1. Sehwag
2. Smith (c)
3. Tendalkur
4. Lara
5. Mohammed Yousif
6. Flower (k)
7. Flintoff
8. Pollock
9. Bond
10. Steyn
11. Mendis

12. Steve Waugh

1. Why pick 2 keepers? Is Gilchrist really a better batsman than Tendulkar or Jayawardene. If you already have Sanga in the team, you don’t need Gilly.

2. Shane Bond. Sure NZ don’t play as many test matches, and he was injured, and caught up in political debacles during a large chunk of the decade, but strike rates and averages are much more telling than total wickets. Bond and Steyn were miles ahead of the rest of the pack when you looked at these stats.

3. Is Ponting really a better captain than Sangakkara?!?!? He had a great team, helpful conditions and still managed to lose plenty of games.

Here’s mine:

Hayden
Sehwag
Ponting
Tendulkar
Kallis
G Smith
Gilchrist
H Singh
Warne
McGrath
Murali
12th Man: Gibbs

Oh, and Langer is certainly better than Sehwag. I’m all for a bit of ol’ fashioned jingoism, but this is frankly ridiculous.

If we are to take Brett’s team as a starting point then yes. I see him as a similar sort of player to Sangakara. Solid, dependable in the midle order and he just happens to keep a bit.

Flower at No 6 and captain in the field. I have already pointed out what I believe his leadership credentials are based on but thought I might add that he, like the other captains in the team, has the tactical acumen as demonstrated by his involvement in the Ashes campaign of 2009.

I do have one name that everyone seems to have forgotten, perhaps due to the sands of time partially obscuring his record.

Andrew Flower – Zimbabwe.

He had the highest test batting average of the 2000s – 63.25 from 24 tests of which only 4 were against fellow strugglers Bangladesh.

He was named a Wisden Cricketer of the year in 2002 for a 2001 season that also saw the omnipotent Australian team tour England.

He was probably the only world class player and captain/wicketkeeper of a struggling side.

However, sadly, but most importantly in this sort of discussion, his Test career was cut short because he had the courage and strength of character to stand by his beliefs and publicly refute the legitimacy of the Mugabe Government in his home country during its time in the International spotlight.

It was an act of professional suicide but one of great integrity. He and Olonga were involved in the murky intersection of cricket and politics in a way that no other players have been, save for the Sri Lankan team in Pakistan, and came out of it with their reputations enhanced. That is the sort of stuff that great leadership is made of and is why I would choose him above any other national captain named in a team of the decade.

Controversial I know but the stuff of great conversation.

Great stuff and wonderful we now have SA back in the fold. I am only too aware of the difference in playing schedules today and the amazing players SA had.

My father would wax lyrical about the Pollocks any chance he got!

A good thing you’re not picking alltime Saffie XIs. The isolation of the 70s & 80s coincided with probably (arguably) SA’s greatest cricket team.

Sure thing opener Barry Richards played just 4 official tests. Sure thing allrounder Mike Procter played just 7 official tests. Potential selection, giant paceman Vincent van der Bijl was denied the opportunity of playing a single test. Ditto blond paceman Garth le Roux, who wowed Aussie fans during WSC. Not to mention allrounder Clive Rice.

At least Graeme Pollock played 23 tests & older brother Peter 28 tests. Peter’s son Shaun was able to accumulate 108 tests in the post re-unification period. Before 1992, only one Saffie reached 50 tests, keeper-batsman John Waite.

The Saffie 3rd test team in 1970 against Australia, is arguably the greatest XI in their history: Barry Richards, Trevor Goddard, Ali Bacher(c), Graeme Pollock, Eddie Barlow, Lee Irvine, Denis Lindsay(k), Tiger Lance, Mike Procter, Peter Pollock, John Traicos, Pat Trimborn(12th).

Genuine batting depth down to number 10! Procter batting down at #9 is totally crazy!! 5 fast to fast medium pacemen to call upon – P.Pollock, Procter, Goddard, Barlow & Lance. Brilliant fielding side. Only weakness was lack of a great spinner, Traicos being the custodian here (he later played for Zimbabwe).

Funny how we apply different standards today. You’re a pup if you haven’t played 50 tests. But 50 years ago, reaching 50 tests was the equivalent of reaching 100 tests today?!

I make no bones about the 6 Australians named, as I made it pretty obvious that it was a concern going into the challenge too. In the end, in my opinion, it reflects the dominance of “that” Australian team of the 2000s. And as you note, CricInfo have done exactly the same.

Also OJ (just to condense a couple of replies), Sangakkara hasn’t ‘kept for a number of years now, and indeed as was pointed out here somewhere, his batting average has skyrocketed since ditching the gloves.

