Shoaib87
School Cricketer
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2005
- Online Cricket Games Owned
-
W.G.Grace was 32 years old when he played his first test.
Greatest Test XI
- Thread starter feverpitch
- Start date
nightprowler10
Executive member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2004
- Location
- Madhouse on Madison
- Online Cricket Games Owned
-
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - PS3
I actually meant to type he was almost 50 by the time he (or anyone for that matter) started playing regular Test cricket. Though upon checking my stats, I would be wrong there.
Shoaib87
School Cricketer
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2005
- Online Cricket Games Owned
-
I always wonder that despite being Bradman of his time(averaging in 50s & 60s in differentcricket seasons when even his closest rivals were averaging in 20s & 30s) why was he not picked for first ever test match in 1977 when he was only 28 years old then?
Anyway,here's My Greatest Test XI:
Jack Hobbs
Sunil Gavaskar
Don Bradman
Brian Lara
Vivian Richards
*Imran Khan
+Adam Gilchrist
Richard Hadlee
Wasim Akram
Shane Warne
Muttiah Muralitharan
feverpitch
School Cricketer
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Online Cricket Games Owned
-
Grace is not eligible because, as it says in the first post, only players who made their debuts in 1908 or later are eligible.
Shoaib87
School Cricketer
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2005
- Online Cricket Games Owned
-
Did I even pick him or argued that he should be in the greatst test XI?
nightprowler10
Executive member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2004
- Location
- Madhouse on Madison
- Online Cricket Games Owned
-
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - PS3
I think he's commenting on my post and playkid's.
aussie_ben91
School Cricketer
W.G.Grace was a pioneer of cricket. The father of cricket. Doesn't mean he should be in a 'Greatest XI'.
Dave_the_Knave
School Cricketer
I like your spirit Ronny and yes I do need to get a life...After that first post, I went back and looking at the ratings graphs to see how long a player sustained a high rating for. Quite interesting to do actually. I'll do a bit of a report later, I'll just reply to some stuff first...
On reflection, Hobbs would be a better choice than Hayden as a batsman and probably overall player, but I still maintain that Hayden would be a better fieldsman. According to the old profiles and reports Hobbs was a pretty good fieldsman, FOR HIS DAY. I would guess that even the mediocre fielders of today would compare pretty well to the best older players as the standards have been raised due to increased training and the emergence of limited overs cricket. I would say modern players would have an edge in quickness/agility due to their training methods, not to mention the invention of sliding and willingness to dive. It's debatable whether catching has improved over the years.
I agree I am a little biased toward Australia, but the only selection I made that reflects that is Hayden's, maybe Gilchrist's but I still say Gilchrist is a better gloveman than Andy Flower ever was. The selection was done by raw ratings, not by my gut (except for WK as they don't have a WK rating, I just used batting rating plus my own opinion on their glovework).
As for Ricky Ponting, since the 2005 Ashes he has dominated bowlers everywhere and deserves to have his high ranking. The rating system would contend that as of now, Ponting at 936 points is playing better than all but 8 batsmen have EVER played (oh and at his peak of 942 he was equal 3rd highest ever). That's why he's in the XI.
Wasim Akram has fared relatively poorly in the rankings and I'm not really sure why. Maybe he wrapped up the tail a lot (a less regarded skill in the ratings), but I'm only guessing. Waqar for example, reached a 909 rating (equal 10th of all time), but the highest Wasim ever got was 830 (57th of all time). At his peak during the 90's I guess he was good, but never REALLY good, according to ratings of course. You really need to have a rich vein of form to crack the 850+ rating and Wasim probably never had a prolonged period of dominance. I actually really like Wasim since I was/am a left arm paceman and he and Bruce Reid were the 2 best lefties when I first started watching cricket in the late 80s, early 90s.
If you go to the site:
http://www.cricketratings.com/
In the About the Rankings tab, it broadly describes how the ratings are obtained. e.g. for a batsman the criteria are: 1. runs scored, 2. rating of bowling attack, 3. level or run scoring in the match (to account for the pitch), 4. not outs, 5. result of the game.
aussie_ben91
School Cricketer
I find it weird that Herbert Sutcliffe played in the same era as Jack Hobbs, opened the batting with him, averaged 4 more runs per innings (averaged 60), played around the same ammount of matches but yet Hobbs is considered the better batsman. Sutcliffe also had a better First-Class average?
