Cricket
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Being a cricket lover we would have liked many players even if they dont play for the team we support, we would have admired many players along the way, if you were asked to pick your best Xl whom would you choose? Who will be the allrounder and who will be the captain of your team dream? Lets see whose 11 is the best :)
My Xl will have Dhoni as the captain as Klusener as the allrounder. Roll on guys
My Xl will have Dhoni as the captain as Klusener as the allrounder. Roll on guys
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 93
|
By:
you need an alltime best eleven for test, odi, 20-20
i'd have lara and tendulkar in my team, gayle in 2020's with pollard, and dhoni as the "finisher" |
|
By:
Tough to judge across eras but I suggest this would be a reasonable team:
Hobbs Ponsford Bradman Hammond (if the last two would share a dressing room) Richards Sobers Gilchrist Warne Marshall Larwood Barnes Fielding might not be up to modern standards but don't think that would matter |
|
By:
good selections by scliffor - I think I would have these additions within my squad - Mike Procter (all rounder) - Michael Holding and Dennis Lillee + Hedley Verity - the stats do not lie - I remember reading about his county stats which were unbelievably good as he must have been
|
|
By:
Of the recent era Jaques Kallis would be pushing hard to be included.
|
|
By:
Nice xi Scliffor. I would alter a few in that team but that is what this sort of exercise is all about.
On records there are a few undeniables in my opinion. Bradman, Sobers, Gilchrist, Muralitheran(or however you spell it.) You could argue as well Barnes is in this category, but I have not found a place for him in my team. Hadlee is the best bowler I have seen so he goes into my team, and his batting is handy as well at number 9. So I need one more bowler. I definitely want a tall fast bowler in the 6'6ish range. And there are a couple that can be argued for even if balance of the attack was not an issue. McGrath and Ambrose spring to mind immediately. Based on their records and comparing all known statistical indicators you could argue either way. Given MacGrath played in a superior team, I will go with Ambrose, whose achievements were probably relatively greater. So I have to find 4 batsmen. I will assume top class batsmen can adapt to any position in the order, though I ideally want specialist openers. On certain figures you would put Sutcliffe, H in there, but I suspect he was a snail pace batsman and I don't want anyone like that near my team. But I want someone a bit more adaptable than a Sehwag. I am really struggling with this so will elevate Headley to open, and I think he would likely have thrived in this role. Headley Hobbs Brandman Hammond Tendulkar Sobers Gilchrist Imran Hadlee Ambrose Murali |
|
By:
lara and ponting best ive seen. tendulkar one other.
|
|
By:
scliffor
Bradman, Hammond, Richards and Sobers...are you taking the piss...must have creamed your pants with those 4 and in my view you would be quite within your rights! Openers, difficult. I was not around to compare. Hobbs and Sutcliffe? I like Deadly's idea to get Headley in so I'll go for that even though it is wrong ( not having an opener ) but Headley should be in the team. Gilly ( although I think Knott was better and we won't need Gilly's batting ) SF Barnes of course Marshall, Hadlee Spinner...Murali or Warne, I'll go Murali. Indian batsmen have been able to play Warne ( check the stats )( Sobers fills in as additional spinner if needed ) Hobbs Headley Bradman Hammond Richards Sobers Gilchrist Hadlee Marshall Barnes Muralitharan I think we have to go test team and not all forms as it is just too difficult! ( Gilchrist opens and Dhoni comes in for one days...too much ) Ommissions need to be justified rather than inclusions really as we can all see why people should be in. Ponting and Lara because the others are Gods. Tendulkar because when the chips are down would you bet your life on him? The older batsmen also played on uncovered wickets. Sutcliffe, Hutton and Ponsford...just didn't see enough of them to compare or rather I don't know enough. Sehwag would be an interesting addition. Knott, actually I would have him in. The others I just don't know enough. Bowlers, fast Bowlers....... I just don't see how anyone could win this argument Tyson, Larwood, Lillee, Imran Khan, Waquar, Wasim, Holding, Roberts, Ambrose, McGrath I just don't know how you judge them. I.T Botham? Sobers was better but...... Verity....didn't see him, what can I do. So many others. The list of those who don't make the team would be more interesting if people could justify why they should be included. Good call mnbfrankel |
|
By:
Sunil Gavaskar
Graeme Smith Viv Richards Greg Chappell Steve Waugh Martin Crowe Ian Botham Dennis Taylor Mushtaq Ahmed Joel Garner Andrew Caddick. |
|
By:
Sunil Gavaskar
Graeme Smith Viv Richards Greg Chappell Steve Waugh Martin Crowe Ian Botham Dennis Taylor Mushtaq Ahmed Joel Garner Andrew Caddick Errm... |
|
By:
betlarge,
wake up and smell the apples  |
|
By:
Sorry
 Derek. |
|
By:
Couldn't resist putting up Somerset 11 - not a bad side though
 |
|
By:
I started watching cricket in about 1975 so only players from then on would be included.
