Which players would be locks in every OTHER country’s ATG XI?

[Socerer 01]

Yes they have a part to play, but I prefer to have someone where you don't have to make a compromise for, that's all. And have been consistent about that. Like one of the guys who can make the team on their batting alone, who can give me a Hammond like bowling presence. One of the bowlers who can hang around with one of our top order batsmen.

Doesn't have to be an "all rounder" per say, more flexibility.

A good team should have a little of everything, a decent 5th option, a strong cordon, and batting depth in the tail. No issues there, but has to make sense.

if thats your view then its fair enough, used to think the same for years but then realised that its not what is the preference of those with more experience currently in the test cricket scene

Hammond is definitely not a decent 5th option for these atg contests that get cooked up on this forum tbh

still got no idea why you keep putting up slip fielding up there like it belongs in there

 

[Socerer 01]

Given that all of Lara's career overlapped with Sachin's and saw heavy debate among sections of fans about boths merits and demerits, does he really qualify as undisputed best of his time?? (Given Sachin also had his late 2000s peak).

yeah a bit of a rare miss from the usually great @peterhrt

 

[Bolo.]

I'm not arguing. He wasn't near the slip that Kallis was. He did have safe hands though and was adept at moving forward, two key aspects of the job there. He wasn't a Kallis or Sobers though, not close.

Ya, fair point now that you mention it. Had forgotten that.

Still definitely not a great slip in my book though.

 

[peterhrt]

Given that all of Lara's career overlapped with Sachin's and saw heavy debate among sections of fans about boths merits and demerits, does he really qualify as undisputed best of his time?? (Given Sachin also had his late 2000s peak).

I was thinking of the period 1993-95. After breaking the records for both highest Test and First-Class innings in 1994, there was talk of the sky being the limit for Lara.

As you say there was a period of intense Lara v Tendulkar debate, and also one where most people thought Tendulkar was the best current batsman.

Would be interested in your thoughts on some of the others.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I was thinking of the period 1993-95. After breaking the records for both highest Test and First-Class innings in 1994, there was talk of the sky being the limit for Lara.

As you say there was a period of intense Lara v Tendulkar debate, and also one where most people thought Tendulkar was the best current batsman.

Would be interested in your thoughts on some of the others.

I think that the expectation of getting everyone to agree on something is pretty far fetched. Given there were legit critics and players who rated Hammond over Bradman, I think it's pretty safe to say contrarians are sure to exist everywhere. But say, if we take that around 90% of cricket intellectuals agree, then I pretty much agree with your list and would add only Hutton, Sobers and Smith. Hutton is probably the tightest call as the media loved Compton but I believe in the early 50s it is difficult to not rate him as the World's best. Similarly for Sobers, I think he was clearly better than Kanhai from 66 and it would be really premature to call Pollock better while in the first year of his international career. As for Smith, I think he and Kohli were pretty close till 2018, but since then it's really tough to make a compelling case for him, Root or Williamson over Smith. His 15-19 peak was insane, and after the Ashes, I genuinely doubt Kohli had a case. As pointed out previously by others, I think the experts were probably rating those 4 overall. Was going to comment on Viv being undisputed as Gavaskar was also there, but then I thought that at the very least he was undisputed from his crazy 1976 campaign till Gavaskar's Oval 221. Barry Richards is a tricky case for lack of Test matches, but still the only worthy challenger over that period I can think for him is Graeme Pollock.
Also, on the bowler's one, weren't there people who considered Turner and Lohman to be better?

 

[Coronis]

Without trying to reignite the Barry Richards debate, the general perception between 1970 and 1975 was that he had no serious rivals, even if a few South Africans still preferred Pollock. In 1975 The Daily Telegraph selected its current World XI. Richards was first name on the teamsheet, opening with Barlow. Procter would have been picked had he been fit. Boycott was excluded from consideration because he had opted out of Test cricket. In England at least, the South Africans were still regarded as current internationals and it was thought they might be back soon. The Gleneagles Agreement put paid to that.

