World Class list

[Maximas]

AWTA, not sure how you can call Clarke an ATG when he's really only been performing at an ATG level for probably less than a third of his career, probably wouldn't put him on the same level as Sanga either tbh. Those category definitions look good though

 

[Red]

Fair on Clarke, probably belongs in the "Great" category at the moment.

Australia's openers are quite difficult to categorise. As I look back on my post, I feel like I'm doing Bill Lawry an injustice by ranking him under Hayden. I feel like they should be ranked in the same category, one or the other.

It looks harsh to look at players being classified as just "good", or even "poor" at the very bottom of these lists, so worth remembering nearly everyone who has played test cricket has been an outstanding cricketer at FC level. These rankings are for the elite of the elite really, there's definitely no shame in being classified "good"!

 

[kyear2]

Just thinking through this because it's a) raining like ****, and b) I have nothing else to do

Poor- Played tests but clearly not really test standard.

Average- Played tests and was ok, but really not highly influential to his team's performance.

Good- A solid contributor on a consistent basis to his team without dominating.

Genuine test level- A solid contributor on a consistent basis, producing match influencing performances at times.

Great- Likely to be the best in his team/one of the best in his era, would be strongly considered for a current world XI in peak form. Produces match defining performances regularly.

ATG- Best in his team/close to best in his era. Would make a current world XI. Would be strongly considered for his nation's all-time XI.

ATG World XI shortlist- Within the very top echelon of his particular discipline over the entire history of test match cricket. Would very likely be in his nation's ATG XI, (as well as being shortlisted for a World ATG XI).

ATG World XI lock- Definite to make the all time World XI. Realistically, only Bradman and Sobers are in this category.


Kind of fun to consider players over the years and where they fit. Perhaps the main issue is when we try to categorise players on the criteria of whether they'd make their nation's all time XI. As a comparison, Sangakkara would definitely make SL's all time XI, but Clarke would be unlikely to make Aus's (although not out of place imo). However, in my opinion, Sangakkara and Clarke would be pretty much on par as test cricketers.

To that last category would add Gilchrist, Marshall and Hobbs. Richards, Warne and Tendulkar are marginal.

 

[akilana]

I will add Kallis, Ponting, Lillee, Mcgrath, Hadlee, Imran for the ATG World XI lock

 

[Red]

To that last category would add Gilchrist, Marshall and Hobbs. Richards, Warne and Tendulkar are marginal.

Dunno. Plenty of people choose Knott over Gilchrist. Some people prefer other quicks to Marshall. Personally I have Hutton, B.Richards and Gavaskar all around the same mark as Hobbs. Marshall the next closest to being a lock imo.

It's kind of an odd category really, but it is true that everyone who picks a genuine ATG World XI has Bradman and Sobers. There aren't really and question of those two that I've heard regarding that status. I've seen a number of legit teams that don't include the others though.

 

[kyear2]

With Gilchrist it's a philosophical argument, if you are looking for the best wicket keeper batsman it's him no contest, if you are looking for the best "pure keeper" some may go for Knott, but Gilly was also a superb keeper to pace and spin. For me personally one of the top four players of all time.
Hobbs is the master but can understand your argument though he is still pretty close to unanimous.
Marshall is third in line when it comes to unanimous selections and haven't seen a credible team where he wasn't selected and even the last time we choose an ATG XI the only unanimous selections were Bradman, Sobers and Marshall. Hobbs missed by one (your) vote.

So for me its (in order)
Bradman and Sobers (unquestioned)
Marshall (there and supported by selections but not recognized as being there)
Gilchrist (similar to Marshall but faces a philosophical argument vs A.P.E. Knott)
Hobbs (almost everyone selects him but not necessarily as the no. 1 opener and some count era played against him)

As mentioned previously Warne, Tendulkar and Richards come close but valid competition exists.

Just my opinion of course.

 

[Spark]

Please don't turn this into another ATG thread.

 

[morgieb]

Openers:

Warner
Cook
Rogers

Not sure on Rogers, but I can't think of any second opener playing Test cricket today I wouldn't drop him for. I would expect Latham, Vijay and Braithwaite to make this list in due course, and Cook is quickly losing his goodwill, the main thing keeping him on this list is the lack of quality openers in modern cricket.

Middle order:

Clarke
Smith
Bell
Pujara
Kohli
Taylor
Williamson
Misbah
Younis
Amla
de Villiers
du Plessis
Sangakkara
Chanderpaul
Jayawardene
Root
Rahane
Bravo

Lots of options here. Depends on India's balance, if they go with 4 middle-order bats there are a few more I'd pick, otherwise this is the list. Would suspect that people like Mominul and Taylor would make the list in due course/when their countries play more Tests. HM to Pietersen, who isn't selected by his country, but would still make every side in the world discounting his "issues".