Dave_the_Knave
School Cricketer
It's a bit like Victor Trumper for Australians. He is considered the greatest before Bradman by most pundits, but Clem Hill has more runs at a better average. Sometimes numbers don't tell the whole truth I guess, or maybe the media is just wrong 
But, anyway, I said I was going to be back with more info did I not?? All you non-number people/non believers in the ICC ratings feel free to ignore the rest of the post
Since we now have 28 players left, I went through and found the players highest ever rating and also looked at how long they sustained a high rating for (all according to the ICC rankings over at cricketratings.com). According to the ratings FAQs, a rating of 900 is "a supreme achievement" and 700 "is normally enough to put a player in the world top ten". So with that in mind I looked at how often a player was rated above 850 during his career, plus his highest ever rating, here are the numbers:
I'll start with the specialist batsmen/bowlers since they are easiest to analyse:
Openers:
L.Hutton - highest rating: 945 V WI 1954. spent 38 of his 79 Tests (48.1%) rated above 850.
J.Hobbs - highest rating: 942 V AUs 1912. spent 35 of his 61 Tests (57.4%) rated above 850.
H.Sutcliffe - highest rating: 888 V Aus 1932. spent 18 of his 54 Tests (33.3%) rated above 850.
S.Gavaskar- highest rating: 916 V Eng 1979. spent 23 of his 125 Tests (18.4%) rated above 850.
My analysis: Going from that, I'd have Hutton and Hobbs as my openers. That was an easy one.
Best opener who didn't make the final cut:
M.Hayden - highest rating: 935 V Eng 2002. spent 28 of his 89 Tests (31.5%) rated above 850.
Middle order:
G.Headley - highest rating: 915 V Eng 1948. spent 6 of his 22 Tests (27.3%) rated above 850.
B.Lara - highest rating: 911 V SA 2004. spent 40 of his 131 Tests (30.5%) rated above 850.
V.Richards - highest rating: 938 V Eng 1981. spent 32 of his 121 Tests (26.4%) rated above 850.
D.Bradman - highest rating: 961 V Ind 1948. spent 36 of his 52 Tests (69.2%) rated above 850.
W.Hammond - highest rating: 897 V NZ 1933. spent 21 of his 85 Tests (24.7%) rated above 850.
R.Ponting - highest rating: 942 V Eng 2006. spent 27 of his 110 Tests (24.5%) rated above 850.
G.Pollock - highest rating: 927 V Aus 1970. spent 3 of his 23 Tests (13.0%) rated above 850.
My analysis: For me Bradman is a lock at #3 and Sobers would be your #6, so that probably leaves 2 to pick. From the numbers given it's between Lara, Richards and Ponting (especially given Ponting still has the ability to increase his numbers dramatically). But others have a case, Headley didn't really have enough Tests (due to the war) to show how good he was and Pollock was left hanging in 1970 just as he reached his peak. But are those 2 great enough to make the team? Their selection would be speculation - that they were better than their numbers show, or if given more opportunities they might have been the best. I don't think we can make those calls, but that's just my two cents.
Best middle order batsman who didn't make the final cut:
P.May - highest rating: 941 V Aus 1956. spent 33 of his 66 Tests (50.0%) rated above 850.
A case could be made that Peter May is the one of the most underrated cricketers ever from those numbers.
For bowlers, I've also included their highest ever batting rating to give an idea of batting ability. One thing that is noticeable is that old time bowlers don't fare well in the ratings. Syd Barnes has the highest ever rating, but most of the older bowlers fail to sustain a high class level of performance ie. staying at 850+ for a decent portion of their career. Perhaps modern cricket is more conducive to that, I'm not really sure.
Spinners:
S.Warne - highest rating: 905 V Eng 1994. spent 25 of his 145 Tests (17.2%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 348.
B.O'Reilly - highest rating: 901 V NZ 1946. spent 11 of his 27 Tests (40.7%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 212.