Kallis Greenidge IVA Richards KS McEwan Javed Miandad Gilchrist Wasim Akram Warne Marshall McGrath David Acfield |
|
By:
Interesting to see the names others have come up with. Have to admit I was slightly biased to earlier eras from the OP's mention of Dhoni and Klusener, who whilst are both fine players, wouldn't get in my all time 3rd XI.
I found the second opener quite hard much as others seem to have done. I considered Sutcliffe, Boycott, Greenidge but thought that Ponsford's record of the two 400s (out of 10) and a 350 in first class record deserved recognition. Could easily have been a number of players. I did consider Imran and Hadlee that have honourable mentions below. However, given the strength of the batting, I ignored all rounders and went for the best bowlers. Both of these guys were close on that, but didn't quite make it (imho). I'm ashamed to say I forgot Ambrose, I went through the WI bowlers of the 70s and early 80s, i.e. their golden age but no one more recent. I might swap him in for Larwood or Marshall, just to get the height factor in. I didn't consider Murali, Lara, Ponting, Tendulkar, the latter three because the middle order I had were the four who came to mind straight away and I couldn't conceive of picking anyone else. Murali partly because of the controversial aspects of his career, and partly because his record is partly reflection on the fact that Vaas aside, SL didn't have anyone else. The off spinners I was considering were Laker and Gibbs, but definitely wanted a leggie, Sobers would be second spinner so no room for an off spinner. |
|
By:
From players I've seen
Gooch Lara Tendulkar Richards Steve Waugh Healy Botham Warne Murali Ambrose Walsh I don't care there's a long tail, nor that I've had to shoehorn in Lara to open. I think picking this in 10 seconds or so was a better idea, then I have less guilt about leaving out McGrath, Border, Boon, Greenidge, Javed Miandad, Inzamam, Sir Richard, Ponting, Gough. |
|
By:
Of the players I've seen
B Richards Greenidge Lara IVA Richards Tendulkar Gilchrist Hadlee Marshall Wasim Lillee Murali |
|
By:
Misses
Sutlcliffe Hutton Barrington Ponsford Tyson Can't find any arguments for their non inclusion other than there's only 11 places! These players aren't great's of the game they are Gods. Any modern batsman that enters the frame must be very very good Richards, Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting. Personally I would take Ponting and Tendulkar out as their sheer volume of runs clouds the issue in my view. Lara playing in bad teams diminished his greatness. Of the modern players he would be in the pantheon. I go for Richards though because of his arrogance and destructive quality. Bowlers is disturbing me because we don't really get to see Tyson and Larwood. Wes Hall? I don't even know who the Aussie greats are. |
|
By:
hobbs
sutcliffe bradman tendulkar richards sobers gilchrist marshall akram murali lillee |
|
By:
Of the players of the recentish era I can only think of Richards and maybe a couple of others with as good a test batting record as Kallis. Throw in his average with the ball and brilliant fielding and I'm surprised he isn't more widely revered. Steve Waugh recently suggested he was the greatest of all time in his view.
|
|
By:
Kallis is the best cricketer I've seen, without a shadow of a doubt, but I'd have Shane Warne very close behind for his influence on the history of cricket and of course for his extraordinary bowling. I think Test cricket may have died a slow and painful death had Warne not appeared.
|
|
By:
Kallis isn't a God of the game, a great certainly!
