Which country's All Time XI is the strongest?

[trundler]

Weekes was a massive minnow basher

And Worrell burnt out a bit during the back half of his career after initial ATG numbers

You can poke big holes in all the of the 3 W's records

Sure but Walcott's hole is a lot more glaring compared to playing on for too long. Will take Chanders over him to give the middle order solidity and variety.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Chanders could possibly play ahead of Lloyd in the second XI. Otherwise he's in the third XI along with Rowe, Kanhai and a few others who were great but don't get talked about because their not usually in contention for the first XI.

Yeah, he's 3rd Elevenish...borderline though.
And it's where we're are going to place the sir Reverend Wes Hall...and Kemar Roach.

 

[the big bambino]

Lol at picking an opener in an all-time XI that never scored a test century...

Beautiful 92 and 75 on debut though

You know his record is there if you want to check. Plus he scored a ton in the WI in WSC on a mine field. Disagree if you want but have something a little more than "lol" cause it makes you look a jerk.

 

[vcs]

Afaic there are big 4 openers:

Hobbs, Hutton, Sutcliffe and Gavaskar

2nd tier:

Ponsford, Greenidge, Hunte, Lawry, Boycott, Sehwag, Hayden, Simpson, Smith, Saeed, Morris etc.

3rd tier:

Gayle, Haynes, Slater, Taylor, Sidhu, Fredericks, etc

On the fence for the likes of Langer and B Richards.

Sidhu? Was he really any better than Gambhir/Murali Vijay etc.? The only thing I remember him for is attacking Warne and diving around in the field in that '98 series.

 

[AndrewB]

So assuming first XIs of:

Hayden
Trumper
Bradman
Smith
Waugh
Border
Gilchrist+
Davidson
Warne
Lillee
McGrath

and

Greenidge
Haynes
Richards
Lara
Headley
Sobers
Dujon +
Marshall
Holding
Garner
Ambrose

What would the second XI match up look like?

Ponsford
Simpson
Ponting
Chappell G
Harvey
Clarke
Miller
Healy
Lindwall
O'Reilly
Spoffoth

vs

Hunte
Gayle
Walcott
Weekes
Worrell
Lloyd
Murray DL+
Roberts
Garner
Croft
Gibbs

That would be a mouth watering matchup. If Spoffoth is perceived as being impossible to rate and Australia had to pick someone else, either McDermott or Gillespie come in and add a weak link to the side (although both bowlers were very good).

Hall/Bishop/someone for Garner in the second XI since you picked him in the first XI.

 

[Coronis]

Ponsford is pretty underrated. Second only to Bradman for a brief period. Had a knack for going big too. Australia may not have GOAT openers but they're as good as the respective pairs from WI, SA or India. England obviously have the best openers but their middle order lacks a truly alpha batsman like Richards, Pollock or Smith. Excluding Bradman here obvs. England do have Hammond but I'm not sure if he was a true alpha since he slowed down a lot as his career went on. WI have the most alpha middle other with Richards, Lara AND Sobers.

lol what? You mean after the war when he was 43 and unfit as ****? If you want to hold that against him be my guest...

 

[Slifer]

Hall/Bishop/someone for Garner in the second XI since you picked him in the first XI.

WI 2nd XI assuming above

Gayle
Hunte
Kanhai
Weekes
Worrell
Lloyd
Walcott+
Bishop
Garner
Roberts
Gibbs

Oh and imo G Chappell should've never be left out of an oz first xi.

 

[trundler]

lol what? You mean after the war when he was 43 and unfit as ****? If you want to hold that against him be my guest...

No I meant in terms of strike rate. Hammond slowed down considerably IIRC, at least compared to G Pollock, Lara etc. Didn't he turn into a sort of Kallis type player? May be a moot point since Hammond did have a tendency to go big and hit sixes but my original point was that England's middle order doesn't have an X factor played like Viv or Smith. Not slighting Barrington and Compo either.

 

[Chrish]

Both Pollock and Hammond are said to have a weakness against pace bowling. Also, both are said to be off side players and had a perceived weakness around leg stumps. Would appreciate it if someone can shed a light on this topic.

 

[trundler]

You know his record is there if you want to check. Plus he scored a ton in the WI in WSC on a mine field. Disagree if you want but have something a little more than "lol" cause it makes you look a jerk.

Waaaaaaaaaah.


Toughen up.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Australia, having the greatest bat the greatest spinner and one of the greatest pacemen of all time means even the Windies 70/80 mob take 2nd place.

 

[Red]

Lawry/Simpson > Hayden any day.

 

[Red]

Let's see

Best batsman: Bradman
Best fast bowler (arguably): McGrath
Best spinner (arguably): Oreilly, Warne
Best all rounder (arguably): Miller
Wk/batsman : Gilchrist
Pure keeper (arguably): marsh, Healey, talon
Left arm fast bowler (arguably) : Davidson

Yup except for openers, Australia have pretty much all their bases covered.

I don't think anyone considers Marsh the GOAT pure keeper. Healy, Tallon, Oldfield, Grout all belong in the conversation though.

 

[vcs]

Sure but Walcott's hole is a lot more glaring compared to playing on for too long. Will take Chanders over him to give the middle order solidity and variety.

Might want to rephrase that

 

[jimmy101]

No I had people agreeing with me in the thread. I'm not bragging btw, a cursory glance at their record will tell you they were as good as each other

As much as I am a fan of Hill, I really do think Trumper was better than him by a lengthy margin. Dry stats my indicate one thing, but I've never seen a contemporary cricket writer from the day label Hill as the best of the era.

 

[Coronis]

As much as I am a fan of Hill, I really do think Trumper was better than him by a lengthy margin. Dry stats my indicate one thing, but I've never seen a contemporary cricket writer from the day label Hill as the best of the era.

Good thing they’re all objective and don’t romanticise stylish players.

 

[jimmy101]

Is anyone ever 100% objective?

 

[Bolo.]

Both Pollock and Hammond are said to have a weakness against pace bowling. Also, both are said to be off side players and had a perceived weakness around leg stumps. Would appreciate it if someone can shed a light on this topic.

Pollock was proper quality against pace. His eyes went in his late 30s and 40s, and the fact he played so long might be creating this impression.

He was really strong through the covers. Possibly the best. This is more of a particular strength than an indication of any weakness.

Not sure about the leg stump weakness. Makes some sense though because of how expansive he was.

IDK so much about Hammond.

 

[jimmy101]

Hard to see Pollock being susceptible to pace considering he played almost all of his cricket in South Africa, excelling during a time when fast bowlers were a higher commodity than they are now & was basically perfect batting technique personified.

 

[kyear2]

Both Pollock and Hammond are said to have a weakness against pace bowling. Also, both are said to be off side players and had a perceived weakness around leg stumps. Would appreciate it if someone can shed a light on this topic.

I do know that I read that Pollock wasn't Keen to face pace bowling, but for the life of me I can't recall where.

With Hammond it wasn't so much that he didn't like fast bowling so much, but rather shirt pitched aggressive fast bowling. He really didn't like the short stuff.