M.Muralitharan - highest rating: 915 V Pak 2002. spent 48 of his 110 Tests (43.6%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 180.
D.Underwood - highest rating: 907 V NZ 1971. spent 11 of his 86 Tests (12.8%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 213.
My analysis: Geez, Murali all the way here - the juggernaut. But what if you don't appreciate his action? Too bad I say, he's a damn fine bowler, but who would be the 2nd spinner if needed? Warne is a legend, but his numbers don't really back up his reputation as one of the 5 cricketers of last century. O'Reilly's reputation suffers from not enough cricket. Underwood could be deadly on his day haha. O'Reilly should feel hard done by, but I'd probably go with Warne, he's a good slipper and decent batsman and has an aura about him that the team could benefit from if they needed to go with the 2nd spinner.
Best spinners who didn't make the final cut:
J.Laker - highest rating: 897 V Aus 1956. spent 14 of his 46 Tests (30.4%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 271.
L.Gibbs - highest rating: 897 V Eng 1966. spent 20 of his 79 Tests (25.3%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 133.
Pace:
D.Lillee - highest rating: 884 V Eng 1977. spent 10 of his 70 Tests (14.3%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 252.
R.Lindwall - highest rating: 897 V Eng 1954. spent 22 of his 61 Tests (36.1%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 433.
M.Marshall - highest rating: 910 V Eng 1988. spent 48 of his 81 Tests (59.3%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 375.
C.Ambrose - highest rating: 912 V Eng 1994. spent 45 of his 98 Tests (45.9%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 229.
W.Akram - highest rating: 830 V Aus 1994. spent 0 of his 104 Tests (0.0%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 473.
G.McGrath - highest rating: 914 V Eng 2001. spent 83 of his 124 Tests (66.9%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 123.
A.Davidson - highest rating: 908 V WI 1961. spent 18 of his 44 Tests (40.9%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 526.
R.Hadlee - highest rating: 909 V Aus 1985. spent 41 of his 86 Tests (47.7%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 562.
My analysis: While well loved bowlers, the rating system doesn't really fancy Lillee or Akram for some reason, especially Wasim. The 4 standouts from the numbers are Marshall, Ambrose, McGrath and Hadlee. I'd have Hadlee to give some quality batting at #8 and definitely McGrath from those bowling numbers as my #11. Toss up between Marshall and Ambrose for the #9 spot, maybe Marshall for the extra batting skill, with Murali following at #10.
Best paceman who didn't make the final cut:
S.Pollock - highest rating: 909 V Eng 1999. spent 55 of his 107 Tests (51.4%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 565.
For the all-rounders I lowered the 850 point threshold to 650 for both disciplines. Not many players have ever been rated over 650 in both disciplines, showing the rarity of a true all-rounder.
All-rounders:
I.Khan - Batting - highest rating: 650 V SL 1991. spent 2 of his 88 Tests (2.3%) rated above 650.
Bowling - highest rating: 922 V Ind 1983. spent 71 of his 88 Tests (80.7%) rated above 650.
Best Simultaneous rating: 1483 v Ind 1983. (Batting-562, Bowling-921).
K.Miller - Batting - highest rating: 681 V WI 1952. spent 4 of his 55 Tests (7.3%) rated above 650.
Bowling - highest rating: 862 V SA 1953. spent 35 of his 55 Tests (63.6%) rated above 650.
Best Simultaneous rating: 1522 v WI 1952. (Batting-681, Bowling-841).
G.Sobers - Batting - highest rating: 938 V Ind 1967. spent 77 of his 93 Tests (82.8%) rated above 650.
Bowling - highest rating: 715 V Ind 1966. spent 19 of his 93 Tests (20.4%) rated above 650.
Best Simultaneous rating: 1651 v Ind 1966. (Batting-936, Bowling-715).
My analysis:
Sobers is the standout, the only one of the three who could be genuinely selected as either a batsman or bowler. Imran was never a reliable batsman until right at the end of his career. Miller was better as a batsman than Imran, but not quite the bowler, but he still doesn't hold a candle to Sobers.
Best all-rounders who didn't make the final cut:
Batting AR - J.Kallis - Batting - highest rating: 896 V Eng 2005. spent 78 of his 107 Tests (72.9%) rated above 650.
