ICC spits on the history of the game

This is great article!

Cricket is being killed by the sub continent. Too much greed and commercialisation of the game over there has led to rampant dismantling of all the good aspects of the sport. That fever pitched obsession has now spread to Australia with the rediculous "big bash league". Test series are slowly but surely being killed off. Does anyone at CA think that little kiddies will identify with an electric green team or a name like "sixers", when in a vicious team sport market like Australia? This sport has gone to the dogs over the last 5-10 years.

And more like vigoro.

Good points. When Bob Taylor took over as England keeper, he was neat and dapper behind the stumps, and totally reliable. However, there were plenty of people alive who saw Knott, Taylor and Godfrey Evans live, and they had no hesitation in naming Godfrey Evans as the best ever. One feat of his (from memory, so I'm open to correction) is that in his early test career England conceded over 1,000 runs before Evans conceded a bye. Yet, because our collective memories are short, I doubt he would be nominated in many Greatest XI teams.

I think the poll got its desired result, media coverage. I think though if you gave even a general fan a list of resurrected players in their prime (and allowed cross overs) and offered them money for a win to make sure they picked with their heads, you could get a team to beat this one nine times out of ten.

And also, I have to say, if there's anyone criticising me for saying only Bradman deserved his spot (as a way of saying Tendulkar didn't), I can only conclude by posing to them that out of Tendulkar's undeniably impressive record, how many of those great batting innings lead to an Indian win. If the criteria was based on matchwinning ability, Tendulkar wouldn't even make a 10th best XI, let alone the very best. Laxman is a bigger matchwinner than Tendulkar...

While I didn't end to write this story as an invite for ppl to name their best XIs, let me wade in :) I think Alan Knott is an inspired selection, even though he himself was picked eventually because of his batting strength. However, I don't see what the problem with that criteria is as long as you keep well. This is why I have a problem with critics of Adam Gilchrist. It's almost like they used his superb batting record as a way to disguise the fact he was also a damn good wicketkeeper. In his last two years, his standards fell, and recognising that, he bowed out with grace. But Gilchrist was a damn good keeper, and Shane Warne himself acknowledged how good he was to have kept to the likes of him and Stuart MacGill, and not look like the Australian team had lost anything after Ian Healy. Personally, my selection for keeper would go to Ian Healy on pure keeping ability. But this is a package deal, and so my vote goes to Gilchrist. However again, there cannot be any complaint from ppl who go for the likes of Alan Knott, Bert Oldfield or the like...

paddyboy, i think there is a far bigger case for including a modern day bowler in this poll than a modern day batsman. Given how much the game favours batsmen today, you have to conclude the likes of Glenn McGrath, Wasim Akram, Curtly Ambrose and Allan Donald were truly greats of the ages. However, why should this poll take place in the first instance? The very sample is distorted by how many ppl are recent converts to the game thanks to the rise of the Indian subcontinent, so there will be an inherent bias in this poll that can be typified no better than the selection of Kapil Dev over the likes of Imran Khan, Ian Botham, Garry Sobers or Keith Miller - to name a few. All this poll is asking for is criticism. You're giving the power of decision to a group of ppl whose knowledge of the game may not extend 5 years. They only include Bradman on the basis of pure number. It's a shame that someone has to get an average of 99.94 to be acknowledged as equivalent to anyone in the modern age. The only way a poll like this would ever work is if you have the posthumous opinions of cricket fans from the ages of WG Grace, Trumper, Bradman, Benaud and Chappell. You combine those opinions to the ones today, we'd probably see a far more accurate result...

All the changes they want to make to cricket nowadays seem to be an attempt to make it less like cricket.

Sehwag doesn't get into my first 4 Test elevens. So many better openers. And Gavaskar doesn't get in the top team, possibly not the top 2. That being said, 30 cricket lovers will come up with 30 different sides.

Professor Rosseforp, Quite correct. When Knott & Taylor both came to Australia for the first time in 1970/71, I recall reading more than one article that attributed Knott's place in the test team to his superior batting. However,it's worth remembering also, that in 1970 Knott was 24 & Taylor 29. While Taylor had by then reached the peak of his craft, & would retain his consistency for the next decade, it's also true that Knott got better & better behind the stumps. I don't think it's misquoting history to suggest that by about 1974/75 (when Knott & Taylor again toured Australia) Knott was not only the better batsman, but also the better keeper. I would have to say Knott is the best keeper from any country I saw from 1967/68 to the present. You might also say that Taylor made Knott the best by keeping him honest!!!