I understand your concerns though, and you’re certainly not the first to present a contrary opinion to me on this thread…

Did you fall out the wrong side of the bed?

The reason Brett’s team is full of Aussies is because they were the dominant cricket team of the 2000s. Indeed, since the mid-1990s. Crininfo made the same “mistake” with their best XI of the 2000s!

I would suspect the best rugby team of the 2000s would be full of All Blacks for much the same reason – they have mostly been the dominant team.

There’s no problem picking 2 number 3s. In fact, all four of Brett’s middle order have played number 3 at one time or another. A middle order batsman requires the technical & mental flexibility to bat anywhere between 3 to 6, as well as the technical & mental flexibility to come in to bat after a half hour or a day & a half, sitting & waiting.

How can you cap the number of players from a particular country, & retain credibility? If the Aussies, or anyone else, deserve all 11 positions, so be it. Although you would hope that would never be the case……….

As for Ponting/Dravid, I would put Ponting at three because Dravid had a three year slump. I don’t agree with having two wicketkeeper batsmen either. Ultimately, I think I’d just go with the most entertaining side possible.

How does Mohammed Yousef stack up 6,439 @ 58. I could mount an argument he is at the top of the pile for batsmen. Best conversion rate in the top 10 (23 100′s and 23 50′s). Punter 32 100′s and 40 50′s). Best centuries per test of 0.32 (far better than Punter 0.3, Dravid 0.21, Kallis 0.27, Tendulkar 0.24, Hayden 0.3, Sanga 0.24).

He is a victim of playing so few tests 71 and playing for an unfashionable side. Much of those runs would have been made away from home.

Further to my Ntini and Steyn comment, Ntini averaged 4 wickets per test to Steyn’s 5 wickets per test.

Kallis is an enigma for me. Great numbers but did he ever deliver a series for RSA against the odds (happy to be shown wrong on this as I can’t say I followed RSA that closely.

This applies less to batsmen as their careers often span 15+ years. I am pretty sure Tendulkar and Lara would have been in the team of the 90′s.

Actually, I should be thankful for the complete lact of agreement in general – even those who said they enjoyed the article had at least one change!!

Will this be your first ‘century’?

But you were helped by excluding Sachin in your team. Had you included him, you would have been hovering in the 70s. Only kidding!

On your comment above re Ponting and Dravid, I concur that Dravid has spent the majority of his time at 3, but as tends to be the case in the Indian batting order from time to time, he’s also spent a good deal of time at 4 and 5. VVS Laxman, for eg, was used at 3 for period there at one stage too.

And as for the number of Australians, well as I said in the column, I don’t think that’s too unreasonable considering Australia’s relative dominance over the decade. The breakdown, as you’ve probably already counted is Aus 6 (+ Lee), SA 2, SL 2, Ind 1.

That ordering/breakdown follows the order of % of wins over the 2000s (with the exception that England is just above India), which is not to say Australia won three times as many Tests as SA and SL, just that a lot of Australian wins would obviously equate to a reasonable representation here.

And I see Tendulkar made 105* overnight in India’s 245 all out in the first Test v Bangladesh, which will undoubtedly be used to remind me of my overlooking him….

Cricinfo Test XI — Matthew Hayden, Virender Sehwag, Ricky Ponting, Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, Jacques Kallis, Adam Gilchrist (wk), Shaun Pollock, Shane Warne, Muttiah Muralitharan, Glenn McGrath

I enjoyed your article. Not the easiest of tasks given the wealth of talent available to choose from.

Just a couple of points. No place for Tendulkar or Lara? You’re a hard man to please.

And no Englishmen? Not even Richard Dawson, Darren Maddy or James Foster? Shame on you.

My favourite line on Pietersen was from Jonathan Agnew, I think, who said that Pietersen “was the sort of guy who would join the Royal Navy so the world could see him…”

Let me just say Pietersen is overblown hype. The problem with the guy is that he believes his own press….. !

But I’ll take that, only three different to their Test XI, and despite unanimous DISagreement, I’m sticking with my team..

If you think the disagreement on here has been entertaining today, you should have heard the stick I copped at training tonight!!

“How did you leave out Tendulkar?”

“Where was Pietersen?”

“How could you possibly have Langer and not Sehwag?”

“Ntini?!? No way…”

Personally, I think Sehwag should partner Hayden, as he has shown to be the most destructive pure batsman of the last 10 years. the mere fact you can make McGrath and Warne look ordinary speaks volumes, so Sehwag in for me.

My Test XI: Sehwag, Hayden, Ponting (c), Kallis, Dravid, Yousuf, Gilchrist (w), Warne, Vettori, Steyn, McGrath