Bowling - highest rating: 742 V Eng 2003. spent 21 of his 107 Tests (19.6%) rated above 650.
Best Simultaneous rating: 1574 v Pak 2002. (Batting-848, Bowling-726).
Bowling AR - I.Botham - Batting - highest rating: 811 V Ind 1982. spent 35 of his 102 Tests (34.3%) rated above 650.
Bowling - highest rating: 911 V Ind 1980. spent 55 of his 102 Tests (53.9%) rated above 650.
Best Simultaneous rating: 1620 v Ind 1980. (Batting-709, Bowling-911).
Very hard to rate due to there being no rating for glovework. There is no fool proof way to judge, but I have noted if the WK has ever been played just as a batsman, usually indicating that their keeping is not the best it could be. Just like all-rounders, not many keepers have ever been rated over 650. It is only in the modern game that players like Flower, Gilchrist, Stewart and Sangakkara have emerged.
Wicketkeepers:
L.Ames - Batting - highest rating: 619 V Aus 1934. spent 0 of his 47 Tests (0.0%) rated above 650.
Wicketkeeping: played 3 of 47 Tests as a batsman only. 95 dismissals (72/23). 2.02 dismissals/match.
A.Flower - Batting - highest rating: 895 V SA 2001. spent 26 of his 63 Tests (41.3%) rated above 650.
Wicketkeeping: played 8 of 63 Tests as a batsman only. 151 dismissals (142/9). 2.40 dismissals/match.
My analysis:
Ames was a pioneer of WK/batsmen, but his batting never reached great heights. Flower didn't have a strong overall career, but he really flourished with the bat in his last few seasons, clearly better than Ames. As for keeping ability, who knows? But honestly, Mr A.C. Gilchrist, should be in the final group. His batting figures are far better than Ames and his career was more consistently brilliant than Flower (perhaps I'm being a little unfair to Flower given the situation in Zimbabwe forced him to end his career in difficult circumstances). Gilchrist is probably a better keeper as well. He has never been supplanted, is close to Healy's world record and is rarely noticed - always a good thing for a keeper.
Best wicketkeeper who didn't make the final cut:
A.Gilchrist - Batting - highest rating: 874 V SA 2002. spent 77 of his 90 Tests (85.6%) rated above 650.
Wicketkeeping: played 0 of 90 Tests as a batsman only. 381 dismissals (344/37). 4.23 dismissals/match.
Phew, that's a lot of figures. Sorry if you are confused and my apologies if I have made any errors, but it is possible - especially reading from the graphs on the cricketratings site.
My newly revised greatest XI according to my analysis of the ICC rankings (noting unlucky players):
1. Len Hutton
2. Jack Hobbs
3. Don Bradman
4. Peter May
5. ViV Richards (could easily be Lara/Ponting)
6. Gary Sobers
7. Adam Gilchrist
8. Richard Hadlee (or Shaun Pollock)
9. Malcom Marshall (or Curtley Ambrose)
10. Muttiah Muralitharan
11. Glenn McGrath
12. Shane Warne (in case of 2 spinners being required).
Sorry for the length of the post and putting everyone to sleep, but I found all this to be quite interesting.
Final note: Just because these numbers are based on a developed statistical system doesn't mean they are right. As always, numbers never tell the entire story. Use them wisely...
But, anyway, I said I was going to be back with more info did I not?? All you non-number people/non believers in the ICC ratings feel free to ignore the rest of the post
Since we now have 28 players left, I went through and found the players highest ever rating and also looked at how long they sustained a high rating for (all according to the ICC rankings over at cricketratings.com). According to the ratings FAQs, a rating of 900 is "a supreme achievement" and 700 "is normally enough to put a player in the world top ten". So with that in mind I looked at how often a player was rated above 850 during his career, plus his highest ever rating, here are the numbers:
I'll start with the specialist batsmen/bowlers since they are easiest to analyse:
Openers:
L.Hutton - highest rating: 945 V WI 1954. spent 38 of his 79 Tests (48.1%) rated above 850.
J.Hobbs - highest rating: 942 V AUs 1912. spent 35 of his 61 Tests (57.4%) rated above 850.