Interesting that people pick Alan Knott over batsmen/keeper types because of his ability as a keeper, when Knott himself was preferred because of his batting ability. Many rated Bob Taylor as a much better keeper than Knott, and in my viewing of them, I would agree. I would also rate Wally Grout extremely highly -- but I think historically we would have to look at the many keepers who played on uncovered wickets.

EricBloom, Nothing wrong with Sangakkara, nothing at all. But I can only squeeze eleven players into a cricket XI at any one time, & only one wicket-keeper. Choosing between Gilchrist, Flower & Sangakkara will always be tough, while Knott was the purest & best behind the stumps of the lot of them, while also being a competent bat.

No room for Kumar Sangakara? He may not have batted with the tail as much as Gilchrist or Knott but he wicketkept to Murali for all those years and is an impeccable batsman.

Okay, I've come to the conclusion such exercises are fraught with enormous danger. It's hard enough picking the best XI of one country from 130 years, without trying to pick a best from 8-9 countries over the same time-span. So here goes - this is the All-Time Cricket XI that should have been chosen: Jack Hobbs (England) - right bat Sunil Gavaskar (India) - right bat Don Bradman (c- Australia) - right bat George Headley (Jamaica & West Indies) - right bat Sachin Tendulkar (India) - right bat Gary Sobers (c-Barbados & West Indies) - left bat & left fast medium/ slow orthodox/chinaman Adam Gilchrist (Australia) - left bat & wicket keeper Shane Warne (Australia) - right bat, right legbreak/googly Malcolm Marshall (Barbados & West Indies) - right bat, right fast Dennis Lillee (Australia) - right bat, right fast Sydney Barnes (England) - right bat & right medium fast/offspin Batting depth to no.9. Bowling attack contains 4 specialist pacemen & one spinner, although both Sobers & Barnes could turn the ball as well as bowl fast, if required. Excellent fielding side. Just to demonstrate I haven't totally lost any marbles, here's an All-Time Cricket 2nd XI; Len Hutton (England) - right bat Virender Sehwag (India) - right bat & right offspin Wally Hammond (vc-England) - right bat & right medium pace Graeme Pollock (South Africa) - left bat Viv Richards (Antigua & West Indies) - right bat & right offspin Imran Khan (c-Pakistan) - right bat & right fast medium Alan Knott (England) - right bat & wicket keeper Richard Hadlee (New Zealand) - left bat & right fast medium Curtley Ambrose (Antigua & West Indies) - left bat & right fast medium Bill O'Reilly (Australia) - left bat & right legbreak/googly Murali Muralitharan (Sri Lanka) - right bat & right offspin Batting depth to no.8. Bowling attack contains 3 pacemen & two spinners plus the excellent medium pace of Hammond. Another excelelnt fielding side. I believe Barry Richards (South Africa) ought to be one of the openers in the 2nd XI. Personally I reckon he's good enough for the 1st XI. But regrettably, I can't advance him on the strength of only 4 official tests. Although it should be noted Bradman himself had no qualms selecting Richards in his all-time XI. Let the arguments begin.....!

Unfortunately this is how these popularity polls go. They are a reflection of a collective memory that doesn't extend very far. You have a look at Greatest movie of all time and you'll usually see The Shawshank Redemption. You have a look at a recent Greatest singer of the 20th century, and you see that it really means "Best rock frontman in a band from the past 30 years". Classical singers ignored ; people like Al Jolson would not rate a mention, and Steve Tyler from Aerosmith is there while Little Richard is not. On this particular 11, I would say there were 2 correct choices: the inclusion of Bradman and the exclusion of Muralidharan.

Can't cheer this article enough, beautiful piece. Twenty20 hold next to no appeal for me, and it won't be long till we see Ten10 or the like but whatevs, I'll follow test cricket even if it ends up dying and going amateur. As for the poll, I'd say spot on there were no Poms, which seems to be the grab line of all the articles. They just haven't produced a cricketer of the likes of Bradman, Lara, Tendaulker, Sobers, etc. Where was Murally just quietly, one of the finest spinners ever. I'm only 22 but even I know that there aren't enough players from the pre 80's in there. Where's Sobers for starters? Virender Sehwag? Seriously, one of the best players of ALL TIME? Kapil Dev is not better than Sobers, not in stats, not in accolades. Sober s is generally regarded as the finest all-rounder of all time. I love Curtley Ambrose, I really do, one of my favourite possessions is a framed, signed photo of Curtley facing off with Steve Waugh, he is one of the main reasons I got into cricket as a child. But in an all-time 11 he is not. Where just quietly is Viv Richards too, you could go on.