He just doesn't excite unless of course you are an accountant or solicitor and while you are not being invited to anyone's Christmas party you are looking at the stats on cricinfo! Stats are not everything. They do not convey the fact that Vivian didn't wear a bone dome because he thought the idea of the game was to hit the ball with the bat. They don't convey that Imran picked up the ball every time Gower came out to bat and often took his wicket. Stats don't convey uncovered wickets, scarcity of Test Matches, two World Wars, no DRS, Pakistani and Australian umpires and David Constant. Stats don't convey many things. Stats don't convey Bill O'Reilly may have been better than Shane Warne. Gentlemen we are not looking for greats of the game here for there are plenty, we are looking for Gods amongst men! 12th and 13th men will be Keith Miller and Ian Botham! I believe I have seen plenty of modern cricketers better than Jaques Kallis. |
|
By:
Kallis doesnt have charisma and his Ashes record is appalling. This is why he is not so famous amongst non cricket fans. By figures alone he is better than sobers.
|
|
By:
What does it matter if Kallis doesn't excite you? The guy averages over 56 with the bat, in 160-odd Tests, and has taken nearly 300 wickets. Whether you like it or not, that does make him a God - at least it makes him a God among modern cricketers. And charisma? Please.....did Don Bradman have charisma?
|
|
By:
I think statistics can be misleading that's all. The volume of runs and wickets is testimony to his professionalism, fitness and longevity and perhaps the fact he didn't have to storm machine gun pillboxes with a rifle.
He scores his hundreds roughly 1 in 4 matches like most of the greats of the game but in my view pitches are better and bowlers are not as good. That's not his fault. This is a snippet from Keith miller who rated Sobers as the best cricketer of all time........ In a 1960-61 tour match, one of Australia's fastest bowlers bounced Sobers and followed up with a stream of invective. Never one to shy away from a challenge, Sobers responded casually: "You're not fast enough to bowl bouncers." With smoke coming out of his ears the quickie delivered his fastest bouncer and Sobers hit it like a rocket in front of square leg. Having completed the swivel that follows a well-executed hook shot, Sobers looked the bowler in the eye and said: "See, I told you you're not quick enough to bowl that stuff." ............ Gods and men Jed! I am not knocking Kallis and his achievements I am just saying it is not all about the stats. I wouldn't have Kallis in my side because he was not a better batsmen than than most of the old timers. |
|
By:
Furry muff mate.
I'm not saying it's all about the stats either. But they do tell you a lot about how hard a man is to get out, and about how highly prized his wicket is among the people who have played against him. And they also tell you, starkly, in this case, that very few players in Test cricket history have a better record with the bat, and none of those even dreamt of taking 300 wickets as well. I'm not even talking about his one-day record, and even his T20 record, which are both outstanding as well. Perhaps he does not bat with enough flair for your taste? As I said when I put my team up, I haven't seen Bradman, Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hutton et al, so I'm not in a position to judge them and thus can not include them in my team. So you must be, how old? 90? |
|
By:
In a similar vein, nobody has included Atherton among these teams, rightly I suppose, but there was a time when if you got him out, you beat England. Whatever, say, Tendulkar's record, you couldn't say the same about the India team he played in, because when you got him out, you then had to get Dravid and latterly Laxman out as well.
More than one way to skin a cat I suppose. |
|
By:
By what figures is Kallis better than Sobers Rob? I must be missing something.
