All time World XI

[SouthSwans]

1. Sir Jack Hobbs (ENG)
2. Gordon Greenidge (WIN)
3. Sir Donald Bradman* (AUS)
4. George Headley (WIN)
5. Sir Viv Richards (WIN)
6. Sir Garfield Sobers (WIN)
7. Andy Flower+ (ZIM)
8. Sir Richard Hadlee (NZL)
9. Shane Warne (AUS)
10. Dennis Lillee (AUS)
11. Malcolm Marshall (WIN)

12. Waqar Younis (PAK)

 

[LukeParkerno1]

1. Sunil Gavaskar
2. Gordon Greenidge (just in front of Sir Jack Hobbs)
3. Sir Don Bradman
4. Viv Richards
5. Graeme Pollock (just pips Tendulkar and Lara)
6. Sir Garry Sobers
7. Imran Khan
8. Adam Gilchrist
9. Shane Warne
10. Dennis Lillee
11. S F Barnes (look at his record guys!)
12th George Headley

 

[Team Mo']

1. J. Hobbs
2. G.Greenidge
3. D.Bradman
4. S.Tendulker
5. V.Richards
6. G.Sobers
7. A.Gilchrist
8. I.Botham
9. C.White
10. M.Marshall
11. D.Lillee

12. S.Waugh

Am I the only one to spot this?

 

[krisholio14]

Am I the only one to spot this?

You know what a tongue and a cheek is don't you?

 

[Team Mo']

You know what a tongue and a cheek is don't you?

Yup.

Just didn't know if there was another C.White...

 

[SBI]

Well, I think Craig would be equally as undeserving.

 

[eth-dog]

Hobbs
Gavaskar
Bradman
Lara
Tendulkar
Sobers
Gilchrist
Warne
Walsh
Lillee
McGrath

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Any side without S.F Barnes and Lilliee as 2 of the quicks has serious flaws. Barnes is rated by many as the very best quick before war, Lilliee the best after war. Why have I looked through most sides and NONE have Barnes in the side. Read his stats, compare him to other bowlers in his era. He was 3 times better than any other bowler!

 

[courtjester]

Richie Benaud included him in the all time team.

I guess its hard to pick from that era, no footage, and no recollection by anyone alive.

You are right however, his stats are very good.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Most have not seen Bradman, among others. He was the best bowler before the war, in fact he would be my first bowler chosen EVEN before Warne! Like a lot of these teams you have to make judment calls, but look at his stats and no-one in the history of the game has better stats, compare him with his era and it amazes me. I have read quite a bit on him though!

 

[Alpha1]

Would have to have Shewag in there somewhere wouldn't you?

 

[Yaaablett]

Hobbs
Gavaskar
Bradman
Lara
Tendulkar
Sobers
Gilchrist
Warne
Walsh
Lillee
McGrath

Its an impossible task but I'd have Viv Richards in. Walsh is about the 7th best west indian quick!

 

[courtjester]

I'd have Holding, Garner, Ambrose and Marshall ahead of Walsh I reckon.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Would have to have Shewag in there somewhere wouldn't you?

You are kidding, plenty of openers ahead of him. Sehwag is just a flat track specialist, and well behind, Hobbs, etc.

 

[Alpha1]

You are kidding, plenty of openers ahead of him. Sehwag is just a flat track specialist, and well behind, Hobbs, etc.

lol right whatever you say.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

He is not ahead of Hobbs, Greenidge, Suttcliffe, Hayden, Gavaskar (probably the Indian most with the claims as an opener)

 

[jabbathehut]

noticed most people had bradman as captain. was he actually that good of a captain or is he just being picked because of his batting record?

 

[jabbathehut]

i would have m.hussey in there just in case the keeper got injured

 

[LukeParkerno1]

noticed most people had bradman as captain. was he actually that good of a captain or is he just being picked because of his batting record?

See the 1948 Invincibles side for evidence

 

[jabbathehut]

england were very weak after ww2 so that team is a bit overrated IMO. dont intend to be a bradman basher just everyone goes on about his batting record but dont hear much said about his captaincy. he could have been a great captain or a shit one i dunno just throwing it out there

 

[eth-dog]

Its an impossible task but I'd have Viv Richards in. Walsh is about the 7th best west indian quick!

yet Walsh took the most wickets in Test Match history pre-Warne, McGrath, Murali, Kumble. the only one I would put ahead would be Ambrose, or Murali if the deck suited 2 spinners

 

[Wallaby]

Most have not seen Bradman, among others. He was the best bowler before the war, in fact he would be my first bowler chosen EVEN before Warne! Like a lot of these teams you have to make judment calls, but look at his stats and no-one in the history of the game has better stats, compare him with his era and it amazes me. I have read quite a bit on him though!

Well, up to a point - Barnes had a good record against Australia (5 wickets per test - 20 tests), but the real boost to his figures came from 2 series against South Africa where he took 83 wickets in 7 tests on matting (yes, almost 12 per game). He also benefited from the 'Hadlee' effect, where he was the only good bowler in the English team - so he got most of the wickets. Certainly a great bowler (and a complete prick, by the sound of things), but stats don't tell the whole story.

Clarrie Grimmett has a better wickets/game average than O'Reilly, Warne, Laker, Murali et al - basically he destroyed the Sth Africans in a couple of series. When you only play 20-40 tests in you career (Grimmett played 37, Barnes 27), a good series or 2 can really distort the figures.

But that's why it's fun - and impossible to come up with the definitive answers.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Well, up to a point - Barnes had a good record against Australia (5 wickets per test - 20 tests), but the real boost to his figures came from 2 series against South Africa where he took 83 wickets in 7 tests on matting (yes, almost 12 per game). He also benefited from the 'Hadlee' effect, where he was the only good bowler in the English team - so he got most of the wickets. Certainly a great bowler (and a complete prick, by the sound of things), but stats don't tell the whole story.

Clarrie Grimmett has a better wickets/game average than O'Reilly, Warne, Laker, Murali et al - basically he destroyed the Sth Africans in a couple of series. When you only play 20-40 tests in you career (Grimmett played 37, Barnes 27), a good series or 2 can really distort the figures.

But that's why it's fun - and impossible to come up with the definitive answers.

Yep, and to be honest it is difficult to make a decision. There are claims each way. Barnes would be my first quick included though, as from what I have read he was a phenomenon, and I trust Richie's opinion of him as well. I actually considered Grimmett by the way. But that is the beauty of these teams, no-one has a "correct" team, it is all opinions.

 

[courtjester]

yet Walsh took the most wickets in Test Match history pre-Warne, McGrath, Murali, Kumble. the only one I would put ahead would be Ambrose, or Murali if the deck suited 2 spinners

Yeh, Walsh had exceptional durability for a quick bowler, but that doesnt make him better than the others.

 

[eth-dog]

Yeh, Walsh had exceptional durability for a quick bowler, but that doesnt make him better than the others.

Yeah, I wasn't around in the 80's so I based it on that, but I did see Ambrose tearing it up a lot, so it would be him if anyone who replaced Walsh