Picking an all-time Test XI using Wisden's cricketers of the century as a guide

By Once Upon a Time on the Roar / Roar Guru

Jack Hobbs, Don Bradman, Garry Sobers, Viv Richards and Shane Warne. Has anyone noticed that Wisden’s five best cricketers of the 20th century are specifically selected from five different eras?

Jack Hobbs played from 1908 until 1929. In those first 28 and a bit years of the 20th century, Hobbs stood alone statistically above all other cricketers from that era.

The same applies to Bradman in the 1930s. Garry Sobers came along in the mid-1950s, and played until the early 1970s. From Bradman’s retirement until Sobers’, nobody could match the West Indian as a cricketer, although Graeme Pollock was not far behind him as a batsman.

Viv Richards’ Test debut was a mere year or so after Sobers retired, and he played until 1991. During the 1970s, only two other batsmen averaged 50 or more in Test cricket, namely Greg Chappell and Sunil Gavaskar.

In white-ball cricket, “the Master Blaster” was in a class of his own. One-day cricket took off in a big way after Kerry Packer’s World Series revolution in the latter part of the ’70s. There were many great bowlers during Richards’ career, but none stood out from the pack in the way Richards did as a batsman.

Viv is still the king of one-day cricket. I don’t believe Virat Kohli would have averaged 59 with a 93 strike rate had he played during the 1980s, any more than Bradman would have averaged 99 in Tests during that era.

No player from Richards’ era can better his ODI average of 47 and a strike rate of 91. Only two others even came close. Namely, his predecessor as West Indies captain, Clive Lloyd, who averaged 39 at a strike rate of 82, and Zaheer Abbas, who averaged 47 at 83.

Neither played anywhere near the number of games Richards did, although Zaheer’s seven centuries, all scored between December 1981 and June 1983, were an ODI record at the time of his retirement.

Richards was, in any case, the number one Test batsman for the majority of his 17-year career.

(S&G/PA Images via Getty Images)

Warne’s first Test, in January 1992, was a mere four months after Richards had played his last. It is Warne who surely had the most competition to represent his own era.

Either Tendulkar or Lara may have appealed to Wisden, although I agree that Warne probably had a larger impact on the game – but only marginally.

The dark horse from Warne’s era could be Wasim Akram, and he is going to become quite relevant once I reveal my true purpose in writing this.

Wisden’s other four choices are more clear-cut. Pollock may have been the equal of Sobers as a batsman, but Sobers could also bowl a number of different modes. Fred Trueman was undoubtedly the greatest bowler from Sobers’ time, but he was probably also a genuine rabbit with the bat.

As stated, Sobers was also a very handy bowling option. Though they had Wes Hall throughout the 1960s, the West Indies’ attack lacked depth. As such, the great all-rounder often shouldered a heavy workload with the ball.

Before I get to my main purpose, allow me to reiterate what appears to be Wisden’s wisdom in their choices.

Viv Richards, for example, wasn’t necessarily chosen over Walter Hammond because he was the better batsman of the two, but because Richards was the standout cricketer from his own era. Hammond always lived in Bradman’s shadow.

Jack Hobbs wasn’t chosen because he was a better opener than the likes of Len Hutton, Sunil Gavaskar, or Gordon Greenidge – but because he too was the best cricketer of his era.

What I aim to now do is, using these five cricketers as a base, select a complete team, predominantly of the 20th century.

In order to do this, I will adhere to a very strict rule: I must choose one more cricketer from each of those five eras. The 11th player will come from the 21st century, and the 12th man from the 19th century.

Each of my own seven choices must also, in their own way, be stand out players from their own era. Eras may overlap, but I will endeavour to avoid it.

The second choice from one of the eras must have played at least half of his career in that same era. Obviously, my team also needs to comprise six batsmen, a wicketkeeper, and four bowlers plus the 12th man.

I will start with Hobbs’ era. There are really only two choices, Herbert Sutcliffe and Victor Trumper. Both are slightly problematic with the rules I have set. Victor Trumper debuted in 1899, but played until 1912, so he easily qualifies as early 20th century.

The problem is that Hobbs himself only debuted four years before the end of Trumper’s career. We also can’t claim that the First World War cost Trumper a large chunk of his career, as he died in 1915 – not in battle, but of Bright’s disease in Sydney.

