greatest ever world 11

[Ken Gargett]

Okay, one of the debates over new year was picking the world’s best ever 11 (one of those present was a former English test player but no names).

There was general agreement, more or less, except for one player – who for me, is one of the very first who should be picked.

my team, comments below.

Hobbs

B Richards

Bradman

G Pollock

V Richards

Sobers

Gilchrist

Warne

Lillee

Marshall

Akram

General agreement for Hobbs but there was also support for Hutton, Gavaskar, Hayden and Greenidge.

For me, no question about Barry Richards, but as he only played four tests, some were uncomfortable with this. I thought he was a genius and he played the greatest ever innings I saw live.

Bradman is unquestioned.

Pollock was the one that got a lot of flack. For me, one of the first in any world 11 but almost everyone else was opposed. They are wrong, of course.

Lots of competition for this spot. Tendulkar, Ponting, Lara, Border were the main ones (for me, if just any old game, Tendulkar; if it was a must win, Richards; if it was a game for your life, Border).

Sobers – only query here is where you bat him. I’d move him to five and Viv to six.

Gilchrist – not the best keeper but what he could do with the bat gets him there – which I sort of hate. Arguments about the best keeper – take your pick from Tallon, Knott and Healy.

Warnie a must. Yes, I know Sri Lankans will argue but we thought we'd keep it to those who did not chuck..

Quicks – you can argue till NSW win the origin as so many great contenders but I’d take these three over anyone others.

Love to hear any thoughts or alternatives.

[JohnS]

Ken, I really like this XI. I'll give more detailed thoughts this weekend. Pollock and Richards, yes, I understand, it was either Lillee or McGrath and having seen 'Maco' I 100% would have him too because for me he could do it all, as in types of deliveries and out-think batsmen.

[Ken Gargett]

Ken, I really like this XI. I'll give more detailed thoughts this weekend. Pollock and Richards, yes, I understand, it was either Lillee or McGrath and having seen 'Maco' I 100% would have him too because for me he could do it all, as in types of deliveries and out-think batsmen.

hi john, happy new year.

there was some serious consideration to mcgrath but it was hard to work out where to fit him - who goes?

you could argue which lillee (and "both" worthy) - the young tearaway or the older, slightly slower but very clever bowler. he had that rare ability to outthink batsmen. so few bowlers seem to bother. warnie, of course, another. lillee at his peak had that most glorious run-up.

marshall was so dangerous, so quick.

wasim just unplayable at his best.

mcgrath

holding

lindwall

larwood

tyson

hadlee

spofforth

walsh

ambrose

roberts

steyn

donald

hall

griffith

mckenzie

proctor

trueman

all have claims. i still think that if all of these thrown in the mix and all allowed to bowl at their peak, what an attack those three would be. and don't forget sobers, of course. not a bad fourth quick and second spinner.

[Guest rob]

Good list.

Who would captain?

[Ken Gargett]

Good list.

Who would captain?

hard to go past bradman, simply because to do so is almost insulting. if we could have a non-playing captain (don't laugh, england had brearley for years), ian chappell.

for something a bit left field, warnie.

[Guest rob]

I agree with Bradman captaining a team playing the game the away it has traditionally been played till about the 1990's - and fully agree, Warne would make a brilliant modern day captain.

Warne's ability to have troops perform, and strategically manipulate the nuances would be brilliant. Whilst Taylor and Waugh were great, it's a shame Warne never really got tested for any extended period as captain.

[JohnS]

hi john, happy new year.

there was some serious consideration to mcgrath but it was hard to work out where to fit him - who goes?

you could argue which lillee (and "both" worthy) - the young tearaway or the older, slightly slower but very clever bowler. he had that rare ability to outthink batsmen. so few bowlers seem to bother. warnie, of course, another. lillee at his peak had that most glorious run-up.

marshall was so dangerous, so quick.

wasim just unplayable at his best.

And a Happy New Year to you, Ken!