H.Sutcliffe - highest rating: 888 V Aus 1932. spent 18 of his 54 Tests (33.3%) rated above 850.
S.Gavaskar- highest rating: 916 V Eng 1979. spent 23 of his 125 Tests (18.4%) rated above 850.
My analysis: Going from that, I'd have Hutton and Hobbs as my openers. That was an easy one.
Best opener who didn't make the final cut:
M.Hayden - highest rating: 935 V Eng 2002. spent 28 of his 89 Tests (31.5%) rated above 850.
Middle order:
G.Headley - highest rating: 915 V Eng 1948. spent 6 of his 22 Tests (27.3%) rated above 850.
B.Lara - highest rating: 911 V SA 2004. spent 40 of his 131 Tests (30.5%) rated above 850.
V.Richards - highest rating: 938 V Eng 1981. spent 32 of his 121 Tests (26.4%) rated above 850.
D.Bradman - highest rating: 961 V Ind 1948. spent 36 of his 52 Tests (69.2%) rated above 850.
W.Hammond - highest rating: 897 V NZ 1933. spent 21 of his 85 Tests (24.7%) rated above 850.
R.Ponting - highest rating: 942 V Eng 2006. spent 27 of his 110 Tests (24.5%) rated above 850.
G.Pollock - highest rating: 927 V Aus 1970. spent 3 of his 23 Tests (13.0%) rated above 850.
My analysis: For me Bradman is a lock at #3 and Sobers would be your #6, so that probably leaves 2 to pick. From the numbers given it's between Lara, Richards and Ponting (especially given Ponting still has the ability to increase his numbers dramatically). But others have a case, Headley didn't really have enough Tests (due to the war) to show how good he was and Pollock was left hanging in 1970 just as he reached his peak. But are those 2 great enough to make the team? Their selection would be speculation - that they were better than their numbers show, or if given more opportunities they might have been the best. I don't think we can make those calls, but that's just my two cents.
Best middle order batsman who didn't make the final cut:
P.May - highest rating: 941 V Aus 1956. spent 33 of his 66 Tests (50.0%) rated above 850.
A case could be made that Peter May is the one of the most underrated cricketers ever from those numbers.
For bowlers, I've also included their highest ever batting rating to give an idea of batting ability. One thing that is noticeable is that old time bowlers don't fare well in the ratings. Syd Barnes has the highest ever rating, but most of the older bowlers fail to sustain a high class level of performance ie. staying at 850+ for a decent portion of their career. Perhaps modern cricket is more conducive to that, I'm not really sure.
Spinners:
S.Warne - highest rating: 905 V Eng 1994. spent 25 of his 145 Tests (17.2%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 348.
B.O'Reilly - highest rating: 901 V NZ 1946. spent 11 of his 27 Tests (40.7%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 212.
M.Muralitharan - highest rating: 915 V Pak 2002. spent 48 of his 110 Tests (43.6%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 180.
D.Underwood - highest rating: 907 V NZ 1971. spent 11 of his 86 Tests (12.8%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 213.
My analysis: Geez, Murali all the way here - the juggernaut. But what if you don't appreciate his action? Too bad I say, he's a damn fine bowler, but who would be the 2nd spinner if needed? Warne is a legend, but his numbers don't really back up his reputation as one of the 5 cricketers of last century. O'Reilly's reputation suffers from not enough cricket. Underwood could be deadly on his day haha. O'Reilly should feel hard done by, but I'd probably go with Warne, he's a good slipper and decent batsman and has an aura about him that the team could benefit from if they needed to go with the 2nd spinner.
Best spinners who didn't make the final cut:
J.Laker - highest rating: 897 V Aus 1956. spent 14 of his 46 Tests (30.4%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 271.
L.Gibbs - highest rating: 897 V Eng 1966. spent 20 of his 79 Tests (25.3%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 133.
Pace:
D.Lillee - highest rating: 884 V Eng 1977. spent 10 of his 70 Tests (14.3%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 252.
R.Lindwall - highest rating: 897 V Eng 1954. spent 22 of his 61 Tests (36.1%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 433.
M.Marshall - highest rating: 910 V Eng 1988. spent 48 of his 81 Tests (59.3%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 375.