Yeah I’m going to take this with a grain of salt re Richards/Pollock. I mean I’d rather trust the perception of those South Africaners tbh - after all they were the ones seeing both play. It wouldn’t surprise me that English media would prefer Richards after seeing him star in county year after year.

I can’t personally find the source - would love to see the whole team if you have that available.

 

[Coronis]

On the contrary, England team is lacking batting as it is and picking Botham isn't solving the problem. Australia can afford Miller at 6 with Gilchrist and Don, England can't. England need a proper batsman at 6. Different scenarios definitely, but an allrounder is less viable for England than Australia. You could make Pietersen bat their or if you need a fast bowler take Larwood Or Snow, but Botham at 6 followed by Knott makes the batting too poor for that standard.

Seriously? England has easily the 3rd best batting amongst ATG sides at worst. They clearly have the best openers - and you call a middle order containing multiple top 20 bats weak.

The accumulative strike rate of the first team is literally incapable of winning matches... Hutton is spectacularly unsuited for the no. 3 position and him and Sutcliffe at the crease and my God. Only Young Hobbs and Root capable of pushing the rate and not allowing the bowlers to dictate to them.

I'm not impressed by any of the England spinners, and Verity dismissed Bradman a couple times and also could bat a bit, so him. Tyson was probably better than Larwood, but .

Actually you’ll find that in most of test cricket history teams have scored at less than 3 runs per over - i.e less than 50 SR (from post wwi up til this century I believe believe) and we managed to get lots of results just fine. I could (and maybe should) just as easily argue that a Windies ATG team with 4 pacers isn’t going to win many matches against ATG sides because they’ll run out of time bowling their overs. Hell thats already a proven weakness with them, no wonder they had so many draws when they were so dominant.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Seriously? England has easily the 3rd best batting amongst ATG sides at worst. They clearly have the best openers - and you call a middle order containing multiple top 20 bats weak.

If Botham plays then the English batting lineup is significantly worse than Australia. They have a very strong Top 5, but after that it kinda crumbles with Botham and Knott, which isn't ideal for 6 and 7 with pure bowlers from 8 in an ATG scenario.

 

[Coronis]

If Botham plays then the English batting lineup is significantly worse than Australia. They have a very strong Top 5, but after that it kinda crumbles with Botham and Knott, which isn't ideal for 6 and 7 with pure bowlers from 8 in an ATG scenario.

He was saying the batting is weak enough to warrant Botham’s inclusion, where it is clearly not with guys like Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hutton, Hammond, Barrington, Root which would likely be my top 6. Nobody has a batting lineup that matches Australia (thanks Don). Calling all other batting weak by comparison is just ignorant.

Think I might go with

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hutton
Hammond
Barrington
Root
Botham
Knott+
Laker
Trueman
Barnes

Anderson is the other one in contention with Botham but either way (or even with both) the bowling doesn’t quite stack up with the other teams. So I’m stacking up the batting hoping to scrounge draws and for the occasional burst of brilliance from Barnes or Botham. I’d argue this batting to be as good or slightly superior to the Windies, considering the relative strengths of the openers and Botham.

 

[kyear2]

I am just saying Botham was in fact viable in your mind....

Because of the team situation and in his prime a march winner.

 

[kyear2]

if thats your view then its fair enough, used to think the same for years but then realised that its not what is the preference of those with more experience currently in the test cricket scene

Hammond is definitely not a decent 5th option for these atg contests that get cooked up on this forum tbh

still got no idea why you keep putting up slip fielding up there like it belongs in there

It's crazy how you dismiss reviews of older players as nostalgia jerking, yet listen to ones you agree with. How you swear for modern players in the same way they would have for the ones they saw as well.

If anyone doesn't think that slip fielding isn't a factor in test cricket or belong in the same discussion doesn't understand the game and just follow starguru.

 

[kyear2]

Seriously? England has easily the 3rd best batting amongst ATG sides at worst. They clearly have the best openers - and you call a middle order containing multiple top 20 bats weak.



