ICC All Time Greatest Test Team

[cricket_icon]

According to the categories, you can't have both Imran and Sobers, shravi

Goes to show how ridiculous this whole thing is.

yess i totally agree!!

 

[Fenil]

Hey, I couldn't vote.

Why? Don't you have a facebook or twitter profile?

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

ok, here is my spin, the worst XI from the players available. feel a bit bad about wally hammond, kapil dev and ponting. the bowling looks pretty shitty though.

Boycott
Hanif Mohammad
Ricky Ponting
Wally Hammond
Javed Miandad
Kapil Dev
Wasim Bari
Ray Lindwall
Fred Trueman
Courtney Walsh
Derek Underwood

 

[sifter132]

Heh, nice. Lindwall and Trueman are solid...Walsh I was never a believer. And Wasim Bari - how did he get in?

 

[AbhishekS]

the worst XI from the players available

Kapil Dev

You gotta be kidding me!

 

[Owzat]

I'm just so sick of "greatest ever" polls.

Bit of fun for a forum, but considering how long Test cricket has been going on and there are maybe contenders in their hundreds, then hundreds into XI is hard to go.

You could have one of half a dozen spinners, probably 8-10 different openers if not opening pairs, the tough balance decision of all-rounders vs bowlers. I'll name a few candidates just off the top of my head, it would be difficult to whittle it down and be any significant level of certainty it is the "all-time greatest"

Botham
Grace
Hutton
Boycott
Hammond
Evans
Knott
Trueman
Willis
Gavaskar
Bedi
Kapil Dev
Tendulkar
Muralitharan
Sangakarra
Procter
Barry Richards
Kallis
Hanif Mohammed
Waqar Younis
Wasim Akram
Abdul Qadir
Imran Khan
Javed Miandad
Warne
McGrath
Border
Lillee
O'Reilly
Gilchrist
Miller
Bradman
Lara
Gavaskar
Viv Richards
Ambrose
Marshall
Garner
Holding
Lloyd
Sobers
Valentine
Ramadhin
Hadlee

as it happens 44 players so potentially four XIs of players before any great effort was put in to get a comprehensive list to pick from.

The only thing I guess would be agreed is Bradman in the XI, the rest could be any number of permutations.

For me the only way to do this, if worth doing at all, is to do the all-time XI for each country and then pick by position. You'd probably have to pick a template, two openers, four batsmen of whom one could bowl, a keeper whose batting was above average, one all-rounder and three bowlers selected on bowling alone - one of whom to be a spinner, the remaining bowlers could be an all-rounder but would be picked on bowling ability ie Hadlee might well get in as a bowler, although I consider him a bowler who could bat anyway

----------

By the way, the logic for picking all-time XIs by country is quite solid and a good way to whittle choices down. If a player can't get in their country's best XI then it is unlikely they would make the big one, it naturally gets the options down to 110 of which 22 are unlikely to make the final XI (Zimbabwe and Bangladesh), and you then have 16 openers, 24 bowlers etc from which to pick which is still a mammoth task.

But what is the point? You could ask 30 living legends and I'm guessing get 30 different replies. Didn't Bradman do one and it included something like seven aussies?

BBC SPORT | SPORTS TALK? | Pick cricket's ultimate XI

Richards (SAF)
Morris (AUS)
Bradman (AUS)
Tendulkar (IND)
Sobers (WIN)
Tallon (AUS)
Lindwall (AUS)
Lillee (AUS)
Bedser (ENG)
O'Reilly (AUS)
Grimmett (AUS)

12 : Hammond (ENG)

Pretty awful in my opinion, Tallon the best pick for keeper? Lindwall? Question marks over bowlers picked over Hadlee, McGrath, Marshall, Warne, Muralitharan etc Not sure about the criticisms on that link about the tail, I guess he would have been 'old school' and with what he thought was the best top five then he'd expect most of the runs to come from them with the bowling running through orders - cricket did change a lot though, and while his top five is star studded, that isn't to say it was invulnerable. Imran Khan at six and losing Lindwall would have at least put an all-rounder who latterly mostly just batted.

Hey look all those who've commented before, not a stat in sight

 

[sifter132]

^I read the book about it a few months back: Bradman's XI. You missed out Alec Bedser by the way. Anyway, the theory of having that longish tail was that Bradman is worth 2 batsmen. I don't think he came out and said that, the author assumed that it was the reason for it.

As for his bowling choices, well I think it's pretty hard to definitively say who the best bowlers ever are - it's always a great discussion point. All time XIs always seem to differ most in the bowling lineups. Look at the draft we've just started. First bowlers picked are Malcolm Marshall and Wasim Akram. I don't think they are the 2 best bowlers ever, but quite a few do. It does seem a bit one eyed though with 4 Aussie bowlers there.