C.Ambrose - highest rating: 912 V Eng 1994. spent 45 of his 98 Tests (45.9%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 229.
W.Akram - highest rating: 830 V Aus 1994. spent 0 of his 104 Tests (0.0%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 473.
G.McGrath - highest rating: 914 V Eng 2001. spent 83 of his 124 Tests (66.9%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 123.
A.Davidson - highest rating: 908 V WI 1961. spent 18 of his 44 Tests (40.9%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 526.
R.Hadlee - highest rating: 909 V Aus 1985. spent 41 of his 86 Tests (47.7%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 562.
My analysis: While well loved bowlers, the rating system doesn't really fancy Lillee or Akram for some reason, especially Wasim. The 4 standouts from the numbers are Marshall, Ambrose, McGrath and Hadlee. I'd have Hadlee to give some quality batting at #8 and definitely McGrath from those bowling numbers as my #11. Toss up between Marshall and Ambrose for the #9 spot, maybe Marshall for the extra batting skill, with Murali following at #10.
Best paceman who didn't make the final cut:
S.Pollock - highest rating: 909 V Eng 1999. spent 55 of his 107 Tests (51.4%) rated above 850. Best batting rating: 565.
For the all-rounders I lowered the 850 point threshold to 650 for both disciplines. Not many players have ever been rated over 650 in both disciplines, showing the rarity of a true all-rounder.
All-rounders:
I.Khan - Batting - highest rating: 650 V SL 1991. spent 2 of his 88 Tests (2.3%) rated above 650.
Bowling - highest rating: 922 V Ind 1983. spent 71 of his 88 Tests (80.7%) rated above 650.
Best Simultaneous rating: 1483 v Ind 1983. (Batting-562, Bowling-921).
K.Miller - Batting - highest rating: 681 V WI 1952. spent 4 of his 55 Tests (7.3%) rated above 650.
Bowling - highest rating: 862 V SA 1953. spent 35 of his 55 Tests (63.6%) rated above 650.
Best Simultaneous rating: 1522 v WI 1952. (Batting-681, Bowling-841).
G.Sobers - Batting - highest rating: 938 V Ind 1967. spent 77 of his 93 Tests (82.8%) rated above 650.
Bowling - highest rating: 715 V Ind 1966. spent 19 of his 93 Tests (20.4%) rated above 650.
Best Simultaneous rating: 1651 v Ind 1966. (Batting-936, Bowling-715).
My analysis:
Sobers is the standout, the only one of the three who could be genuinely selected as either a batsman or bowler. Imran was never a reliable batsman until right at the end of his career. Miller was better as a batsman than Imran, but not quite the bowler, but he still doesn't hold a candle to Sobers.
Best all-rounders who didn't make the final cut:
Batting AR - J.Kallis - Batting - highest rating: 896 V Eng 2005. spent 78 of his 107 Tests (72.9%) rated above 650.
Bowling - highest rating: 742 V Eng 2003. spent 21 of his 107 Tests (19.6%) rated above 650.
Best Simultaneous rating: 1574 v Pak 2002. (Batting-848, Bowling-726).
Bowling AR - I.Botham - Batting - highest rating: 811 V Ind 1982. spent 35 of his 102 Tests (34.3%) rated above 650.
Bowling - highest rating: 911 V Ind 1980. spent 55 of his 102 Tests (53.9%) rated above 650.
Best Simultaneous rating: 1620 v Ind 1980. (Batting-709, Bowling-911).
Very hard to rate due to there being no rating for glovework. There is no fool proof way to judge, but I have noted if the WK has ever been played just as a batsman, usually indicating that their keeping is not the best it could be. Just like all-rounders, not many keepers have ever been rated over 650. It is only in the modern game that players like Flower, Gilchrist, Stewart and Sangakkara have emerged.
Wicketkeepers:
L.Ames - Batting - highest rating: 619 V Aus 1934. spent 0 of his 47 Tests (0.0%) rated above 650.
Wicketkeeping: played 3 of 47 Tests as a batsman only. 95 dismissals (72/23). 2.02 dismissals/match.