I think South Africa are struggling to get players into these best ever teams mainly due to the missing years where the likes of Procter, Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock were at their peak. Richards for instance would have been a huge chance to fill my second opening berth had he been able to prove himself over the longer haul at test level, and he almost certainly would have. Pollock was possibly an even better batsman than Richards. And if you look at their long first class records, Procter is probably the best of the lot, his record is frighteningly good. I saw him play as well, he was in his early 30's then and probably slightly past his best, but he definitely knew what he was doing. The most underrated South African cricketer imo is Shaun Pollock. Before he lost his zip in his last 3-4 years at the top level, he was a bowler of he highest order. He may have done even better had he played in a team with a decent spinner, in which case he could have bowled a higher proportion of his overs with the newer ball. But his batting was not fully exploited by his own team in any format of the sport. Why he ever batted below Boucher I am not quite sure, Pollock was simply a better batsman. But South Africa's ultra conservative style where the likes of Kirsten and Kallis would drop anchor with no apparent reason on good pitches would have also cost Pollock many opportunities to post good scores. I have always taken the view Pollock was a better all round player than Kallis in test cricket. So it makes me laugh when people talk about Kallis being anywhere near anyone's all time team as an all-rounder, he was not even the best South African all rounder of his own era! You take out his feasting on the Zim and Bangladesh attacks and his batting average drops below 54, still very decent, to be sure, but when you also look at the strike rate of 46, you do have to start to question the real value of a lot of his longer innings. Again, Zim and Bang out, his bowling average slides up to around 34, very good for a 5th bowler, but he is not getting selected as a bowler alone based on that. What I would have loved to have seen was Kallis play his test career over again with a rocket up his backside, as I feel he would have been good enough to be spoken of as one of the best ever. But players need to be judged by their deeds, and his are undeniably very good, but short of great. |
|
By:
Surely it would be fair to say that all modern-day players have their records buttressed by playing against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, even the latterday West Indians? And the paceless England attacks post-Willis and Botham?
And let's not forget either that with the odd exception, India's early Test teams were hardly packed with class acts. The facts are in the book. Pollock better than Kallis? That is ludicrous, frankly. |
|
By:
For the love of god, will someone get that post of Jed's deleted to get Atherton's name of this thread. That made me feel physically ill.
|
|
By:
LOL - not the best player ever, by any means, but he had some balls at least.
|
|
By:
Why is it ludicrous to say Pollock is better than Kallis Jed? Kallis costs you as many wins as he earns you in all formats, Pollock is worth something every single time he gets runs or wickets.
|
|
By:
If anyone suggests to me Kallis is anywhere near Sobers and proves their case, I will quit the forum for that reason, rather than my normal official reason: takers.
|
|
By:
Pollock's rating as a batsman, and his figures as a batsman, are all the proof you need that your argument is ludicrous.
He was actually a very high-class bowler, probably underrated in fact. You do appear to have a bit an anti-Kallis prejudice if I'm honest. "He costs you more games than he wins you across all formats". |
|
By:
This is from wikipedia, deadly.
Given his impressive all-round record, Kallis has also been compared with Sir Garfield Sobers. In November 2012, noted journalist Gideon Haigh wrote in The Australian that statistically, they were almost inseparable; Sobers scored 8032 at an average of 58 and took 235 wickets at an average of 34, while Kallis at the time of writing averaged 57 with the bat and 33 with the ball.[42] Haigh also analysed how Kallis and Sobers were also polar opposites in certain ways: Sobers [was] all prowling grace and feline elasticity, with his 360-degree batswing and three-in-one bowling; [whereas] Kallis [is] all looming bulk and latent power, constructed like a work of neo-brutalist architecture. ... Yet what they are just as much opposites of are their respective eras. Sobers was the most explosive cricketer of a more staid age, the more mercurial because of the orthodoxy and rigidity around him; Kallis is the most stoic and remorseless cricketer of an era more ostentatious and histrionic. ... Sobers was a cavalier among roundheads; Kallis has steadily become a roundhead among cavaliers.[42] So, he is "near" Sobers, by any objective measurement. I never saw Sobers play, and judging by the records of his deeds, I've no doubt that he would have entertained me more in one hour than Kallis did in his entire career, but that is not the point really imo. |
|
By:
@deadly
( Atherton )A cricket debate. This is good at last. I agree with Deadly in some of his comments particularly about Kallis not taking hold of games in the way someone like Sobers would have and Sobers was considered better than Pollock G. I think Pollock S could have batted if he wanted too or was allowed. He was pretty quick when he started bowling. A quality cricketer in the Kallis class no doubt for me. I have been a bit unfair to modern bowlers there are some great ones about but at the moment the bat is overcoming the ball due to generally benign pitches. In the 70's and 80's I think the ball was ahead of the bat hence the lower batting averages In the old days they didn't have bowling machines and tv analysis. I think it is easier to work out a batsman's weakness by eye than a bowlers pitch map and hence I give more weighting to the earlier batsmen but it is not solely about the stats for me it is about the way they played the game ( and I am not talking about sportsmanship, plenty of cheating down the ages! ). I mean you appreciate Kallis for his craft but it doesn't stop you going to the beer tent to get your next one! |
|
By:
@Deadly again
I've heard you have made more comebacks than Sinatra!You have a point Jed, but again the records are similar but Sobers was a match winner in the way Kallis is not. Read what Keith Miller says about him, infact allow me......... sorry can't find it but will look. In the mean time This article is an interesting read... Who is the next best batsman after Bradman http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/626396.html |
|
By:
If that is the best you can do Jed I am not going to be needing to quit the forum for any other reason than the regular official reason for me quitting forever: takers.