As for Tallon, well I'm pretty sure the Don never got to see much of a certain A.C.Gilchrist who really revolutionised the keeper position. Before that for example, Ian Healy had been considered a 'great' keeper/batsman. After a year or 2 of Gilchrist, it suddenly became Ian who?

 

[Owzat]

As for his bowling choices, well I think it's pretty hard to definitively say who the best bowlers ever are - it's always a great discussion point. All time XIs always seem to differ most in the bowling lineups. Look at the draft we've just started. First bowlers picked are Malcolm Marshall and Wasim Akram. I don't think they are the 2 best bowlers ever, but quite a few do. It does seem a bit one eyed though with 4 Aussie bowlers there.

If you asked most people to do a top 10 bowlers I'd be surprised if more than one of Bradman's selections made it, if any.

It's hard to leave out Hadlee, Wasim and Marshall have reputations so I can understand why people would include them - and they could both bat a bit and that is never a down side.

As for Tallon, well I'm pretty sure the Don never got to see much of a certain A.C.Gilchrist who really revolutionised the keeper position. Before that for example, Ian Healy had been considered a 'great' keeper/batsman. After a year or 2 of Gilchrist, it suddenly became Ian who?

I still think most could list a couple of keepers per country that they'd picked ahead of Tallon, not just aussies. If Gilchrist hadn't such a phenomenal batting record, and in such a strong aussie side, would people rank him so highly? With a better balance I might lean towards the best keeper, but even then I'd not go with Tallon, in fact he wouldn't make my shortlist of aussies let alone a shortlist as long as 20+

 

[sifter132]

I guess what I'm saying is that in my mind the top 20 or so bowlers are all relatively close. Bradman just chose guys that no one else chooses, probably because he saw more of them.

And with keeper choice it seems to be similar. Forget batting for a second, but just ask 30 people who the best pure keeper was in history and everyone seems to have a different idea. You'll hear Jack Russell and Ian Healy. Alan Knott and Bob Taylor will get a mention, Godfrey Evans as well, maybe Wally Grout or Don Tallon, and then some will go back to Bert Oldfield or Bert Strudwick from pre WW2. So again I'm not surprised to see the Don pick the guy that impressed him the most. I guess I'm more surprised that more people don't mention Don Tallon when talking about great pure keepers, because from what I've read he was fantastic.

But personally, I don't think there is much between a great and a good keeper - which Gilchrist showed. He was a good, but not great keeper and people barely noticed the difference between his keeping and Healy's. People talk it up now as though Healy was super awesome and Gilchrist merely average - but that is mostly retrospective rubbish based on their batting averages. There seems to be this weird thing where if you have a good batting average you can't have been a great keeper. Anyway...as long as you aren't making mistakes and take 95% of your chances, then you're a good keeper.

The real problem with Bradman's XI is not the Aussie bias, but that the only modern player in his XI is Tendulkar, and that's where the truth starts to come out. Were players of pre-WSC era really that good, or did Bradman just get to see more of his contemporaries, therefore making it easier to pick them in an XI. Guys he just saw on TV after he gave up administrating and selection obviously didn't float his boat very much.

 

[cricket_icon]

I don't like Bradman's XI, I have seen it before and it is exactly "Great".

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Regarding Gilly's keeping, I've always thought he was pretty good. Never the best gloveman going around, but he did a solid job standing up to Warne, held some very sharp catches, and didn't drop or fumble any whenever I saw him.

It's just that in an all-time XI, you want to raise the bar to have a keeper who is not just pretty good, but a match-winner in his own right. A keeper who converts half chances and never fumbles.

And in an all-time XI, you will have 5 of the best batsmen of all time, along with maybe 1 or 2 of the best all-rounders of all time. Do you really need a keeper who can bat?

 

[Gurjot95]

Sehwag, Gavaskar,
Bradman, Tendulkar,
Lara, Kapil Dev,
Gilchrist, Warne, Wasim
Akram, Ambrose,
McGrath selected by
fans for dream Test XI

ICC tweeted

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Sehwag, Lara, Dev.

Over Hobbs, Richards, Imran.

I guess you could make a case for it...but I probably wouldn't buy it.


Wasim, McGrath and Ambrose are great...but where is Marshall?

Warne over Murali is interesting; you'd think Murali would win a head-to-head fan vote.

 

[Fenil]

Sehwag is a surprise for me. Should have been Hobbs by far. Murali was neck and neck to Warne. Wallcott could have been a better option to Gilchrist and so was Sobers over Kapil.


Marshall and Sydney are definitely missing the line-up.

 

[Gaurav_7]

Warne is alright, should be there. I'd pick Imran ahead of KD and Marshall ahead of Ambrose.