A.Flower - Batting - highest rating: 895 V SA 2001. spent 26 of his 63 Tests (41.3%) rated above 650.
Wicketkeeping: played 8 of 63 Tests as a batsman only. 151 dismissals (142/9). 2.40 dismissals/match.
My analysis:
Ames was a pioneer of WK/batsmen, but his batting never reached great heights. Flower didn't have a strong overall career, but he really flourished with the bat in his last few seasons, clearly better than Ames. As for keeping ability, who knows? But honestly, Mr A.C. Gilchrist, should be in the final group. His batting figures are far better than Ames and his career was more consistently brilliant than Flower (perhaps I'm being a little unfair to Flower given the situation in Zimbabwe forced him to end his career in difficult circumstances). Gilchrist is probably a better keeper as well. He has never been supplanted, is close to Healy's world record and is rarely noticed - always a good thing for a keeper.
Best wicketkeeper who didn't make the final cut:
A.Gilchrist - Batting - highest rating: 874 V SA 2002. spent 77 of his 90 Tests (85.6%) rated above 650.
Wicketkeeping: played 0 of 90 Tests as a batsman only. 381 dismissals (344/37). 4.23 dismissals/match.
Phew, that's a lot of figures. Sorry if you are confused and my apologies if I have made any errors, but it is possible - especially reading from the graphs on the cricketratings site.
My newly revised greatest XI according to my analysis of the ICC rankings (noting unlucky players):
1. Len Hutton
2. Jack Hobbs
3. Don Bradman
4. Peter May
5. ViV Richards (could easily be Lara/Ponting)
6. Gary Sobers
7. Adam Gilchrist
8. Richard Hadlee (or Shaun Pollock)
9. Malcom Marshall (or Curtley Ambrose)
10. Muttiah Muralitharan
11. Glenn McGrath
12. Shane Warne (in case of 2 spinners being required).
Sorry for the length of the post and putting everyone to sleep, but I found all this to be quite interesting.
Final note: Just because these numbers are based on a developed statistical system doesn't mean they are right. As always, numbers never tell the entire story. Use them wisely...
aussie_ben91
School Cricketer
Len Hutton
Matthew Hayden
Don Bradman (c)
Ricky Ponting
Gary Sobers
Viv Richards
Adam Gilchrist (wk)
Wasim Akram (b1)
Shane Warne
Curtly Ambrose (b2)
Glenn McGrath
Matthew Hayden
Don Bradman (c)
Ricky Ponting
Gary Sobers
Viv Richards
Adam Gilchrist (wk)
Wasim Akram (b1)
Shane Warne
Curtly Ambrose (b2)
Glenn McGrath
Monty57
Club Cricketer
What about Gooch?
"More than 54,000 first-class runs spread across 44 seasons, including 839 in just eight days of 1876, when he hit a couple of triple-centuries, and only one other batsman managed to top a thousand runs in the entire season; a thousand in May in 1895, when he was nearly 47; and 2,800-odd wickets costing less than 18 runs apiece." - Cricinfo
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/player/13424.html
His first class record is unparalleled. I'd include him. And yes, he was a pioneer of cricket, but he was largely a pioneer because of his batting and bowling prowess. The man played matches till he was 50. That is an incredible amount of experience. Not only that, it speaks measures on how much of a genius he was compared to his contemporaries. There's no doubt in my mind that Grace would be in my top 11.
But I guess it can be risky. Not enough is known about him and he wasn't a true 'sportsman'. But I'd take the risk and include him.
Last edited:
I love these debates, but unfortunately there is always some hint of bias that creeps into the final selections. To try to eliminate some of that, I've gone through all the players nominated and taken their highest ever LG ICC ranking (formerly PwC ratings) - a quick and dirty way to put a number on how great each player might have been. The ratings are meant to be adjusted according to opposition strength and pitch conditions, to a certain extent at least. I have always been a fan of the ratings. Some of you may not like them so much, but hey that's your prerogative. It's something interesting to look at anyway...