All-rounders

Shakib
Watson
Mathews

Not sure whether Mathews counts as an all-rounder, but I put him here anyway. Watson is possibly questionable, but given how many roles he's played over his career, I think there'd be a place for him in every lineup.

Wicket-keepers

Tough to call. Personally there's little between Dhoni, Haddin and Watling, so much so that I tend to lean towards incumbency in all 3 cases. Prior is shot, whereas AB doesn't keep anymore.

Spinners

Ajmal

Herath would make every squad, and would play if the situation called for 2 spinners. Lyon will probably make the list soon with both players being over 35.

Seamers

Steyn
Johnson
Harris
Philander
Southee
Boult
Anderson
Broad
Junaid
Roach

Pattinson will make the list by the time he fully gets over his injury problems (and probably knock off a few of the others). Interesting that pretty much the non-Asian countries that are actually any good have pretty gun new ball attacks.

 

[Flem274*]

Siddle and Morkel are world class.

 

[morgieb]

Siddle and Morkel are world class.

I thought about them, but I don't think Siddle can make our side at full-strength anymore, and I guess Morkel just leaves me unconvinced for whatever reasons.

 

[Flem274*]

I thought about them, but I don't think Siddle can make our side at full-strength anymore, and I guess Morkel just leaves me unconvinced for whatever reasons.

Siddle is a better bowler than Pattinson, especially in the third seamer role.

Boof might like to beat his chest about having three 140-150 blokes, but Siddle at 135 is still more consistently effective and won't break or let the side down with a shocker.

 

[Flem274*]

I'd put the Indian opening pair in the world class bracket too, and almost Alviro. They're not excellent, but there are so few solid opening options in world cricket atm that those guys are very valuable players.

 

[Prince EWS]

The seamers category according to the definition in the OP is really difficult right now because of the Australia and South Africa. Philander for example is someone of whom people's opinions could quite easily vary from "second best bowler in the world" to "wouldn't pick him over Siddle or Pattinson for Australia". Siddle is arguably world class despite also arguably not being good enough to make his own side.

 

[Howsie]

Siddle and Morkel are world class.

Siddle can't even make the Australian team. He ain't world class.

 

[hendrix]

Siddle is a better bowler than Pattinson, especially in the third seamer role.

Boof might like to beat his chest about having three 140-150 blokes, but Siddle at 135 is still more consistently effective and won't break or let the side down with a shocker.

Nah, I wouldn't be picking Siddle over Pattinson, even for the third seamer. Aus still have Watson, and Harris is excellent in his second and third spells, so they don't especially need a specialist third seamer in the way that NZ does.

 

[Red]

Still laugh about the fact that someone like Siddle would probably make an Indian ATG All Time XI. At least in my opinion.

 

[Flem274*]

Nah, I wouldn't be picking Siddle over Pattinson, even for the third seamer. Aus still have Watson, and Harris is excellent in his second and third spells, so they don't especially need a specialist third seamer in the way that NZ does.

Three of those blokes are glass figurines.

Pattinson's claims to fame are pace, swing and beating up India and NZ at home, the latter on green tops.

Don't get me wrong, Pattinson is a good bowler who is not far off world class himself and is one of the best hopes for ATGness of his generation - he just looks a lot better than he is right now, and that isn't difficult for him because his bowling is ***y.

 

[hendrix]

Three of those blokes are glass figurines.

Pattinson's claims to fame are pace, swing and beating up India and NZ at home, the latter on green tops.

Don't get me wrong, Pattinson is a good bowler who is not far off world class himself and is one of the best hopes for ATGness of his generation - he just looks a lot better than he is right now, and that isn't difficult for him because his bowling is ***y.

He beat up India in quite extremely tailored Indian conditions.

He's not 100% proven, no. But I'd still be picking him over Siddle.

 

[Flametree]

Siddle can't even make the Australian team. He ain't world class.

Not being able to make the no. 1 ranked side shouldn't make it impossible to be given that label. He has a better average than any of Anderson, Broad and Morkel, and would walk into 8 of 10 test sides, while he is or would be a contender for a spot in the other two., By that definition, some pretty decent players would be denied the label - Stuart MacGill and Wayne Daniel for instance.

 

[Jarquis]

Does the definition work a bit better if you say 'could could conceivably make a 12/13 man squad for every nation'?