What is your ALL TIME WORLD XI TEAM for tests?

[watson]

Sir Jack Hobbs
Sir Leonard Hutton (or Sunil Gavaskar)
Sir Donald Bradman
Sir Vivian Richards
Sachin Tendulkar (or Sir Walter Hammond)
Sir Garfield Sobers
Adam Gilchrist
Malcolm Marshall
Sir Richard Hadlee
Shane Warne
Dennis Lillee

12th Man: Imran Khan

Nice team Yippa_oz

 

[kyear2]

It's great to be able to share opinions. In my lifetime, I've seen nearly 50 years of Test cricket. I've seen the West Indian & Australian eras of bowling, let's face it, no other country can match these two powerhouses in their pomp. Malcolm Marshall is unquestionably their greatest. His skills are all that is widely mentioned. He was not express as everyone makes out. He was in the 88-90 mp/h bracket, 140-145km/h. His strike rate of around 46 is incredible, but one must remember with a pace quartet still unequalled in history, he was always fresh & not overloaded. Opposition batting orders could not afford the luxury to play naturally, hence the tail was exposed earlier, cheap wickets.

In Australia, Glenn McGrath is a true great, but not the greatest. There's a matter of a certain Dennis Keith Lillee, whom seen by all, including Commentators, Journalists, Test Players & the public, is rated as the greatest of all time. He is seen as the Rolls Royce of fast bowlers, his armoury, ability, stamina, aggression & skill with the ball remains unequalled. We all know about his back injuries, twice, which reduced his pace, yet 3 years afterwards, Lillee was clocked at 97 mp/h, 155 km/h. His perfect, flowing action, run up, delivery action, ability to out think batsmen & intimate drew the fans. He taught Marshall how to bowl innies, cutters & outties. Enough said. He bowled to some of the greatest batsmen in history, when Australia weren't always the best team. Viv Richards, Clive Lloyd, Gary Sobers, Martin Crowe, Richard Hadlee, Ian Botham, David Gower, Imran Khan, Sunil Gavaskar, Richie Benaud etc etc rate him as the greatest. Umpire Harold Bird, whose seen a plethora of bowling from the middle, rates Lillee as the greatest that ever lived, alongside Bradman.

Strike rates mean nothing! If a guy averages 1 wicket every 46 balls but only bowls 120 balls (20 overs) in an innings (IE: 2 wickets), is he better than a guy averaging 52 balls a wicket, but bowls 150+ balls in an innings (IE: 3 wickets?) & takes out the top order? Any captain will take the man who can bowl all day. One must remember, that Lillee didn't bowl in a quartet & often shouldered the workload. He was outstanding against the mighty West Indies, England, Pakistan & India.

If you do the maths, Lillee was bowling 60+ overs a Test. At his peak, he took over 130 wickets in 20 Tests. He is to this day, rated the best bowler ever to grace the Carribean. He missed over 2.5 years of Test cricket due to injury. He took 103 wickets in 4 World XI matches, including 79 in 15 Supertests, playing West Indies & World XIs. He took 11 in the incredible Centenary Test in a superhuman display. He was the highest wicket taker in WSC & the 1st bowler to take 100 1 day international wickets. He took 85 Test wickets in a Calendar Year, still the fast bowling world record! You factor his "missing" wickets & his 355 become closer to 458 wickets in 90 Tests, let alone the injuries which robbed him of another say 15-20 Tests!!! He took over 1,100 1st Class Wickets, (23x) 5 Wicket & (7x) 10 Wicket hauls in just 70 Tests. He's still the fastest bowler to take 250 & 300 wickets, taking 300 in 56 Tests. Even Murali couldn't break it! In Australia, the order is: Lillee (by a street), McGrath, Lindwall.

From everything I have seen, listened to and read Marshall was express and pushed Holding for the title for the world's fastest before eventually over taking him in the early '80's. Its' s also not totally correct to say he was always rested and bowled short spells or had shots at easy lower order wickets as Roberts retired shortly after Marshall's arrival and Croft was already gone. Holding after 83 was frequently injured and Marshall was left at times to shoulder the burden of the attack with mostly Garner for support. Additionally the number of tail end wickets taken by Marshall is less than both his top and middle order scalps and in line with his contemporaries. Additionally it was Garner who more often was charged with cleaning up the tail.
Marshall also proved himself everywhere in the world including India against the world cup champions and excelled against everyone everywhere. His record is complete and he had every tool at his disposal and knew when and how to use them and all allied to a brilliant cricketing brain.
He is begging to be seen by more past players, journalist and historians alike as the greatest fast bowler to have played the game making the Wisden's, Cricinfo's and other world xi's. His record is more complete than Lillee's and his combination of average, strike rate, wpm, rate of 5 wickets hauls, match winning efforts and record vs opponents both home and away is unmatched and for me he is the greatest bowler to have played the game.