Actually you’ll find that in most of test cricket history teams have scored at less than 3 runs per over - i.e less than 50 SR (from post wwi up til this century I believe believe) and we managed to get lots of results just fine. I could (and maybe should) just as easily argue that a Windies ATG team with 4 pacers isn’t going to win many matches against ATG sides because they’ll run out of time bowling their overs. Hell thats already a proven weakness with them, no wonder they had so many draws when they were so dominant.

Lot of it was weather, less than idea drainage etc. but yes, I imagine that sometimes over rates would be an issue.

 

[Socerer 01]

It's crazy how you dismiss reviews of older players as nostalgia jerking, yet listen to ones you agree with. How you swear for modern players in the same way they would have for the ones they saw as well.

If anyone doesn't think that slip fielding isn't a factor in test cricket or belong in the same discussion doesn't understand the game and just follow starguru.

lol what

who the hell saw Hammond play in the 30s and is still posting about him here and idk what me saying Hammond is not a decent 5th option for all the atg contests that yall cook up has anything to do with whatever you’ve just said


and no literally no one here thinks or has ever agreed with your notion that slip fielding is a vital secondary skill in the manner of batting or bowling and everytime someone brings that up you resort to assuming their position as “oh so you mean to say that slip fielding is not a factor at all??? you dont understand test cricket at all” which was something no one has ever said either. saying that slip fielding isnt as important as you believe it is doesnt mean me the entirety of the forum thinks it isnt a factor at all

 

[honestbharani]

Given that all of Lara's career overlapped with Sachin's and saw heavy debate among sections of fans about boths merits and demerits, does he really qualify as undisputed best of his time?? (Given Sachin also had his late 2000s peak).

U answered ur own question. They both were easily ahead of the rest even if it was debatable between the two of them. A tie is still a result FFS.

 

[capt_Luffy]

U answered ur own question. They both were easily ahead of the rest even if it was debatable between the two of them. A tie is still a result FFS.

I mean, it could be said about many people. Like the reason Peterhrt wasn't calling Smith one was because some rates other members of Fab 4 higher, but surely only fab 4 members gets rated higher.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Because of the team situation and in his prime a march winner.

The team situation is worse batting than Australia and Miller was a better bat and ball than Botham.

 

[capt_Luffy]

He was saying the batting is weak enough to warrant Botham’s inclusion, where it is clearly not with guys like Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hutton, Hammond, Barrington, Root which would likely be my top 6. Nobody has a batting lineup that matches Australia (thanks Don). Calling all other batting weak by comparison is just ignorant.

Think I might go with

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hutton
Hammond
Barrington
Root
Botham
Knott+
Laker
Trueman
Barnes

Anderson is the other one in contention with Botham but either way (or even with both) the bowling doesn’t quite stack up with the other teams. So I’m stacking up the batting hoping to scrounge draws and for the occasional burst of brilliance from Barnes or Botham. I’d argue this batting to be as good or slightly superior to the Windies, considering the relative strengths of the openers and Botham.

The bowling line-up is a little too weak if Botham is your fourth bowler imo. On picking Botham for England, I generally fit another allrounder in Wilfred Rhodes into the team to even out the batting and bowling a bit.

 

[peterhrt]

I can’t personally find the source - would love to see the whole team if you have that available.

Copied from post last year:

In June 1975 five leading English cricket writers got together to select a current World XI for The Daily Telegraph Magazine. They were EW Swanton, John Woodcock, Ian Peebles, Michael Melford and Crawford White. In addition to the Telegraph, The Times, Sunday Times and Daily Express were represented. It is a snapshot of thinking at the time, at least in England.

Six names were agreed by all five judges: Barry Richards ("unanimously accepted finest opening batsman in the world"), Clive Lloyd, Greg Chappell, Knott, Lillee and Bedi.

Procter would have been another but was not fully fit. Sobers was also mentioned but not due to play any first-class cricket that summer. The judges still wanted an all-rounder and picked Greig.