I reordered each category of nominations according to the player's best ever rating, but of course that number won't take into account other important things like fielding ability, cricket instincts/brain, if they are a good team player, whether the player was a useful part-time bowler/batsman or how long the player sustained a high level of performance for. Anyway, here's the data:
Opening batsmen (7 nominations):
Len Hutton (945), Jack Hobbs (942), Sunil Gavaskar (916), Herbert Sutcliffe (888), Arthur Morris (850), Gordon Greenidge (844), Geoff Boycott (764).
Best opener not nominated: Matthew Hayden (935).
Middle-order batsmen (20):
Don Bradman (961), Ricky Ponting (942), Viv Richards (938), Gary Sobers (938), Clyde Walcott (938), Graeme Pollock (927), Everton Weekes (927), Neil Harvey (921), Denis Compton (917), George Headley (915), Ken Barrington (914), Brian Lara (911), Sachin Tendulkar (898), Wally Hammond (897), Steve Waugh (895), Rahul Dravid (892), Javed Miandad (885), Greg Chappell (883), Allan Border (877), Frank Worrell (828).
Best middle-order batsman not nominated: Peter May (941).
Wicket-keepers (4) (Unfortunately there is not a WK rating, so only batting rating is listed):
Andy Flower (895), Adam Gilchrist (874), Alan Knott (650), Les Ames (619).
Best BATTING wicket-keeper not nominated: Kumar Sangakkara (857).
Allrounders (4) Batting then Bowling ranked by the combination score:
Ian Botham (811/911), Imran Khan (650/922), Keith Miller (681/862) , Kapil Dev (598/877).
Best Allrounder not nominated (and not nominated elsewhere either): Jacques Kallis (896/564), but I don't think he would deserve to play as one of only four bowlers (as the rules state). Gary Sobers (938/715) and Richie Benaud (623/863) would be the best all rounders who have been nominated elsewhere.
Spinners (6):
Muttiah Muralitharan (915), Derek Underwood (907), Shane Warne (905), Bill O?Reilly (901), Jim Laker (897), Richie Benaud (863).
Best spinner not nominated: Tony Lock (912).
Fast bowlers (15): Glenn McGrath (914), Curtley Ambrose (912), Malcolm Marshall (910), Richard Hadlee (909), Waqar Younis (909), Alan Davidson (908), Fred Trueman (898), Ray Lindwall (897), Allan Donald (895), Joel Garner (890), Dennis Lillee (884), Courtney Walsh (867), Michael Holding (860), Wasim Akram (830), Harold Larwood (720).
Best fast bowler not nominated: Sydney Barnes (932), but since his career was from 1901-1914 he may not count. Other than Barnes it is Shaun Pollock (909).
My personal greatest Test XI (according to ratings, with the odd minor tweak to add all-round ability and fielding skills AND of course I am assuming all the selections are in top form):
1. Len Hutton
2. Matthew Hayden (ahead of Hobbs for fielding and left handedness)
3. Don Bradman
4. Ricky Ponting
5. Viv Richards
6. Gary Sobers (ahead of May for all-round prowess)
7. Adam Gilchrist (ahead of Flower since he played as a batsman only sometimes)
8. Ian Botham (ahead of Lock or Ambrose due to batting ability)
9. Imran Khan
10. Muttiah Muralitharan
11. Glenn McGrath
Try beating that team!!
My apologies for the long post, but I found my research to be interesting
you have picked five aussies . Of these five aussies 3 are from the current lot . It is a joke.There is no sunny gavaskar .
Ponting , really he cannot be there.He has a long long way to go .
Gilchrist yes .
I think somebody like sachin , sunny , are always a bit ahead of the rest bcoz they played against the strongest bowling attck .
While batters from the team with strongest bowling attck were always a bit fortunate as they did not have to face that best attack at the international level.
aussie_ben91
School Cricketer
How does Ponting have a long way to go? Has the highest average of any player to play over 100 Test Matches & has made over 30 centuries.
The way Ponting's been batting of the last several years & if he continues that, by the time his played the same ammount of matches as Gavaskar or Tendulkar he'll probably have about 10 more centuries under his belt.
You can't just penalize a player because his played in a different era.
The way Ponting's been batting of the last several years & if he continues that, by the time his played the same ammount of matches as Gavaskar or Tendulkar he'll probably have about 10 more centuries under his belt.
You can't just penalize a player because his played in a different era.
Similar threads