 

[kyear2]

Sir Jack Hobbs
Sir Leonard Hutton (or Sunil Gavaskar)
Sir Donald Bradman
Sir Vivian Richards
Sachin Tendulkar (or Sir Walter Hammond)
Sir Garfield Sobers
Adam Gilchrist
Malcolm Marshall
Sir Richard Hadlee
Shane Warne
Dennis Lillee

12th Man: Imran Khan

* I'm a big fan of Gavaskar, an amazing record, 1st player to score 10,000 Test runs, most hundreds & dominated the West Indies. Wally Hammond, had Don Bradman not existed, may have been the greatest batsman in history, but is not applauded as he deserves! Incredible record, he scored 905 in a Test series against Australia in Australia!!! He scored the fastest Triple Hundred in Test History. His average of 58.45, was due to his unselfish return to Test cricket in 1946 after WWII, when he averaged around 25. Hammond was sensational against Australia, one of the greatest slip fielders (100+ catches) & a solid bowler. A special player, he scored 167 1st Class Centuries & 50,000+ runs. He would've averaged over 60! In my lifetime, Sir Vivian Richards is the best Test/One day player I've seen. Lucky T20 wasn't around! He was recently in Australia & appeared all over TV here. He is a much admired god of the game, even here in his 60's.

Good team, though Gavaskar's domination the the w.i were primarily before the 4 pronged attack and during WSC.
Hammond was a great batsman and cricketer and along with Chappell is just behind the Sobers and Kallis class of brilliant cricketers who excelled with bat and in the slips and contributed with the ball and Kallis was probably only ahead of both with the ball. He looses out for me though because he did seem to struggle vs genuine pace and especially short pitched bowling. He was still none the less a brilliant player. Chappell just edges him for me with the bat and probably also in the cordon where he was brilliant to Lillee, Thomson and crew.

 

[Yippa_oz]

Good team, though Gavaskar's domination the the w.i were primarily before the 4 pronged attack and during WSC.
Hammond was a great batsman and cricketer and along with Chappell is just behind the Sobers and Kallis class of brilliant cricketers who excelled with bat and in the slips and contributed with the ball and Kallis was probably only ahead of both with the ball. He looses out for me though because he did seem to struggle vs genuine pace and especially short pitched bowling. He was still none the less a brilliant player. Chappell just edges him for me with the bat and probably also in the cordon where he was brilliant to Lillee, Thomson and crew.

Well said! The margin between them is very small. Hammond possessed all the shots, the famous coverdrive we all know of but also the cut, pull & hook shots. When you consider what he achieved in just 80 odd Tests & he missed 8 years of cricket due to war in his prime..... Big fan of Kallis! I hose Hadlee purely of his bowling class. Kallis would not be out of place in any XI! Greg Chappell was such a technical master. The upright strokes, big runscorer, he was my idol as a child, along with Sir Viv!

 

[Red]

Messing with a bowling attack with full variety while maintaining a team that's still reasonably balanced * …..

Hutton
Gavaskar
Bradman
G.Chappell
Sobers
Gilchrist
Wasim
Warne
Lillee
Garner
Murali


* because I should be writing something

 

[Slifer]

From everything I have seen, listened to and read Marshall was express and pushed Holding for the title for the world's fastest before eventually over taking him in the early '80's. Its' s also not totally correct to say he was always rested and bowled short spells or had shots at easy lower order wickets as Roberts retired shortly after Marshall's arrival and Croft was already gone. Holding after 83 was frequently injured and Marshall was left at times to shoulder the burden of the attack with mostly Garner for support. Additionally the number of tail end wickets taken by Marshall is less than both his top and middle order scalps and in line with his contemporaries. Additionally it was Garner who more often was charged with cleaning up the tail.
Marshall also proved himself everywhere in the world including India against the world cup champions and excelled against everyone everywhere. His record is complete and he had every tool at his disposal and knew when and how to use them and all allied to a brilliant cricketing brain.
He is begging to be seen by more past players, journalist and historians alike as the greatest fast bowler to have played the game making the Wisden's, Cricinfo's and other world xi's. His record is more complete than Lillee's and his combination of average, strike rate, wpm, rate of 5 wickets hauls, match winning efforts and record vs opponents both home and away is unmatched and for me he is the greatest bowler to have played the game.