Jack Hobbs (left), and Herbert Sutcliffe. (Photo by PA Images via Getty Images)

The problem with Sutcliffe is that time-wise, he played the majority of his career in Bradman’s era. He debuted in 1924, four years before Bradman, and played until 1935 – more than a decade before Bradman retired.

Choosing Sutcliffe from Bradman’s era is also not an option, as in my opinion, Hammond was a superior batsman, and in any case, I am choosing Bill O’Reilly as the standout bowler from Bradman’s time.

Clarrie Grimmett could also be considered, as the first bowler to pass 200 Test wickets. It would be false to argue Grimmett played a large portion of his career before Bradman debuted.

However, the leggie’s career was certainly curtailed by Bradman’s vindictiveness. Grimmett’s axing immediately followed a 44-wicket haul in a five-Test series in South Africa – and came immediately after Bradman was made Australian captain.

Clarrie Grimmett. (Photo by Central Press/Getty Images)

I am pre-empting people asking “What about Harold Larwood?” I am not going to choose Larwood solely on the Bodyline series, any more than I would choose Mitchell Johnson for an all-time Test team purely on his scarcely believable 2013-14 Ashes series.

Moving on to Sobers’ era, there are really only two choices: Trueman and Graeme Pollock. Which is picked will depend on the selection from Warne’s era, so let’s bypass Richards’ for the moment.

We could go one of two ways, remembering the necessary team balance of six batsmen, a keeper, four bowlers – and the golden rule of only one extra player from each of Wisden’s clearly defined eras.

If we choose Pollock, then we have to choose Akram. That is probably my own personal choice because Akram’s left-armedness provides variety, and I also have a great fascination with Pollock.

However, if we choose Trueman, then we must choose either Tendulkar or Lara. I would go with Lara, because his left-handedness also provides variety to the batting – coming in at four between Bradman and Richards. Obviously, Pollock also brings the leftie advantage.

Brian Lara. (Photo by Joe Mann/Getty Images)

Malcolm Marshall is my choice from Richards’ era, though it’s not an easy selection. However, the West Indian was the best bowler from the 1970s or ’80s. I won’t list the other great fast bowlers from those two decades, simply because there are so many.

Marshall also benefits from the fact that all the batting spots are taken, and there is one bowling spot left. We already have two spinners – not that there were many to choose from in the ’70s or ’80s. Abdul Qadir gets the only honourable mention.

Given that the only remaining spot is the wicketkeeper, then it’s a no-brainer to choose Adam Gilchrist as the player from the 21st century. I won’t consider Kumar Sangakkara, incredible a batsman as he was, because he only kept in about a third of the Tests he played.

The 12th man from the 19th Century will be either WG Grace, Sydney Barnes or Fred Spofforth. I’ll narrow it down to Barnes or Spofforth, as bowlers make better 12th men – and in the all-time scheme of things, Grace qualifies more as a bits and pieces player.

The ideal 12th men would be either Keith Miller or Imran Khan, with Gilchrist able to move up to six in the event of injury to a batsman. However, neither Imran nor Miller are eligible – as the extra player from Bradman’s, Sobers’ and Richards’ eras have already been chosen.

So, my team is as follows:

1. Jack Hobbs
2. Herbert Sutcliffe/Victor Trumper
3. Don Bradman
4. Graeme Pollock/Brian Lara
5. Viv Richards
6. Garry Sobers
7. Adam Gilchrist
8. Malcolm Marshall
9. Wasim Akram/Fred Trueman
10. Shane Warne
11. Bill O’Reilly

12th man: Fred Spofforth/Sydney Barnes

If Trueman and Lara end up getting the nod over Pollock and Akram, then Warne moves up to number 9 in the batting order.

On a finishing note, I have deliberately not rattled off stats. Though I will point out that Sutcliffe’s numbers in Test cricket were very similar to those of Hobbs. Of the players chosen, Sutcliffe is basically the only one who would need his stats quoted in order to justify his selection.

The Crowd Says:

2022-03-04T21:56:16+00:00

Genius

Guest


1. Hobbs 2. Barry Richards 3. Bradman 4. Tendulkar 5. Sobers 6. Pollock 7. Gilchrist 8. Akram 9. Marshall 10. Warne 11. McGrath 12. Hadlee/Lillee/Lara/Border/Botham

2022-03-04T21:37:29+00:00

Genius

Guest


Everyone seems to have forgotten Barry Richards. Second best batsman ever after Bradman.

