Selecting an all-time World Cricket Eleven
Roar Pro By rugbyguy, 19 Aug 2010 rugbyguy is a Roar Pro
Related coverage
I have greatly enjoyed the discussion and debate over the All time West Indian and Australian teams both here on The Roar and on Cricinfo. The selections were by no means straightforward or unanimous.
Of particular interest to me, and the biggest point of contention, was the inclusion of Brian Lara. My initial reaction was utter shock that anyone could leave Lara out of an all time West Indian XI, but after reading the arguments for leaving the great Lara out, I too am uncertain he belongs in that side.
Many believe that Vivian Richards should take the spot over Lara due to his aggressive batting style and similar average.
But surely there is room for both great players, right?
You would think so, but upon closer inspection, the answer to this question becomes very difficult indeed.
So I got to thinking about an all time World XI and realized that I could go mad trying to whittle down my short list to just eleven players. Not just the best eleven players, but the best players in each position.
So I thought I would throw the cat among the pigeons and put this conundrum to everyone on the Roar. I have no doubt the debate will be fierce, but perhaps with the help of all the Roar readers, some degree of consensus can be reached.
I will begin with the easy picks first.
I don’t see how anyone can argue with the inclusion of my opening pair.
1. W.G GRACE
Generally regarded as the greatest player of all time. Cricinfo has a great documentary about W.G on their website,part of the legends of cricket series if you haven’t watched it yet, take a look.
2. Sir Donald George Bradman
Test batting Average 99.94. Enough said.
That’s the easy part, from here it gets tricky but I’m gonna start the debate by naming my full eleven
1 W.G Grace
2. Sir Donald Bradman
3. Sachin Tendulkar
Holds every record worth owning in the game. 48 hundreds, 56 fifties at an average over 56
4. Ricky Ponting
Test average against all sides is consistently impressive.
Ponting is the player I am most uncertain about. With the batting talent in the side, I am on the fence a bit as to whether I drop Ponting and bring in another all rounder, moving Viv Richards up to 4 and bringing in Shaun Pollock.
5. Viv Richards
Average of 50.23, the most feared batsmen of all time. His ability to score very quickly and also a handy part time bowler gets him in above the likes of Lara. Also better average than Lara.
6. Imran Khan
Great all rounder – 362 wickets at average of 22.81, batting average of 37.69 and excellent captain.
7. Adam Gilchrist
5570 test runs at an average 47.60 and an amazing career test strike rate of 81.95, high score 204 n.o. Exceptional wicket keeper, and among the most devastating batsmen of all time.
8. Sir Richard Hadlee
431 test wickets at average of 22.29. Devastating control and intelligence, first to take 400 Test wickets, a genuine all rounder with a batting average of 27.16 and a high score of 156 n.o.
9. Wasim Akram
414 test wickets at average of 22.64. Perhaps the best left-arm fast bowler of all time, mastery over swing and seam, moved the ball both ways in one delivery. Batting average of 22.64 and high score of 257 n.o.
10. Malcolm Marshall
376 wickets at an average of 20.94. Could do it all, fierce pace, swing and cut both ways, a vicious bouncer, and above all, the ability to out think any batsman.
11. Shane Warne
708 wickets at an average of 25.41. Figures not quite as impressive as Muralitharan, but Warne was more attacking and was competing for wickets with other greats like McGrath and Brett Lee.
12. Sir Jack Hobbs
Test career was restricted by WW1. Nobody has scored more first-class runs than his 61,760, or more hundreds than his 199, Might have scored many more had the Great War not intervened or if he hadn’t been inclined to get out shortly after reaching 100 to let someone else have a go.
A for Captain, W.G Grace is the father of cricket. He literally wrote the book on technique, so he is my choice. but in this XI, nearly anyone could be the captain.
I am sure many of you will disagree with my selections and am looking forward to hearing why.
Let the debate begin!
The Ashes journey begins
The Australian cricket team have left Australia to begin their tour of England, with a mission to reclaim the Ashes.
Australian captain Michael Clarke and his teammates were optimistic about their chances before jetting off.
Click here to hear the thoughts of our Australian cricket team as they left for England.
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
- Explore:
- Brian Lara, Cricket, International Cricket, Richard Hadlee, Shane Warne, Viv Richards
August 19th 2010 @ 4:58am
MattyP said | August 19th 2010 @ 4:58am | Report comment
Dennis Lillee over Malcolm Marshall. Or Michael Holding.
Imran Khan – great player, but why not Kapel Dev? Or Ian Botham? Or Keith Miller? Or Freddie Flintoff? All great allrounders.
Ponting – not sure. So many other choices, and he has racked up big numbers, but just leaves me cold. I would rather bet my house on S. Waugh…
Either way, a scary-good side!
August 19th 2010 @ 9:21am
sheek said | August 19th 2010 @ 9:21am | Report comment
Agree Lillee first. However, the greatest ever pacemen is allegedly the temperamental Englishman Sydney Barnes (not to be confused with the Aussie). He captured 189 wickets in 27 tests at bugger all (under 20 runs apiece) at the turn of the previous century.
Batting all-rounders (in order, IMHO) – Sobers, Imran, Procter, Kallis, Faulkner, Botham, Kapil Dev. It’s actually avery difficult process. I would consider Hadlee & Wasim Akram to be bowling all-rounders, & perhaps just short of this level.
If stats mean anything, Muralitharan streets Warne. Hobbs is acknowledged as the game’s greatest opener.
Difficult to really know about Grace. Ponting for an Aussie XI, but not world XI. Richards was brutal, but his lack of respect for bowlers also undid him. At the end of his career, his batting average was less flattering than it should have been. And so on…..
August 19th 2010 @ 2:52pm
JohnB said | August 19th 2010 @ 2:52pm | Report comment
Sheek, just out of interest in connection with another response on this topic, I had a quick look at Sydney Barnes’ record on the Cricket Archive site you mentioned in another topic recently. I know you weren’t for a minute saying that stats meant Barnes should be picked (or even for that matter saying that stats by themselves are a basis for selection) but Barnes is an interesting illustration of just how careful you have to be with stats.
Barnes overall took 189 wickets at about 16, from 27 tests (ie 7 per game – incredible). However, break that down a bit and it was a still very, very good 106 at 22 from 20 games v Australia – and 83 in 7 games v SA (yes, 7 games- one more wicket and it would have been 12 per game!), at a single figure average. From the perspective of a century later, you tend to think there need to be some asterisks against the overall figures, and a bit of discounting might be in order!
August 19th 2010 @ 4:38pm
sheek said | August 19th 2010 @ 4:38pm | Report comment
JohnB,
That’s true to a point. The wickets from 1870 to WW2 were uncovered (maybe even after WW2). Trying to play on a pitch that had been wet (a sticky, they called it) was lethal, the ball moving all over the place in the air & off the wicket.
Then there was the pitch & surrounds themselves, which were much more roughly cut than by today’s standards. I imagine balls didn’t travel along the grass as quickly as they did today. And last but not least, there were no helmets, & protection was overall much cruder than now.
To cut to the chase, a great batsman like Trumper ‘only’ averaged 39 (ordinary by today’s standard. But his average is probably deserving of being bumped up 9-10 points in comparison to today’s batsmen.
I also have the perception today’s top batsmen have averages perhaps 3-4 points higher than their true value.
With bowlers of Barnes’ vintage, while they might have taken the same number of wickets as today, Barnes average for example, should be closer to 20-22. Which of course, still makes him pretty awesome.
I have a theory players from the pioneer (1876-1995) & golden (1996-1915) ages should have both their batting & bowling averages adjusted upwards by about 20-25%.
Conversely, the batsmen & bowlers of the media saturation (1996-2010) era should all have their averages adjusted downwards by about 5%, except in a few exceptions (Murali, Warne, McGrath for example) , since the bat seems to have significantly dominated the ball these past 15 years.
August 19th 2010 @ 10:54am
Fisher Price said | August 19th 2010 @ 10:54am | Report comment
Marshall was better than Lillee.
August 19th 2010 @ 6:30pm
sheek said | August 19th 2010 @ 6:30pm | Report comment
FP – Statistically you might be right.
Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but Lillee was aclaimed as “the man” by most of his peers who played against him in the 70s & 80s – Botham, Hadlee, Imran, Kapil Dev, Roberts, Holding, Garner, Croft & Marshall, etc. A pretty stellar cast, you would agree.
No higher honour can be bestowed on a man than by his peers…..
August 19th 2010 @ 6:36am
Vinay Verma said | August 19th 2010 @ 6:36am | Report comment
rugbyguy, Interesting but I would be looking for specialist openers for starters and apart from Hobbs do not see any. Richard Hadlee, a great player,but there is only one undisputed king of allrounders and that is Garfield Sobers. Bradman called him the greatest cricketer ever and having seen him play many times I would not dispute that. Sadly,Imran Khan also misses out.
Wasim, agreat left armer and has merit but he would not be the first fast bowler picked. For that you have to go to DKL as your first pick and then Marshall as the second pick. For balance you already have Sobers bowling left arm,both quick and slow, so Wasim may miss out.Then you have Holding,Spofforth,Trueman,McGrath,Garner,
Some good names there but Sobers and Lillee would be the first picked.
August 19th 2010 @ 6:39am
MattyP said | August 19th 2010 @ 6:39am | Report comment
Vinay – who would you pick as openers? I thought about suggesting Matthew Hayden, Desmond Haynes, Geoff Boycott?
August 19th 2010 @ 6:57am
Vinay Verma said | August 19th 2010 @ 6:57am | Report comment
MattyP,If I only had 2 picks I would go for Hutton and Gavaskar. If I had three choices then Arthur Morris gets a guernset. These openers are among a great bunch like Hobbs,Trumper,Greenidge,Ponsford.
August 19th 2010 @ 9:24am
sheek said | August 19th 2010 @ 9:24am | Report comment
C’mon Vinay,
I know you want to pick a dozen openers!!!
I would pick Jack Hobbs (Eng) & Barry Richards (RSA) first. Then followed by Len Hutton (Eng) & Sunil Gavaskar (Ind).
August 19th 2010 @ 11:59am
rugbyguy said | August 19th 2010 @ 11:59am | Report comment
I would have gone for Garfeild too but reading the West Indian All time Xi article it seems he didn’t make that team, i had to defer to the west indian cricket experts and leave him out to, although if Bradman says so then i will beleive it.
I could have gone the easy way and just copied Bradmans all time XI.
August 19th 2010 @ 2:00pm
sheek said | August 19th 2010 @ 2:00pm | Report comment
rugbyguy,
I don’t know what narticle you were reading or referring to, but I’ve never heard of any West Indian all-time team with out Sobers. He was definitely in the Cricinfo best ever XI.
August 19th 2010 @ 6:41am
NY said | August 19th 2010 @ 6:41am | Report comment
This is a matter of opinion, but this would be my team:
WC Grace, Tendulkar, Bradman, Lara, V Richards, S Waugh, Gilchrist, Akram, Hadlee, Warne, Ambrose
I picked Lara over Ponting, but my opinion is that Lara is probably the most talented batsmen I have seen. Other noted people I left out are Miandad, Crowe, R Richardson, M Waugh, Kapil Dev, I Khan, M Marshall, I Botham, Sobers and McGrath.
August 19th 2010 @ 8:00am
Tony said | August 19th 2010 @ 8:00am | Report comment
I would have Curtley Ambrose just ahead of Wasim Akram.
Two more reasons for including Warne: 1) he is the greatest competitor I’ve seen play, and possibly the greatest matchwinner; and 2) he was not a chucker.
August 19th 2010 @ 5:10pm
rugbyguy said | August 19th 2010 @ 5:10pm | Report comment
didn’t want to start a fight by mentioning the chucking side of the Muralitharan vs Warne debate but it was in my mind.
If you trust the biometric testing where he was asked to bowl in a lab knowing that his arm was being measured then his delivery action is brilliant, I recentrly saw an interview with the guy who first invented the Doosra, sorry cant think of his name right now, But he was convinced that it was impossible to bowl the doosra with a straight arm unless the wrist is locked, the way he invented it not the way Muralitharan bowls it. essentially he said Muralitharan definitly chucks.
August 24th 2010 @ 3:09am
Shane said | August 24th 2010 @ 3:09am | Report comment
“I recentrly saw an interview with the guy who first invented the Doosra, sorry cant think of his name right now, But he was convinced that it was impossible to bowl the doosra with a straight arm unless the wrist is locke”
in your vacant moments in life, try to think of his name, will you? because wrist movement has never been an issue for the chucking law. its the elbow that matters, and its the elbow that was subjected to biomechanical analysis, at the UWA. but then again who would take an aussie at his word, ai, even a scientist?
August 19th 2010 @ 8:12am
Brett McKay said | August 19th 2010 @ 8:12am | Report comment
Wow…
Great team RugbyGuy, as will be any of the alternatives that come up.
As for naming a team myself, well it took me two weeks to come up with The Roar’s Test team of the decade, and that was with six or seven blokes that picked themselves!! So, pass…….
August 19th 2010 @ 8:14am
formeropenside said | August 19th 2010 @ 8:14am | Report comment
The problem with “best ofs” I think, is that unless it is limited to a relatively short period, such as a decade, the game has changed too much for comparisons to be made with validity.
Wickets have changed and are now covered, bats are better, balls different, helmets, over rates introduced, fielding improved, fitness, the recent role of technology in decisions…and this is just the changes on the field! The attitude of players is different now to in the olden days, too, with the rise of professional sport.
Given all this, averages are not consistent, and total runs or wickets will advantage recent players. “Class” or “style” is a notorious guideline, and leaves you with players such as Mark Waugh or David Gower: good, but not great.
I cant really disagree with any selection above, but here’s an alternate XI of broadly the same type (although there is no true alternative to Bradman – he stands alone as unapproachable by any cricketer):
Grace – Trumper
Bradman – Headley
Tendulkar – Lara
Ponting – G. Chappell
Richards – Sobers
Imran Khan – Botham
Gilchrist – Knott
Akram – Davidson
Hadlee – Lillee
Marshall – Holding
Warne – Grimmett
Hobbs – Gavaskar
August 19th 2010 @ 12:34pm
rugbyguy said | August 19th 2010 @ 12:34pm | Report comment
Thats true with the improved technology modern players have he edge over old timers, like you say bats are better pitchs are better, How many peolple these days even know hat a sticky wicket is, not many because now we cover the pitch when it rains. also modern players have the advantage of Nutritionists, Phyisio therapy, personal trainers and so on
But i am pretty certain if Bradman or Jack Hobbs had all this they would be even better than they were. sadly we will never see Bradman facing Warne on the WACA or Viv Richards facing McGrath on a belter but we can imagine.
I can only assume if the greats from days gone by were to enjoy the advancments of the modern game then they would be better than they were when they played.
August 19th 2010 @ 5:12pm
rugbyguy said | August 19th 2010 @ 5:12pm | Report comment
What about Headly? the Black Bradman”
In the Windies Bradman is known as the White Headly
August 19th 2010 @ 9:06am
sheek said | August 19th 2010 @ 9:06am | Report comment
Rugbyguy,
All great player, but are they the MOST deserving?
You’ve left out Sobers, which is totally insane. The world’s greatest-ever all-rounder…..STILL!
And just to confuse you further, look up Graeme Pollock. Of all the players to play a minimum of 20 tests, his batting average (60.97) is second only to Bradman.
He toured Australia as a 19 year old in 1963/64, hitting two centuries in 5 tests against Benaud, McKenzie, etc. He played his last unofficial tests also against the Rebel Australians in 1986/87, when he was 42 going on 43.
He was just about as aggressive as Viv Richards, without the same menace, but more consistent. At the time of his retirement in 1987, Bradman described him as the greatest left-handed batsman to play the game. This was before Lara, who I would say is as good as Pollock, but I would be loathe to say is any better than Pollock.
You don’t hear much of Pollock. He came from a country with a despised form of government. Politics has played a part in the silence of his achievements through no fault of his own. While you’re at it, look up the other Richards, & South African as well – Barry.
Barry Richards only played 4 tests, but he’s the best opener I’ve seen in 40 years, better than the Indian masters Gavaskar & Sehwag. Look up his first class scores for South Australia in 1970/71.
He hit 356 against WA – an attack comprising Lillee, McKenzie, Mayne & Tony Lock – all test players. He hit 224 & 146 against the touring Englishmen, as well as at least one century against every state side. He averaged over 100 for the season.
In 1977/78, during WSC, he hit 207 against the Australians, against an attack of Lillee, Pascoe, Walker, Bright. In the same match Viv Richards hit 174 & Greenidge 140, but Barry outscore them both, & more quickly!
This is just a small vignette to demonstrate that this taskof selecting an all-time XI is actually monumental, not a stroll in the park!
August 19th 2010 @ 9:30am
Brett McKay said | August 19th 2010 @ 9:30am | Report comment
I rest my case, Sheek….
August 19th 2010 @ 9:10am
sheek said | August 19th 2010 @ 9:10am | Report comment
I’ve also taken the advice of someone who made a comment in relation to selecting all-time rugby XVs. Best to stick with individual countries.
When you start selecting an all-time XV, or XI, from all countries, you come across al sorts of cultural & traditional differences of perception. It’s hard enough trying to pick the best XV, or XI, from one country, without trying to select from all countries!
August 19th 2010 @ 9:15am
jiggles said | August 19th 2010 @ 9:15am | Report comment
Oh how I miss Sir Shane Warne,
The best cricketer I have ever had the pleasure of watching.
August 19th 2010 @ 9:16am
Hutchoman said | August 19th 2010 @ 9:16am | Report comment
“I don’t see how anyone can argue with the inclusion of my opening pair.”
Sir Donald Bradman as opener ???
August 19th 2010 @ 9:25am
sheek said | August 19th 2010 @ 9:25am | Report comment
He is the rugbyguy……….!!!
August 19th 2010 @ 12:19pm
jameswm said | August 19th 2010 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
That’s exactly what I thought Hutcho!
How can Sobers be left out?
Sheek – on a stats comparison between Warne and Murali, you have to take the Zimbabwe/Bangers effect into consideration. Take those wickets out of both tallies and then see how they stack up.
I’m not picking a side – it’s too tough. How for example can you pick one all rounder out of Botham, Imran, Wasim Akram, Hadlee, Sobers, Keith Miller…?
August 19th 2010 @ 2:03pm
sheek said | August 19th 2010 @ 2:03pm | Report comment
James,
I actually did the exercise some time ago, & was surprised to discover Murali’s figures still held up. All it does is bring him back close to Warne, but still ahead, if I remember correctly…..
August 19th 2010 @ 2:30pm
JohnB said | August 19th 2010 @ 2:30pm | Report comment
Muralitharan (deleting Bangladesh and Zimbabwe) has 107 games, 624 wickets, av 24.876
Warne (on the same basis) has 142 games, 691 wickets, av 25.41.
The one stat where this exercise makes a change (other than the not-unimportant total wicket column) is strike rate – in all games, Muralitharan’s needs about 2.4 balls less than Warne (55 to 57.5, rounded) to take a wicket. Taking out the minnows and Warne stays much the same at 57.7, but Muralitharan then needs almost a whole extra ball at 58.7.
Starting to get the feeling there’s a cigarette paper in it?
What’s always (including after deleting Bangladesh and Zimbabwe) impressive to me about Muralitharan is the wickets per match figure – 5.83 odd (down from a tiny fraction over 6 overall) which is still as near as dammit 1 per game more than Warne (and also close to 1 per game better than, for example, Dennis Lillee or Richard Hadlee – each a small fraction over 5). Sure, he bowled more balls per game than Warne, but anyone who takes 6 wickets a game over a long career is definitely a great, and definitely a contender for any “best of” team.
Incidentally, because I put a bit of weight on that “wickets per game” stat, it always surprises me that Clarrie Grimmett doesn’t at least get mentioned as a contender more often in these sorts of discussions – playing well after the pre WWI period when sometimes bowling performances could be exaggerated by poor pitches and very poor opposition, he racked up 37 games for 216 wickets at 24.21 (or 5.83 per game – near identical to Muralitharan’s “adjusted” figure). On the debit side, it took him 10 balls more per wicket than Muralitharan to take them, if that means anything, plus he had the benefit of playing timeless tests when in Australia.
Of course, we all get to argue until we’re blue in the face as to whether it was an advantage or disadvantage to Muralitharan being a one man band – more wickets available to him v not having the batsman pressured so much at the other end.
August 19th 2010 @ 2:41pm
sheek said | August 19th 2010 @ 2:41pm | Report comment
Thanks JohnB,
I wasn’t interested in revisiting the Warnie/Murali exercise. Glad someeone else – you – decided to crack it.
Murali also has the Hadlee factor that helps him, or doesn’t, depending on which way you look at it. Like Hadlee, Murali didn’t have too much opposition in his own team to take wickets (apart from Vaas).
Warne on the other hand, had a guy named McGrath competing for wickets.
Very few of the great Windies pacemen averaged over 4.5 wickets per test. Basically, after each of four paceman had taken 2-3 wickets each from one or two spells, that was the end of the innings. If you didn’t pick up a wicket in one of your spells, you knew someone else would & it could all be over before you got another turn at the crease.
And if Grimmett was good, Geoff Armstrong in his book of the 100 greatest cricketers, reckons Arthur Maliey was better than Grimmett. So go figure…!
August 19th 2010 @ 3:13pm
JohnB said | August 19th 2010 @ 3:13pm | Report comment
And of course almost everyone picks O’Reilly ahead of Grimmett. I think Grimmett filled his boot against SA also, so I’m sure the raw figures could be challenged – just saying it surprises me he rarely even gets mentioned as a possible!
I can never decide whether it’s better for a very good or great bowler (from the point of view of racking up figures) to have other good/great bowlers at the other end – more pressure on the batsman, no opportunity for them to sit on you and wait to do their scoring at the other end – or not, you haven’t got someone taking wickets at the other end, but the batsmen can put more concentration and effort into just seeing you off. Does it simply balance itself out?
August 19th 2010 @ 3:19pm
sheek said | August 19th 2010 @ 3:19pm | Report comment
Well, if it helps, they say great bowlers come in pairs – two pacemen, two spinners, one of each, etc…..
Lillee & Thomson, Lindwall & Miller, Grimmett & O’Reilly, Davidson & Benaud, McGrath & Warne, etc…..
August 19th 2010 @ 2:49pm
Brett McKay said | August 19th 2010 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
that’s really interesting to read that, thanks JohnB…..