Slice it up however you want, but you cannot find any relevant statistic to put Kallis ahead of Sobers. You just have to take out Bangladesh and Zim from Kallis' record, they are not of test standard and never have been. OK, in Sobers' day, NZ, Pak and India were mainly not highly competitive with England, Australia and West Indies. So have a look at the comparison against England and Australia. Sobers averages 54 with the bat, 35 with the ball against Aus and England. Kallis averages about 43 with the bat and 36.5 with the ball. Sobers is considered by anyone who I have heard speak about him as one of the finest fieldsmen the sport has ever seen. So in short, Sobers has the way superior batting record, was a better fielder and was probably a slightly superior bowler, especially given he could bowl 3 varieties to a decent standard. Beyond that, you have the big black mark on Kallis. He has often batted too slowly against his team's interests, I don't think I have ever heard any suggestion of Sobers doing anything like that. It is not my intention to run Kallis down, he is a very very good test cricketer, despite his great failing, but up against Sobers who is probably the best cricketer ever to play the game, and if not, then one of the best few, Kallis does not stand a chance. |
|
By:
Kallis got more runs at a similar average to sobers. He took more wickets at a better average than sobers. Those were the stats i was talking about.
|
|
By:
So if Ireland and Holland start playing tests, and teams start playing 25 tests per year, and someone in 15 years has a load more runs and wickets than Kallis at an inferior average and strike rate when comparing their records without the achievements against 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th ranked teams in the sample, will you say by figures alone he is better than Kallis Rob?
Surely what you mean is something more like this: by irrelevant figures alone Kallis is better than Sobers? Sobers played test cricket against only five nations. His batting and bowling averages against them are listed below: Australia 43 39 England 60 32 India 83 25 NZ 23 35 Pakistan 89 113 For Kallis the figures are: Australia 41 37 England 44 35 India 72 42 NZ 61 34 Pakistan 59 38 Kallis is ahead on one batting average to Sobers four, Sobers being strangely ineffective v NZ for some unknowable reason. Kallis is ahead on 3 bowling averages to Sobers 2. On bowling figures they are most definitely comparable. On batting figures when you compare country by country, Sobers is a long way ahead. Sobers over a 20 year career averaged better than Kallis has over an 18 year career. We are talking about big sample sizes for both. You cannot give Kallis any sort of credit for having better aggregates simply because he has played in an era where more test matches are played. For the record, Kallis has played 253 1st class matches, 417 List A matches, 134 T20 matches. Sobers played 383 1st class matches, and 95 List A matches. So they have both spent a remarkably similar amount of time on the park playing cricket over a similar length of career, so you couldn't argue Sobers benefitted from being more fresh more often. ------------------- I don't know, I just think if you make a statement like this: "By figures alone he(Kallis) is better than sobers," then you need to say what figures and why those figures are better. I simply do not think that Kallis' statistical achievements are superior to Sobers' statistical achievements in any meaningful way. In fact, I say Sobers' stats are relatively better by a clear margin. |