Melford favoured Roberts over Thomson as he bowled a fuller length. Peebles, White and Swanton liked fast bowlers hunting in pairs and went for Thomson to partner Lillee. Rather than select all three, the writers preferred a wrist spinner for variety and chose Chandra as the best "on his day".

Boycott was deemed to have ruled himself out by opting out of Test cricket. Instead "Barlow's credentials as dangerous outswing bowler, high-class bat, excellent slipper, and, not least, highly pugnacious competitor, won him the place at Richards's side." The South Africans were still regarded as the equivalent of Test cricketers in the mid-1970s. Boycott wasn't, even though he had appeared much more recently.

Before deciding on the remaining batsman, the judges took a look at the fielding which was already well covered with Barlow, Chappell, Greig and Richards in close and Lloyd great anywhere. They considered Graeme Pollock, Walters, Asif Iqbal and Kallicharran. Also Fredericks and Redpath as possible openers with Barlow dropping down to number three. In the end they went for Kallicharran, helped by his left-handedness. Asif was twelfth man and substitute fielder. Lloyd was captain.

Despite Swanton's Kent connections, there was no mention of Underwood. Nor Gavaskar.

Team: Barry Richards, Barlow, Kallicharran, Greg Chappell, LLoyd*, Greig, Knott+, Lillee, Thomson, Bedi, Chandrasekhar. 12th man: Asif Iqbal.

 

[peterhrt]

I think that the expectation of getting everyone to agree on something is pretty far fetched. Given there were legit critics and players who rated Hammond over Bradman, I think it's pretty safe to say contrarians are sure to exist everywhere. But say, if we take that around 90% of cricket intellectuals agree, then I pretty much agree with your list and would add only Hutton, Sobers and Smith. Hutton is probably the tightest call as the media loved Compton but I believe in the early 50s it is difficult to not rate him as the World's best. Similarly for Sobers, I think he was clearly better than Kanhai from 66 and it would be really premature to call Pollock better while in the first year of his international career. As for Smith, I think he and Kohli were pretty close till 2018, but since then it's really tough to make a compelling case for him, Root or Williamson over Smith. His 15-19 peak was insane, and after the Ashes, I genuinely doubt Kohli had a case. As pointed out previously by others, I think the experts were probably rating those 4 overall. Was going to comment on Viv being undisputed as Gavaskar was also there, but then I thought that at the very least he was undisputed from his crazy 1976 campaign till Gavaskar's Oval 221. Barry Richards is a tricky case for lack of Test matches, but still the only worthy challenger over that period I can think for him is Graeme Pollock.
Also, on the bowler's one, weren't there people who considered Turner and Lohman to be better?

Good points.

Hutton thought he was at his best in 1939. His post-war peak was between 1949 and early 1954. Compton's peak ended due to injury as Hutton's began.

At the end of August 1950, Hutton was averaging 57 in Test cricket, Compton 59, Morris 67, Weekes 74, Worrell 104 and Harvey 106. The era of overall high scoring was about to end. Hutton carried on scoring well (and slowly) until the 1954 West Indies tour, which exhausted him. The others had good and bad series, reflected in their reputations.

Steve Smith's one year ban in 2018 complicated matters. Around 2014 and 2015 there was talk of Amla and de Villiers being the best.

Writer Simon Wilde claimed that Viv Richards was generally considered the world's leading batsman between 1976 and 1990, after taking over from his namesake. That seems generous. Others were certainly in contention during that long period, including Gavaskar, but perhaps not for long enough to establish their position.

Spofforth was universally regarded as the leading bowler (ever) before Lohmann and Turner arrived on the scene. The last two were contemporaries and the best bowlers of their time. It was difficult to separate them. Lohmann was more of a force on good pitches, Turner the more dangerous on helpful ones.

 

[honestbharani]

I mean, it could be said about many people. Like the reason Peterhrt wasn't calling Smith one was because some rates other members of Fab 4 higher, but surely only fab 4 members gets rated higher.

It really depends. Its perfectly reasonable to think having one peer means a greater feat than having 3 or 4.