2022-03-04T21:28:43+00:00

Genius

Guest


DK also was out injured with a bad back for nearly 2 years I believe? Someone correct me?

2022-01-02T06:08:50+00:00

Michael

Guest


Not sure you’ve travelled quite as extensively as your purport. I’ve done very little myself but enough to have heard off the top of my head the allegation being made in India by the likes of Bishan Bedi and England by Boycott. I’m sure it doesn’t end there. Bit weird that you somehow try to criticise the Aussies because the bloke chucks.

2021-11-18T05:11:26+00:00

gutsy

Guest


Any team of the century that doesn’t include it’s finest pace bowler in Richard Hadlee isn’t worth the 1’s and 0’s making it visible.

AUTHOR

2021-06-28T10:02:08+00:00

Once Upon a Time on the Roar

Roar Guru


You've hit the nail on the head with the fact that even when Richards was no longer scoring big runs so frequently, the West Indies were still never beaten simply because his mere presence just psyched out all opponents into thinking they were unbeatable. And yet, after he took over the captaincy at 32-33, he was still the most feared batsman in the world right up until his retirement, and still, on his day, the best batsman in the world - and he still had enough of them (his days) to remind everyone ... I would contend one point: Hayden and Langer might just challenge Greenidge and Haynes as the best opening combo though neither had to ever face their own attacks in test cricket ... maybe team up Hayden and Haynes and team up Greenidge and Langer ...

AUTHOR

2021-06-28T09:52:06+00:00

Once Upon a Time on the Roar

Roar Guru


You haven't read the selection criteria properly. It's either Akram or Trueman from their eras and if it's Trueman then a choice between Tendulkar and Lara. As the one chosen would be at the expense of Graeme Pollock then may as well choose the left hander, i.e. Lara. When choosing my all-time teams without any selection constraints, Tendulkar makes both my test and one day teams.

2021-05-20T20:04:38+00:00

Ron John

Guest


Viv was averaging around 60 early on in his career. In those times The team really needed his batting and he responded. The WI really needed him to win. In the late 80's The WI was head and shoulders above all other teams. We had the best opening pair in the the history of all cricket in Greenidge and Haynes. We also had Richie Richadson at No. 3. Three world class Players. That WI team also had five of the best fast bowlers of all time. That team could of done no wrong. Viv as a player won 21 test series and lost 2. (Aus in 75 & India in 79) As a captain he lost none. His team did not really need him in the late 80's, so he entertained the crowd with his batting. That is why we in the Caribbean still love him so. I have heard from Holding ang Boycott, That if there is nothing left in a match, Viv will say "lets do somthing for the crowd". There are top players like Lara, Kallis, Dravid and Chanderpaul who will pad their Stats in a match heading for a Draw, But not Viv. Holding said Viv could of ended with an average of 60 if he wanted to. Batting with a No. 10 and No. 11, Viv will go after the bowling for quick runs, and sometimes get out in the process when a not out will up his average. That was Viv. The man destroyed bowlers. Devon Malcom came to the Caribbean and got Viv out in Barbados i think it was, and was on the media saying he got the formula for Viv. Viv replied " We will meet again in Antigua. ARG was filled 2 hours before the match. We knew what was coming. First 3 Balls from Malcom was 6 6 4. “That over I remember he took me for about 18. It was 18 so far and the final ball of the over, I pitched one up and Viv just knocked it to extra cover run past me and said ‘that one should be another four man, but I hope the captain keeps you on.” When the Captain did take Malcom off, Viv will throw the ball to Malcom. He destroyed Malcom. 140 runs, No wickets. Wisden has picked 5 Cricketers of the Century. Viv is one of them. Or did you not know that.

AUTHOR

2020-10-25T06:08:33+00:00

Once Upon a Time on the Roar

Roar Guru


And yeah for spinners the 1980s only really had Abdul Qadir and he was ordinary away from Pakistan. The 1970s had a few that were solid such as Underwood and those 4 Indians with mostly long names, but no one genuinely legendary.

AUTHOR

2020-10-25T06:05:50+00:00

Once Upon a Time on the Roar

Roar Guru


Yeah I'd agree with that. Which is why it annoys me when people insist on having some sort of diplomatic obligation to pick WG Grace in all time teams at the expense of players like Lara and Tendulkar.

