What is your ALL TIME WORLD XI TEAM for tests?

[Spark]

This is true. Particularly in modern cricket. It's very rare for a team to play two spinners, even when they are both excellent. As seen with Warne and MacGill.

Here's a question....if Murali was Australian and if the Australian team could've selected Murali and Warne during their period of dominance, would they have played both in the same time regularly?

Not a chance in hell.

 

[harsh.ag]

Maybe in the early years of Watto. Basically if they had had any sort of medium pace all rounder. they would have gone for it.

 

[Spark]

I would give serious thought to playing Shane Watson as a bowler (well, a magic Shane Watson who didn't get injured half the time) over Murali as a second spinner. I'd definitely take Peter Siddle instead of that too. In fact I would struggle to name a single Test standard pace bowling option that's played for Australia in the last decade (say) that I would not consider superior to the idea of playing Murali as a second spinner for Australia.

Playing an offspinner (yes, even Murali) as a second spinner for Australia instead of a third quick? Seriously? Do you want to lose Test matches?

 

[harsh.ag]

Come on Spark. The early Watson as a third quick with two spinners is a great option. In fact, in Watson's debut match, this was the bowling line-up:

McGrath
Gillespie
Watson
Warne
MacGill

where Warne and MacGill took 13 of the 20 Pakistani wickets. Boom!

 

[Gowza]

If you're willing to bat someone who is more of a bowling all rounder in the top 7 then there is room for 2 spinners of Warne and Murali's calibre but for me despite the talent being there i can't bring myself to batting an Imran or Miller or Procter or Hadlee in that top 7, Gilchrist being my #7 means they'd have to bat at 6 and although some of them had the talent (Miller, Procter, Botham) to be top 6 batters none of them had the consistency to bat at 6 in an all time XI imo. Say for example:

6 Miller
7 Gilchrist
8 Imran
9 Marshall
10 Warne
11 Murali

Still a very strong team but your number 6 doesn't have the consistency of the other great batsmen in your team, then again is it needed when your keeper at 7 averages 47 and your #8 averages 37 and you have 5 ATG bowlers in your line-up?

 

[Spark]

Come on Spark. The early Watson as a third quick with two spinners is a great option. In fact, in Watson's debut match, this was the bowling line-up:

McGrath
Gillespie
Watson
Warne
MacGill

where Warne and MacGill took 13 of the 20 Pakistani wickets. Boom!

That's a far more sensible option than picking Murali as the second spinner. I mean, you are aware of the massive difference in how leggies and offies do in Australia, yes?

 

[kyear2]

If you're willing to bat someone who is more of a bowling all rounder in the top 7 then there is room for 2 spinners of Warne and Murali's calibre but for me despite the talent being there i can't bring myself to batting an Imran or Miller or Procter or Hadlee in that top 7, Gilchrist being my #7 means they'd have to bat at 6 and although some of them had the talent (Miller, Procter, Botham) to be top 6 batters none of them had the consistency to bat at 6 in an all time XI imo. Say for example:

6 Miller
7 Gilchrist
8 Imran
9 Marshall
10 Warne
11 Murali

Still a very strong team but your number 6 doesn't have the consistency of the other great batsmen in your team, then again is it needed when your keeper at 7 averages 47 and your #8 averages 37 and you have 5 ATG bowlers in your line-up?

Is it worth it having two spinners if you have to bat Miller in the top 6 over a Tendulkar / Richards / Sobers? I personally don't think so.

 

[Migara]

I do also factor in the fact that Murali was a complete bunny and a pretty bad fieldsman. Warne could play some very significant innings at times, particularly the sort of rearguard ones he played against England in '05, against a pretty decent bowling attack.

Wrong. Murali was one of the best fiedsman in Asia, in his pomp as good as Jauasuriya, tad worse than Dilshan. Easily the quickest mover in the outfield for SL. I rate him better than Warne in the field, and possibly best ever off his own bowling.

 

[Red]

Murali was one of the best fiedsman in Asia.

Ummm....

 

[Dan]

That's a far more sensible option than picking Murali as the second spinner. I mean, you are aware of the massive difference in how leggies and offies do in Australia, yes?

Murali was hardly the stereotypical offspinner though. If there were an offie who was ever going to dominate in Australia, it would be Murali.

As the (admittedly limited) stats show, however, he wasn't exactly dominant on Australian pitches. Probably would have partnered Warne whenever they toured though.

 

[Spark]

Murali was hardly the stereotypical offspinner though. If there were an offie who was ever going to dominate in Australia, it would be Murali.

As the (admittedly limited) stats show, however, he wasn't exactly dominant on Australian pitches. Probably would have partnered Warne whenever they toured though.

Well, yeah, but that'd explain why he was average in Australia as opposed to downright awful (which is what usually happens for touring offies). Fine overseas but half the time you're replacing a fairly important part of any usual Test side playing in Australia with a bowler who can't really bat and whose returns aren't exactly amazing. It just wouldn't be worth it unless you were absolutely sure the pitch was going to take serious turn reasonably early - and horses-for-courses selections aren't exactly what we're thinking about here, are we? Remember: for the most part, if he did get picked and he did bowl a lot he'd just end up bowling a whole bunch of Warne's overs and is the theoretical gain in quality/variety really worth ****ing up your team balance like that for?

 

[harsh.ag]

That's a far more sensible option than picking Murali as the second spinner. I mean, you are aware of the massive difference in how leggies and offies do in Australia, yes?

Well, yeah, but that'd explain why he was average in Australia as opposed to downright awful (which is what usually happens for touring offies). Fine overseas but half the time you're replacing a fairly important part of any usual Test side playing in Australia with a bowler who can't really bat and whose returns aren't exactly amazing. It just wouldn't be worth it unless you were absolutely sure the pitch was going to take serious turn reasonably early - and horses-for-courses selections aren't exactly what we're thinking about here, are we? Remember: for the most part, if he did get picked and he did bowl a lot he'd just end up bowling a whole bunch of Warne's overs and is the theoretical gain in quality/variety really worth ****ing up your team balance like that for?

Do offies really have that bad a record in Australia in general? Aside from the known cases like Murali and Swann that is. How about the homegrown Ashley Mallet?

 

[harsh.ag]

Just remembered Ian Johnson and Bruce Yardley as good Aussie offies, and of course Lyon is doing a good job now.

 

[viriya]

Of greater consequence is that many believe that Warne had an equal or greater impact on the game and match winning efforts and was also the better bat and a great slip fielder which evens the field for some.
Warne for primarily the last two reasons mentioned used to be an automatic pick for me, but as I mentioned either in this thread or another one, Murali and Warne are now near impossible to separate but replacing Warne would also call for further changes especially in the middle order for the team.

I'm not sure how you can say Warne had more of an impact on the game than Murali. Like I mentioned before the resurgence of off-spin recently can at least partly be attributed to Murali's success, and the biomechanical research done through analyzing Murali's action influenced the rules of the game. How did Warne have more of an impact?

Also, Murali has significantly more impact in wins - in wins his average is an incredible 16.18 with 8.1 wickets/match compared to Warne's 22.47 average and 5.5 wkts/match.

On batting, Warne was a better bat than Murali but not by much. Murali was not a complete bunny in the McGrath or Martin sense - his average was just 5.5 runs lower. Warne promised much with the bat in Tests but didn't really deliver - Kumble or Vaas were better bats with centuries to their name. So I don't really buy the argument of picking Warne over Murali because of his batting - it just isn't a significant enough difference to warrant that imo.

 

[Muloghonto]

Well, yeah, but that'd explain why he was average in Australia as opposed to downright awful (which is what usually happens for touring offies). Fine overseas but half the time you're replacing a fairly important part of any usual Test side playing in Australia with a bowler who can't really bat and whose returns aren't exactly amazing. It just wouldn't be worth it unless you were absolutely sure the pitch was going to take serious turn reasonably early - and horses-for-courses selections aren't exactly what we're thinking about here, are we? Remember: for the most part, if he did get picked and he did bowl a lot he'd just end up bowling a whole bunch of Warne's overs and is the theoretical gain in quality/variety really worth ****ing up your team balance like that for?

What great amounts of balance does warne provide that makes a huge difference ? Remember, we are talking an ATG team here. Slip fielding or captaincy nous is not something where Warne would be missed- he had considerable talent for both but again, is not irreplacable in either criterias. Infact, one could argue that an ATG lineup boasting the likes of Viv Richards, Sobers, Akram, possibly Imran Khan, Bradman or possibly Lara are not lacking in slip catching or captaincy.

In most conditions, I'd take Murali over warne. Warne was cleverer bowler IMO but Murali had more skills, greater stamina for bowling spin (which is essential for spinners) and was one of the most effective spinners with a new-ish ball.
I'd take Murali over Warne if my team had only one spot for a spinner.

 

[viriya]

I liked your post and thought it was pretty good in all aspects except the part above. At least for Ajmal, Saqlain would have been the inspiration. The bowling action, the variety, the doosras were what Saqlain first brought to the table. He made off spin bowling "***eh"

Yes, Ajmal would have been influenced more by Saqlain than Murali, but I recall reading an interview where he mentions Murali's influence. Of course, Saqlain was the inventor of the doosra but I think we can agree that it was Murali that made it a devastating weapon.

 

[Muloghonto]

That's a far more sensible option than picking Murali as the second spinner. I mean, you are aware of the massive difference in how leggies and offies do in Australia, yes?

Mr 'one rubbish delivery every over' McGill does not belong in an ATG conversation. Particularly because McGill is a clone (inferior one albeit) or Warne. If you are so enamoured with leggies only policy, the perfect foil for warne would be kumble or chandra.

 

[viriya]

I would give serious thought to playing Shane Watson as a bowler (well, a magic Shane Watson who didn't get injured half the time) over Murali as a second spinner. I'd definitely take Peter Siddle instead of that too. In fact I would struggle to name a single Test standard pace bowling option that's played for Australia in the last decade (say) that I would not consider superior to the idea of playing Murali as a second spinner for Australia.
Playing an offspinner (yes, even Murali) as a second spinner for Australia instead of a third quick? Seriously? Do you want to lose Test matches?

You would pick Watson or Siddle over the the greatest match-winner (statistically) in Test cricket history in your team if you had the option? I'm not sure that Aussie selectors would agree with you.

 

[Spark]

Do offies really have that bad a record in Australia in general? Aside from the known cases like Murali and Swann that is. How about the homegrown Ashley Mallet?

Offies go to Australia to die. Swann averaged 45 in 2010-11 and did about as well as he could have been reasonably expected of him. It's almost certainly just the pitches, tbh - very little turn + extra bounce means most offies will bowl too short too often by instinct, and Australian batsmen love that.

I mean, just to illustrate my point, I was about to list Daniel Vettori as someone who I thought might be an exception as I seem to remember him bowling well on one or two tours - then I saw that his average in Australia was 40.

What great amounts of balance does warne provide that makes a huge difference ? Remember, we are talking an ATG team here. Slip fielding or captaincy nous is not something where Warne would be missed- he had considerable talent for both but again, is not irreplacable in either criterias. Infact, one could argue that an ATG lineup boasting the likes of Viv Richards, Sobers, Akram, possibly Imran Khan, Bradman or possibly Lara are not lacking in slip catching or captaincy.

In most conditions, I'd take Murali over warne. Warne was cleverer bowler IMO but Murali had more skills, greater stamina for bowling spin (which is essential for spinners) and was one of the most effective spinners with a new-ish ball.
I'd take Murali over Warne if my team had only one spot for a spinner.

Go back and read the actual line of discussion which prompted these posts.

 

[Spark]

You would pick Watson or Siddle over the the greatest match-winner (statistically) in Test cricket history in your team if you had the option? I'm not sure that Aussie selectors would agree with you.

Read the post more carefully.

For an Australian team playing (more than) half their Tests on Australian pitches and with Shane Warne already in the side, of course I'd pick a pacer over an offie. That's pretty much the most obvious selection decision imaginable.

If Shane Warne isn't playing then obviously that's a different matter.

---

I should correct something above: Murali's record is downright awful. Like, eye-droppingly horrendous. Small sample size and all, but...