morris and Trumper are below them then try Hayden and Simpson - both who averaged 50+ as openers.

Trumper is held in high esteem for the way he played rather than his pure numbers - which are actually very good once you account for his era. Generally, I don't pick players from that era. But again, even in terms of averages the difference between Hobbs and Hutton and Morris+Hayden still cannot account for the huge gap Bradman (and Gilchrist) provide with their superiority.

There have been a number of threads about Bradman which I generally did not post in because I knew I will get exact same reaction, in spite of the fact that I have argued ferociously against anyone trying to suggest Tendulkar > Bradman. My opinion on Bradman has slightly changed having grasped the extent of his struggle on wet wickets. 20-25% better is of course speculative and therefore I avoid stating such numbers, may be 30-35% better is more closer to reality which basically means that Bradman would average 75-80 in a full career in a different era (any era post 1950). And that should not be an outrageous assumption considering that he averaged 88 against England and West Indies combined. Still he is comfortably one or more levels above any other batsman, however his position as the greatest cricketer is more seriously threatened by Sobers and Imran than I earlier imagined. Also don't think he is worth 2 ATG batsmen.

Re his contemporaries, I do think that Hammond and Suttcliffe faced superior bowling in tests than did Bradman. Verity and Larwood were good, but not top drawer like O'Reilly and Grimmet. Hobbs and Hutton hardly played in the same era as Bradman. Hobbs averaged ~57 (?) before WWI while the second best test average was ~48 (?), which puts him quite comfortably in the highest class.

The idea that you could simply slash 20-30 points off one's batting average and not account for batsmen playing in his era or directly before or after his is incredulous. The idea that the difference between the bowling attacks - even if we take as a given that Australia's bowling attack is/was much better than England's - is so much that it drops Bradman's average some 20-30 points but hardly touches Hobbs', Hammond's and Hutton's, for example, is bereft of much logic. Especially when you consider that before Grimmett and O'Reilly became a tandem - that only lasted 3 series IIRC, one which they lost - he was already averaging 103 against them...when England's attack was stronger than Australia's.

If one attack was 4 Glenn McGrath's and the other 4 Brett Lee's it still wouldn't come close to explaining the difference. Nevermind that England's bowing attack was good enough to beat Australia twice in an Ashes and draw them once, because you make them sound like they were Bangladesh. That must mean the likes of Harvey et al would have averaged 10 if they faced decent bowlers, eh?

And yes, I can't help it if only saying that Aus will crush Eng and WI will satisfy you. I certainly think the these 3 are very close and I will give a slight edge to Aus

It's hard to say they will crush the others because even Bradman is human and could score 0 and effectively wipe out the advantage he brings. So to assume that every test would be a forgone conclusion is dishonest. Then again, to assume Bradman would score 0 too many times and the other batsmen who aren't near his level will succeed is stretching the bounds of credulity. I'd simply say that Australia's team is so good, has all the bases covered, that it's not a matter of who is 1st because that is already taken care of. It is who is second amongst, IMO, SA, WI and ENG.

 

[kyear2]

One level below Hobbs and Hutton are likes of Sehwag, Border, Miandad, Nourse etc. Another level below are Trumper and Morris. Trumper was not even a regular opener, as a matter of fact. I know he is quite romanticized but I am not fully convinced of his greatness. May be I don't know enough so I will be happy to be told something I don't know. I have heard arguments like he played with aggression and little regard to batting average, but if that is not a legitimate defence for Sehwag, neither should it be for Trumper.



There have been a number of threads about Bradman which I generally did not post in because I knew I will get exact same reaction, in spite of the fact that I have argued ferociously against anyone trying to suggest Tendulkar > Bradman. My opinion on Bradman has slightly changed having grasped the extent of his struggle on wet wickets. 20-25% better is of course speculative and therefore I avoid stating such numbers, may be 30-35% better is more closer to reality which basically means that Bradman would average 75-80 in a full career in a different era (any era post 1950). And that should not be an outrageous assumption considering that he averaged 88 against England and West Indies combined. Still he is comfortably one or more levels above any other batsman, however his position as the greatest cricketer is more seriously threatened by Sobers and Imran than I earlier imagined. Also don't think he is worth 2 ATG batsmen.

Re his contemporaries, I do think that Hammond and Suttcliffe faced superior bowling in tests than did Bradman. Verity and Larwood were good, but not top drawer like O'Reilly and Grimmet. Hobbs and Hutton hardly played in the same era as Bradman. Hobbs averaged ~57 (?) before WWI while the second best test average was ~48 (?), which puts him quite comfortably in the highest class.

He is great and he is the best, but he isn't.
After Bradman the amount of changes that was made to the game to assist the bowlers was staggering.
Making the stumps bigger, changing the LBW rule, the second new ball and then the larger more promonant seam, playing in more varied conditions/pitches/countries and much better fielders.
Bradman was the best and by some mention. He is not worth two Richards, Laras, Headley's, Tendulkars, Pollocks ect.

 

[Ikki]

Even if you were to knock his average down some 20 points, he still averages 80. Which is about 25-30 more than most ATG batsmen. The difference between Australia's openers and others is not 25-30 points. Hence the argument that Bradman only evens the scales, rather than tips it over, in that regard is still poor.

And that's if you don't touch any of the other older ATGs where rule changes, standards, etc, also apply. If you do, as you should, then the difference is even bigger. There really is no reasonable/logical argument here to equate Australia's batting line-up to any other.

As for 2 ATGs: if you doubled Greenidge's and Hunte's averages they would still fall 10 points short of Bradman's. You could double Viv's and he'd only be 0.5 runs ahead. Amazing.

 

[Furball]

Even if you were to knock his average down some 20 points, he still averages 80. Which is about 25-30 more than most ATG batsmen. The difference between Australia's openers and others is not 25-30 points. Hence the argument that Bradman only evens the scales, rather than tips it over, in that regard is still poor.

And that's if you don't touch any of the other older ATGs where rule changes, standards, etc, also apply. If you do, as you should, then the difference is even bigger. There really is no reasonable/logical argument here to equate Australia's batting line-up to any other.

As for 2 ATGs: if you doubled Greenidge's and Hunte's averages they would still fall 10 points short of Bradman's. You could double Viv's and he'd only be 0.5 runs ahead. Amazing.

Viv's batting average is closer to Chris Martin's than it is to Don Bradman's.

 

[The Sean]

Viv's batting average is closer to Chris Martin's than it is to Don Bradman's.

That's one of the best stats ever. Kudos.

 

[kyear2]

I wonder how many people in this thread truely believe that Bradman is twice that batsman as Viv, Lara, Headley and Sobers. Come on, twice as good as Tendulkar, Chappell, Pollock ect. No way.

 

[Furball]

I wonder how many people in this thread truely believe that Bradman is twice that batsman as Viv, Lara, Headley and Sobers. Come on, twice as good as Tendulkar, Chappell, Pollock ect. No way.

That's the problem that those of us who never saw Bradman bat have.

I think it was Burgey who once posted a list of all the great batsmen he'd seen live, and said that he just couldn't comprehend that someone once existed who was twice as good as the likes of Viv, Greg Chappell, Ponting, Border, Tendulkar, Lara etc.

It's not hard to believe that Bradman was nearly twice as good as the names you've listed, because that's what his statistics show. Bradman's rate of scoring double centuries is the same as the rate that some of the finest batsmen in the game score centuries. Believing Bradman was twice as good as the likes of Sobers etc. isn't the problem - it's comprehending just how good Bradman was that's the tricky part.

 

[Furball]

Batsman            Runs     Ave    100    Inns/100    FC 100   Inns/100

DG Bradman         6996    99.94    29        2.76       117       2.89
RG Pollock         2256    60.97     7        5.86        64       6.83
GA Headley         2190    60.73    10        4.00        33       4.97
H Sutcliffe        4555    60.73    16        5.25       151       7.27
KF Barrington      6806    58.67    20        6.55        76      10.93
ED Weekes          4455    58.61    15        5.40        36       6.69
WR Hammond         7249    58.45    22        6.36       167       6.02
GS Sobers          8032    57.78    26        6.15        86       7.08
JH Kallis         11947    57.43    40        6.15        57       6.77
JB Hobbs           5410    56.94    15        6.80       199       6.66
CL Walcott         3798    56.68    15        4.93        40       5.95
L Hutton           6971    56.67    19        7.26       129       6.31
SR Tendulkar      14965    56.25    51        5.84        78       5.78
KC Sangakkara      8651    55.81    25        6.68        34       8.82
GS Chappell        7110    53.86    24        6.29        74       7.32
AD Nourse          2960    53.81     9        6.89        41       6.56
MEK Hussey         5113    53.26    15        7.20        57       7.79
RT Ponting        12487    53.13    39        6.74        73       6.03
R Dravid          12775    53.00    35        7.80        67       7.22
BC Lara           11953    52.88    34        6.82        65       6.77
TT Samaraweera     4683    52.61    12        9.00        33       9.85
Javed Miandad      8832    52.57    23        8.22        80       7.90
DPMD Jayawardene   9852    52.40    29        6.93        46       7.09
Mohammad Yousuf    7530    52.29    24        6.50        29       7.86
V Sehwag           7735    52.26    22        7.00        36       7.08
A Flower           4794    51.54    12        9.33        49       7.59
SM Gavaskar       10122    51.12    34        6.29        81       6.95
SR Waugh          10927    51.06    32        8.12        79       6.97
Younis Khan        5719    51.06    17        7.12        35       7.26
ML Hayden          8625    50.73    30        6.13        79       6.52
AR Border         11174    50.56    27        9.81        70       8.93
KP Pietersen       6361    50.48    19        7.00        41       6.85
IVA Richards       8540    50.23    24        7.58       114       6.98
DCS Compton        5807    50.06    17        7.71       123       6.82

 

[Slifer]

Australia simply have all bases covered. True all-time great levels overall for spin, pace, and batting, and two serious batting advantages in Bradman and Gilchrist. The only questionmark is their opening pair, but that is offset by the rest of their batting lineup.

The other teams have their own serious chinks. West Indies lose a lot of their bowling fire power with Sobers and Gibbs coming after the three quicks. If they had a fourth paceman like Garner or Roberts instead of Gibbs, I would put them on near level with the Aussies. SA are underrated, with batting up to 9 and 6 bowling options, but quantity doesn't necessarily make up for quality, and they seem to lack cricketers who can really stamp their presence.

Pakistan have the best pace attack, but their middle order is a bit shaky against worldclass attacks, and lower order pretty weak.

England are wild cards. Petersen shouldnt be there, but the batting is very strong overall. The problem is that there's questionmarks around Botham, Larwood and Barnes on how they would consistently perform and in what conditions, while the spinner is not known to bowl great outside of uncovered wickets.

Regardless of whatever team WI picked (or ne body else for that matter), the Oz all time eleven is clearly the best IMO. Based on the so called all time teams cricinfo chose, I would probably place Pakistan 2nd, England 3rd, RSA 4th and WI 5th.

 

[GotSpin]

Viv's batting average is closer to Chris Martin's than it is to Don Bradman's.

I've always liked this stat

 

[hang on]

Regardless of whatever team WI picked (or ne body else for that matter), the Oz all time eleven is clearly the best IMO. Based on the so called all time teams cricinfo chose, I would probably place Pakistan 2nd, England 3rd, RSA 4th and WI 5th.

windies 5th and pak 2nd. nope. for all the firepower at the disposal of pakistan, their batting is certainly amongst the weakest. in fact, their batting is definitely behind that of aus, eng, ind, win, saf.

 

[Joao]

This thread is funny. Everyone tooting their nation (like I am about to).

As far as I am concerned Australia > All based and that is purely because of Bradman.

WI, Eng and SAF have similar, slightly inferior or better in every other position but he is just that much better that you can't ignore it. I read somewhere that he is the statistically greatest SPORTSMAN to have ever played anything. Relatively better than Jordan et al rated against their peers. I am not sure any of the other teams can overhaul that. Wish I had the link.

If you take Bradman out, I think West Indies shade it from Australia who just pip England.

I think the English are being underrated by many here too. Freaking awesome batting lineup and it is not like they bowlers are hacks. Sticky wicket with Barnes and Underwood and they win.

Australia
West Indies
England
South Africa
Pakistan
New Zealand = India = Sri Lanka

With the bottom 3 it is hard to split. At home the SC sides definetly best the others but overall I'd have them on par. Murali would be the second biggest influence for me because if you took him out Sri Lanka, for me, are not really contenders.

Don't agree with some of the selections from a lot of the teams either but I'd still feel the same way even if they were tweaked.

 

[The Sean]

Regardless of whatever team WI picked (or ne body else for that matter), the Oz all time eleven is clearly the best IMO. Based on the so called all time teams cricinfo chose, I would probably place Pakistan 2nd, England 3rd, RSA 4th and WI 5th.

Can't tell if you're taking the piss there mate, but if you're serious I'd be interested yo know why you'd have the Windies so low.

 

[Slifer]

Can't tell if you're taking the piss there mate, but if you're serious I'd be interested yo know why you'd have the Windies so low.

I kinda am, still so pissed off that the so called experts picking freaking Jackie Hendricks and Gibbs. I mean who cares about variety when u have a spinner who averages 29 and strikes damn near every 90s balls. Thats simply not good enough at this level (all time teams) especially when u have a Joel Garner who was way way more effective in all conditions and u have Sobers who could bowl spin (if necessary).

Ditto Hendricks (what a waste).

 

[stephen]

I wonder how many people in this thread truely believe that Bradman is twice that batsman as Viv, Lara, Headley and Sobers. Come on, twice as good as Tendulkar, Chappell, Pollock ect. No way.

That's the problem that those of us who never saw Bradman bat have.

I think it was Burgey who once posted a list of all the great batsmen he'd seen live, and said that he just couldn't comprehend that someone once existed who was twice as good as the likes of Viv, Greg Chappell, Ponting, Border, Tendulkar, Lara etc.

It's not hard to believe that Bradman was nearly twice as good as the names you've listed, because that's what his statistics show. Bradman's rate of scoring double centuries is the same as the rate that some of the finest batsmen in the game score centuries. Believing Bradman was twice as good as the likes of Sobers etc. isn't the problem - it's comprehending just how good Bradman was that's the tricky part.

He is 4.5 standard deviations above the mean. That is utterly ridiculous and is generally considered either an error or an impossibility. It's beyond an outlier, it just does not happen. The probability of it happening is like thousandth of a percent or something (one in every 100 000 test batsman or so).

We simply cannot comprehend just how good he really was without having seen him play. He has 29 hundreds in 50 tests. That's a hundred every two tests. It's how Mike Hussey batted against Sri Lanka, but without a form slump. Ever. Bradman is that much of a statistical outlier we should just ban ourselves from including him in team listings on this board, because any team that he's in effectively has 12 men in it.

 

[Slifer]

He is 4.5 standard deviations above the mean. That is utterly ridiculous and is generally considered either an error or an impossibility. It's beyond an outlier, it just does not happen. The probability of it happening is like thousandth of a percent or something (one in every 100 000 test batsman or so).

We simply cannot comprehend just how good he really was without having seen him play. He has 29 hundreds in 50 tests. That's a hundred every two tests. It's how Mike Hussey batted against Sri Lanka, but without a form slump. Ever. Bradman is that much of a statistical outlier we should just ban ourselves from including him in team listings on this board, because any team that he's in effectively has 12 men in it.

Couldnt agree more.

 

[Joao]

He is 4.5 standard deviations above the mean. That is utterly ridiculous and is generally considered either an error or an impossibility. It's beyond an outlier, it just does not happen. The probability of it happening is like thousandth of a percent or something (one in every 100 000 test batsman or so).

We simply cannot comprehend just how good he really was without having seen him play. He has 29 hundreds in 50 tests. That's a hundred every two tests. It's how Mike Hussey batted against Sri Lanka, but without a form slump. Ever. Bradman is that much of a statistical outlier we should just ban ourselves from including him in team listings on this board, because any team that he's in effectively has 12 men in it.

I agree too.

Neuroskeptic: Who's the Greatest Sportsperson?

Here is a link showing the above. Obviously not infallable but indicates exactly why I think that when 10 of the 11 players are very closely comparable to other teams, you can draw no conclusion other than Australia is better when Bradman is in the side.

 

[bagapath]

of course bradman makes all the difference. and even if you leave him aside, other all time great teams can only be on par with the aussies at best. their bowling, for instance, is so beautifully balanced that taking 20 wickets is a mere formality for lillee and co. there are other attacks that can match them, yes, but i cant see anyone surpassing them. in fact, an attack which has miller as the fifth bowling option is the scariest one ever assembled on planet earth. similarly in batting the australians can put together a lineup that is as good as anyone else's. their no.7 is as good as the no.3 of most teams. i dont see a weak link anywhere in fielding either.

after matching every other team at 10 slots, here comes don bradman at no.3. who is actually two great batters rolled into one. it is correct to assume that this team is made of 12 greats while all other teams have one player less. i expect them to win every series they play anywhere in the word against any opponent. their worst scoreline could be 2-1 against the windies in windies. not willing to give anything more than that to any other opponent.