2020-10-23T12:03:49+00:00

I'Entire

Roar Rookie


Hi Bernie, Sunil Gavaskar's career started from 1971 and it seems Herbert Sutcliffe is only one with average never dipping below 60. Coming to comparison of different eras, 90s was best. Almost every team has 2-3 good fast bowler and 1-2 good spinner and descent allrounders too. 80s had everything but not spinners likes of warnie, kumble, murli, saqlain. Fastest bowler to greatest turner of the ball. Highest individual scorer to fastest strike rate player. Safe to say 90s to mid 2000s where peak in cricket history.

AUTHOR

2020-10-06T09:09:41+00:00

Once Upon a Time on the Roar

Roar Guru


Perhaps Gavaskar didn't quite average 50 in the 1970s. He started in 1969 and ended in 1987 and his final average was 51.1 I just remember reading somewhere a decade or so back that Greg Chappell was one of only 3 players to average over 50 throughout the 1970s and I just assumed Richards and Gavaskar to be the other two. I know Richards has to be, because he began in 1974 and in early in the 80s his average was in the high 50s. You are quite correct about Miandad and I completely forgot about him.

AUTHOR

2020-09-15T05:01:58+00:00

Once Upon a Time on the Roar

Roar Guru


I certainly don’t think Akram was better than Ambrose, but certainly damn near as good. I just consider Akram to be right up there amongst the greatest fast bowlers ever and the variety his left armedness provides is always a selling point for me.

2020-09-14T21:55:29+00:00

sheek

Roar Guru


Bernie, To answer your last sentence question, Richards had one quality that raises him above his average, & above most other players with better averages - fear. No player who ever walked out to a cricket pitch had the opposition all swearing in unison under their breath - "oh sh*t". They knew that if 'Smoking Joe' Viv was 'on song' today, he would pulverise the bowling, & turn men into wimps. But that was the problem with Richards, he had too much disdain, & not enough circumspection. Hence he gave away his wicket too freely too often. But boy, he was worth watching when 'on song'. Personally I would pick Richards ahead of Tendulkar, Lara & Pieterson. But in the all-time Windies team, Headley, Weekes, Walcott & Sobers were players of similar temperament who held their averages. That's the difference for me.

2020-09-14T13:00:39+00:00

Brian

Guest


That's not reality though, sure Trumper didn't have a sports scientist but neither did the bowlers. Imagine Pete Hadscomb in 1890 without bowlers having video to break down his technique he might average 100

2020-09-14T12:54:16+00:00

Brian

Guest


Except cricket is a team game. RIchards captained the West Indies 50 times between 1984-1991 as his average fell but not once did he lose a Test series. So that might justify a certain approach

2020-09-14T02:58:29+00:00

Roshan Fernando

Guest


Javed Miandad's test average was above 50 in the 70s and indeed throughout his career. In fact he and Herbert Sutcliffe are the only batsmen whose test average never dropped below 50.

2020-09-14T01:52:21+00:00

Jon Richardson

Roar Pro


Have to agree with Micko here. Hadlee averaged 21.6 in Asia, 68 wickets in 13 Tests. Averaged 21.7 on all pitches away from home, a sign of true greatness. Did even better over the best 10 years of his career. Don’t accept the argument that he had an advantage because he didn’t have as much competition from teammates. This is why the average counts most as a comparator. If you have four bowlers with low averages the opposition gets out quicker. Hadlee also had to bowl against the West Indies batsmen, the strongest for most over the era while Marshall and co didn’t. Not that I would pick Hadlee over Marshall, but I might have him in my all time team ahead of Trueman, Akram or Lillee.

2020-09-14T01:39:17+00:00

Jon Richardson

Roar Pro


Nice framework for discussion. If you agree with those who rated Sydney Barnes so highly maybe there’s a case for picking him in the XI, leaving out O’Reilly (or Warne?) and keeping Sutcliffe as second opener. Ambrose would get the nod for me over Akram as the bowler of the 90s, but it’s a matter of opinion. I’d even be a bit radical and pick Richard Hadlee ahead of Richards as Test player of the 70s and 80s. All these guys rate ahead of Trueman, and Pollock gets the nod over Lara. Richards was picked by Wisden as a “cricketer of the century”, not a Test player of the century. His ODI record and his playing style and moments of brilliance earned him that title, but not necessarily his overall consistency at Test level.

2020-09-14T01:19:25+00:00

Nick

Roar Guru


This is a great article Bernie, Although it's a tad disappointing to see you not show the stones and pick an actual XI. Don't be shy to share your opinion.

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar