Selecting an all-time best Windies Test XI

West Indies Xl 1) Frank Worrell (has opened in tests) 2) Brian Lara (he opened in odis, so he can do so in tests) 3) George Headley (always a number three in tests) 4) Everton Weekes (made most test runs at this positon) 5) Viv Richards (made second most test runs at this position) 6) Gary Sobers (made most test runs at this position) 7) Clyde Walcott (wicketkeeper only in 15 tests out of 44 tests, so gives him more rest at this position after wicketkeeping in tests) 8) Malcolm Marshall (made most test runs at this position) 9) Michael Holding (made most test runs at this position and more fifties in tests than Roberts and Ambrose) 10) Andy Roberts (made less fifties in tests than Holding but more than Ambrose) 11) Curtly Ambrose (made less fifties in tests than Holding and Roberts)

Kersi,I appreciated your selection but I felt that Brian Lara must win a place in the 1st 11 as well as Andy Roberts.Had Brian played for a team like Sobers and Viv Richards he would probably have been rated the best West Indian batsman of all.Lara bore the brunt of one of the weakest batting sides ever whose cause he most consistently championed in a crisis.In addition to that he could compile mammoth scores like no other graet batsman and also score at a breathtaking scoring rate.His average percentage score of the team's total was the best after Haedley and Bradman and his batting combined the prowess of Viv Richards, with the tenacity of Headley.At his best he even outplayed Tendulkar and about 2 years ago in 2 different stats analysis he was rated 2nd only to Bradman.While weathering a storm he was till as destructive as Sobers or Bradman,but also possessed the golden touch of Worrel. I would go with 4 paceman as a winning combination but if you include Gibbs as a spinner then I would choose Andy Roberts instead of Holding.I do not deny that Holding was one of the graetset fast bowlers ever ,consistently the fastest ever with the best of bowling actions,but he did not posesse as wide a repertoire of deliveries as Andy Roberts.Roberts had an outswinger,a leg cutter,a slower delivery and 2 boouncers of variable speeds.Andy was rated by Gavaskar and the Chappell brothers as the most lethal pace bolwer they ever faced while Lillee called him the best and most complete paceman .of his era.True Holding was faster and had better stats but remember Roberts singehandedly carried the brunt of the West Indian attack in the mid 1970's in India and Australia. Viv Richards,would captain my 1st 11 as he never los ta single test series as captain while Worrell would command the 2nd 11,with his outstandinmg leadership qualities.

My all time West Indian 1st 11 is Greenidge,Hunte,Headley,Viv Richards,Lara,Sobers,Walcott,Marshall,Roberts,Ambrose and Holding. My 2nd West Indian 11 is Fredricks,Haynes,Kanhai,Weekes,Worrell,Clive Lloyd,Dujon,Garner,Hall,Gibbs and Walsh With his brilliant innovative ability as well as prowess to compile mammoth scores and lift the team in a crsisi Lara has to be in the 1st taem.Headley's brilliant average and peformances on wet tracks made people call Bradman the 'White Headley',.Viv Richard's abiilty to treat the best pace attacks like cattle,win them a place.Marshall,was with Lillee the most complete bolwer of all,Holding consistently the fastest with the best action of all,Ambrose the most accurate,while Andy Roberts was the most versatile of all.Stas never did justice to Andy Roberts who in his peak was the most complete paceman after Lillee ,possessing a repertoire of outswingers,and offcuitters,in addition to a disguised slower delivery and 2 kinds of bouncers.Lillee and Gavaskar rate him the best paceman of their era and both the Chappell brothersrated him the most difficulat pace bolwer they ever faced.Gary Sobers is simply the greatset cricketer of all and is the only unanimous choice.Walcott wasthe most punishing wicketkeeper batsman ever and more brutal than Weekes or Worrell. In the 2nd team Weekes was almost as destructive as Bradman, batting more like the Don than anyone in his era,Worrell the most graceful and technically correct,Kanhai posessed creative genius that surpassed even Bradman ,Lloyd was an all-time graet left hander,Garner the most accurate relentless of paceman ,Walsh a metronome,Giibs a classical spinner and Hall almost as graceful as Holding b ut no less devastating. The factor which would decide the result in favour of the 1st 11 over the 2nd would be Sobers and Marshall ,otherwise they are very evenly matched.Rohan Kanhai,on his day even surpassed Bradman,while Weke's ferocity could surpass Viv Richards.

On the left hander right hander debate, my logic is that a left hander is the better option for the simple fact that most of the population is right handed, therefore bowlers tend to be less expeianced at bowling to the left hander, similarly batsmen get more practice facing right handers so in theory a lefties have a small advantage. if i had to choose based purely on which hand a player uses the the lefties would be my pick.

Greg, Sorry, nearly a month late with my reply. Well, in my preamble somewhere I mentioned that the captain was paramount in Windies cricket, bringing together players essentially from different nations & cultures, even though they share the same geographical region. So selcting the captain is perhaps more important than for most other cricketing nations. hence the importance of Worrell. Of the others aoocupying the top 6, Sobers & Headley are no-gos, their positions unquestioned by their deeds. Thus it comes down to a toss-up between Richards & Lara. I was damned either way! It's an embarrassment of riches. Of course, I had an escape clause if I chose. Worrell opened a few times, & he has the temperament, & he could have been chosen at the top in place of either Hunte or Greenidge. And that's another tough choice!! Again, embarrassment of riches. As for keeper, yes, Dujon was pedestrian, but his batting gives the lineup more bite. Hendriks gives too long a tail. Of course, as a compromise, I could have selected Gerry Alexander (yet another Jamaican) - not quite up to Dujon's batting or Hendriks keeping, but a better keeper than Dujon, & a better batter than Hendriks! As for omitting the likes of Garner & Walsh (or Roberts & Hall), what am I supposed to do? I can only pick an XI, not a XV, or a XVIII, or a XXII. Rugbynut, Trust the comments here help you some (about Lara's omission). Gayle is an attractive batsman, but not consistent enough to be considered a great. Of course, & with all due respect, a test batting average of 40 might sound like a genius to a Kiwi!!!

im no expert on west indian cricket but i just cant fathom how lara doesn't make the team, as a New zealander i can only dream of having an all time team which has no room for lara, for that matter if i was to pick an all time Nz team and pick up your unwanted players i'd have Gayle too, and garfeild sobers and courtney walsh, actually it might be quicker to just say i'll have your 2nd XI plus sir richard hadlee and dan vettorri, martin crowe is NZ's best batsmen but not sure he measures up compared to your 2nd string openers, Burt sutcliffe is in the mix but he is way before my time so only have his figures to go from and they dont mean much as he never had teammates who could support him, he may have been great with someone to bat with.he carried the team his whole career.

I'm just reading your article having yesterday seen the selection of the cricinfo experts. You were very close, differing only in wicketkeeper (Jackie Hendriks rather than your Jeff Dujon) and one middle-order batsman (Brian Lara rather than your SFW). I can understand the discrepancy over wicketkeeper: the cricinfo people were primarily interested in ability with the gloves, whereas you want an "all-rounder". As a wicketkeeping colleague of mine once said "Dujon could only take a catch if he was diving". In other words, he was not a great keeper. But with the middle-order batting position, what on earth were you thinking? Worrell was undoubtedly one of the greatest men to have played the game, but selection of teams like this is about cricketing ability, not personality. Anyone who saw Lara bat knew pretty quickly that they were watching not just a West Indian great, but one of the game's greats. OK, his career statistics might have fallen short of his ability, but they are still pretty awesome (and are far superior to Worrell's). Further, why does no-one ever hold it against Keith Miller, for example, that his test batting fell far, far short of his ability, but with Lara this seems to be an issue? Yes, Lara behaved like a child for large parts of his career, but that's not what this is about. I don't disagree with the choice of Ambrose, Holding and Marshall, but how quickly we forget some of the spells bowled by the likes of Joel Garner and Courtney Walsh against Australia. These were no ordinary bowlers, and yet no-one even mentions them as being unlucky to miss out on the all-time XI.

Sheek on the subject of Captains I would pick Conrad Hunte. There was a near riot in Calcutta in 1966 and part of the stand was on fire and threatening the West indies flag on the roof. Conrad shimmied up the pole and rescued the flag. Can you imagine Gayle doing that? Also it was Conrad Hunte that had a partnership of 440 odd with Garfield Sobers when the great man scored his then record 365. Hunte got 246 and in that series CH scored 4 tons.

So, can we come up with a great 3rd XI for the WI? Rowe, Croft, Charlie Griffith? Ramadhin, Valentine? Franklyn Stephenson? Desmond Haynes?

Sheek, I think that's the line I'd run too! Fact is, that second XI looks stronger than it would be if you dropped say Walsh for a spinner. Arguably, if you were going to not include Walsh, it would be to put in Croft or one of the other pace bowlers who on their day were more menacing than Walsh, but didn't have his incredible durability, rather than a spinner Is this like the "good big one beats a good little one" in any footy code - a good fast bowler beats a good spinner?.

Sheek,I lay more credence to your picks than Cricinfo. A lot of the jurors were West Indian. I would disqualify them on the score of vested interests.

JohnB,obviously Cricinfo don't think the team needs a captain! No discussion on that. Only three players received an unanimous vote(10 out of 10) Headley,Richards and Sobers. And they did mention Hendriks as being the better keeper and logicised that with so many great batsmen could pick a "pure" keeper.

Vinay/JohnB, I notice the reader's poll, which I contributed to, varies at keeper, with Dujon in for Hendricks. I think the reader's team is better if only because Dujon gives the batting extra bite. No skipper is named, & this is where the Cricinfo XIs have been inconsistent. Some have named captains, others not. Some have named 12th man, others not. I'm not sure who the captain might be. On record, probably Sobers. Richards was too combative a personality. Lara wasn't a good leader I believe. I don't know much about Headley's leadership credentials. He was the first black Windiescaptain in a one-off test (while Worrell was the first long-term choice).

Vinay, I didn't follow the Cricinfo process on this one - did they address the captaincy issue that underpinned Sheek's selection? Who did they make captain (Headley perhaps, looking at that side)? While it's hard to argue with the "you have to fit Lara in" argument, Sheek's point seems a valid one. Maybe Headley would have been respected enough (which apparently he was, from what you read) to be as effective a captain as Worrell (or Lloyd). Hendriks/Dujon - a bit of a tomartoes/tomaatoes argument perhaps. I'm guessing Hendriks the better keeper (to spin anyway), Dujon (at his best) a class batsman. Take your pick.

Thanks Vinay, I can't argue with the selection by a panel of experts. I must say I'm surprised with Hendricks as keeper, only because it gives them a 'long tail". Dangerous when playing the best of the best from other countries. It's important when selecting the best of the best from one country, to keep in mind they will be asked to play the best of the best from another country in a mythical valhalla. That's why maximising balance is so important. I sometimes wonder if selection panels, as well as individuals, forget this. No complaints with Lara, but truth be known, I would have picked the Windies like the English pick theirs - captain first! Although in the case of the Windies, I would have selected Worrell as the second man after Sobers in the team. They are a region who need a strong leader. I must say I'm still mulling over the difference between Ambrose & Garner. Gawd, there must only be the width of a hair between them.....

JohnB, You're a bugger, JohnB! Actually, at the time I couldn't be bothered to pick between Ramadhin & Valentine as the 2nd XI spinner, or which paceman I would have to drop to accommodate either. Since the focus was on the 1st XI, I left it that. That's my excuse & I'm sticking to it... !!! Actually, a right & left-hander opener combo is in an ideal world, but of course, from time to time in the real world, you don't always have the luxury. Similarly, the Windies ran with 4 pacemen from the mid-70s to end of century, simply because after Gibbs, none of their spinners measured up. So for them to deviate from the ideal was actually smart thinking on their part.

Sheek, not criticising you understand, just observing - for the Windies you pretty much have to go away from picking a balanced side that meets your "time honoured structure" criterion as early as the 2nd XI. Is that something of a freak result because of the WI producing a disproportionate number of absolutely top drawer pace bowlers and relatively very few good spinners, or does that mean that the "time honoured structure" is in need of a second look? At what point do you depart from the ideal structure? Having asked that question, I still have to say your template for a team looks right, certainly as the game has been played in my lifetime, for most conditions at least. Whether you have to be slavish about batsmen being LH or RH, not so sure, but that's all I'd quibble with. And yet, the great Windies teams never did it, and it's a struggle to even come up with a composite side that does!

Sheek, See below the Cricinfo selections You got nine out of XI: The XI: Gordon Greenidge, Conrad Hunte, George Headley, Vivian Richards, Brian Lara, Garry Sobers, Jackie Hendriks, Malcolm Marshall, Michael Holding, Curtly Ambrose, Lance Gibbs They had Lara instead of Worrell and Hendriks instead of your Dujon. You have to fit Lara in somewhere. Pretty impressive effort Sheek. We should have our own Roar Panel of Jurists every year.

JohnB, Could've put Sonny Ramadhin in as the 2nd XI spinner & Alf Valentine as the 3rd XI spinner. Another alternative was to play Collie Smith (who died too young) as the batting all-rounder at 6 & spinner in 2nd XI. But who to omit? Walsh is probably the weakest of the 2nd XI pacemen, but on the other hand, was once the world record holder for most test wickets. And which batsman would you omit to accommodate Smith? The point of selecting a 2nd XI & Haynes also missing the 2nd XI demonstrates the tremendous depth & rich history of Windies cricket. There would be a similar bottleneck selecting the all-time best Aussie XI. Some outstanding Aussies might not even make our best-ever 3rd XI!

No spinner in the 2nd XI? Not sure who I'd leave out to put one in mind you! No Haynes either?