Well said. Nothing more I need to add. Lillee was a great bowler and all but Marshall was better case closed.

 

[Red]

Nah, Lillee was better. Case closed.

 

[Slifer]

????

 

[ohnoitsyou]

????

The irony of this post...

 

[kyear2]

He was using my post as his argument, Monk just made a statement.

How many bowlers though are genuinely (based on empirical and anecdotal evidence) in the argument for the greatest of all time?

Marshall, McGrath, Lillee(in that order)? Maybe throw in Hadlee, Warne and Murali? Additionally where does Barnes fit in? Ambrose, Trueman and Donald have amazing stats home and away. Imran like Murali was beastly at home and O'Reilly was seen by the Don as being the greatest. Lets also not forget Steyn who is quickly closing in on the discussion as well and Akran who like Garner comes closer (but for me not quite there) when their odi records are factored in.

For me it comes down to between the first two, but that's just my opinion and Steyn is far from finished and may join those two before he is.

 

[Slifer]

Couldnt agree more with ur assesment of Dale Steyn

 

[watson]

If Dale Steyn had a nervous breakdown or some such thing tomorrow so that his stat's for the next 3 years until his retirement were woefully bad, then would he still qualify as an ATG? Or should we just call him an ATG right now because he has aleady done more than enough to justify that tag and be done with it?

 

[kyear2]

He has done enough to be called an ATG, he will need to do more to justify being in the argument as the greatest ever. For me right now that argument is between just Marshall and McGrath with Marshall in my opinion being comfortably ahead.

 

[Red]

The thing that sets Marshall apart is his success in all places and against all opponents. Kinda like Tendulkar.

Most consistently good, but in my mind that doesn't necessarily equate to the best. All the anecdotal evidence suggests that Lillee would comfortably be the best ever. Just like plenty would rank others higher than Tendulkar, I rank others higher than Marshall.

 

[Gowza]

he's surely done enough to be a great but if he sucks from here longevity comes into the equation. take botham for example, a terrific all rounder but not always put in the all time category due to his decline yet after 74 matches (specifically from when he began until the 18th of june 1985) he still averaged in the 36s with the bat and in the 26s with the ball, had more 5fers than imran and kapil achieved in their careers, had over 300 wickets and over 4000 runs (more than imran achieved in his career) with 13 centuries. imran is still considered the better all rounder of the era so yeah, still a great but would put a real dent into his case as the best ever or (depending on the decline) case for top 3 or top 5 ever.

 

[kyear2]

The thing that sets Marshall apart is his success in all places and against all opponents. Kinda like Tendulkar.

Most consistently good, but in my mind that doesn't necessarily equate to the best. All the anecdotal evidence suggests that Lillee would comfortably be the best ever. Just like plenty would rank others higher than Tendulkar, I rank others higher than Marshall.

The anecdotal evidence just isn't supported by his stats (to be seen as the best ever) though and it seems more like romanticism. His omission from the Wisden XI last year shows that it may be beginning to wane some and Marshall may be beginning to get his due.

With regard to Marshall's comparison with Tendulkar, I compare Tendulkar more with McGrath, consistent with amazing career accumulative stats but didn't stir the soul as much as others. Marshall though was the total package, he has the numbers, was a match winner and an entertainer. He took the big scalps from the opposition and never played minnows to boost his stats. Yes Lillee had the flair and the aggro, and the amazing recovery from his injury, but that couldn't possibly push him above Maco as the best to play the game. He didn't prove himself in the sub continent, took most of his wickets in Australia and England and Marshall still had the better numbers. That speaks volumes for me.

 

[the big bambino]

He was a great bowler but really Marshall played some abject sides in the 80s, particularly Australia which is why I put Ambrose above him and all others as well.

 

[kyear2]

Ambrose was brilliant and definitely top 5, but from watching both and seeing their consistent impact on games, Marshall is comfortably ahead.

When Ambrose was at his best and on song (similar to Lara), there may have been none more dangerous and deadly though.

 

[Red]

I say this in all seriousness, and I don't disrespect Marshall at all, but he probably bowled in the weakest batting era ever (80s), while Lillee possibly bowled in the best.

I would also add, and this is significant, that Marshall bowled 36 overs per test, while Lillee bowled 43.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

I say this in all seriousness, and I don't disrespect Marshall at all, but he probably bowled in the weakest batting era ever (80s), while Lillee possibly bowled in the best.

I would also add, and this is significant, that Marshall bowled 36 overs per test, while Lillee bowled 43.

Obviously because Marshall and his peers bowled teams out significantly quicker than Lillee and co.