The first thing I thought of with your greatest XI is that the team is made of players who were the best at giving their team the momentum necessary to win a game. Barry Richards certainly did this, the other openers who were closest, in my opinion, were Len Hutton and Virender Sehwag. I wouldn't nominate Sehwag against Richards, Hutton yes, but Richards' lack of tests should not be held against him. Similarly, Graeme Pollock could turn the momentum of a match in a short time, in my (personal) experience, Adam Gilchrist was the same. Pollock only played 22 tests, but these included series-changing innings such as his 122 at Trent Bridge in 1965 and his 274 at Port Elizabeth. Both these innings influenced their respective matches and series against England and Australia respectively. Viv Richards, Jack Hobbs, Gary Sobers all these (selections) merit a place and they, together with Shane Warne and Don Bradman were in the Wisden five cricketers of the century, published in Wisden Cricketers' Almanack in 2000.

There are many bowlers to choose from aren't there? Perhaps I would add Sydney Barnes as a possible contender, but Lillee did finish sixth in the Wisden five cricketers of the century list I quoted above. Marshall, well he was the simply the best bowler I've ever seen and Wasim Akram is the best left-armer to play the game, yes, unplayable at his best.

[Coolio]

I understand the reasons why Gilchrist is in the 11, but don't agree with them. I've always thought in a team like this, with bowlers like Lillee, Marshall, Warne etc, you'd want the best keeper. Which Gilly was not. You'd have any of Knott, Tallon, Marsh, Healy selected before him.

And with the batsmen selected, you wouldn't need a batsmen/keeper as well. Then again this team will never play against anybody so that's a moot point!

Interesting topic Ken!

[Ken Gargett]

I understand the reasons why Gilchrist is in the 11, but don't agree with them. I've always thought in a team like this, with bowlers like Lillee, Marshall, Warne etc, you'd want the best keeper. Which Gilly was not. You'd have any of Knott, Tallon, Marsh, Healy selected before him.

And with the batsmen selected, you wouldn't need a batsmen/keeper as well. Then again this team will never play against anybody so that's a moot point!

Interesting topic Ken!

as i indicated, i'm with you on this. as a former keeper (i was an opener/keeper so a bit hypocritical to knock keeper/bats), i have always believed pick the best keeper because if nothing else, miss a chance and it could cost you a 100 or more - lot to make up.

that said, i think if you are picking your best ever team, you have to look to each spot individually to an extent.

gilchrist was a very good keeper - not right up to the very best but certainly not too far off and his batting was so superior to any other keeper and he could change a game, i think he deserves the nod.

99 times out of 100 i would pick the top keeper - everything i have ever heard says tallon though i'd be inclined to healy. i spoke to a former test keeper a few years ago and he felt healy superior to all before but put this down partly to the fact that cricket was so much more professional these days and instead of getting on the piss every night, they got fit, trained etc etc.

[Webbo]

Difficult to fundamentally disagree with your XI Ken but would suggest the following

Must pick your best glovesman (if any world XI needs its keeper to get runs then somethings wrong). I would go with Knott but could make a case for a few others.

If the opener has to bat to save your life then I would want Boycott

If the team was going to play against any Australians then Botham would be in for me (circa 1978 vintage)

No mention at all of Hadlee yet, superb control.

I might go for holding over Marshall but not much in it.

[Webbo]

Sorry, another change for me. Greenidge in for Barry Richards.

[Ken Gargett]

Sorry, another change for me. Greenidge in for Barry Richards.

i do like going with best keeper, but there are arguments for gilchrist as he could change a game. i think those three mentioned are toss of a coin but everyone i know who saw tallon and knott puts tallon way ahead. i'd have no problems with healy, though.

understand re hadlee but instead of?

the holding/marshall one is knife-edge. happy either way.

botham - fantastic player but again, instead of? no sane person would suggest him as the all-rounder ahead of sobers, no matter who you play. he is nowhere close to a spot as a batsman so then you have to dump a quick. and he is nowhere close (that is probably harsh) to those three. and quite a few more.

i can only assume you are too young to have seen richards, if you are suggesting greenidge ahead of him. i suspect very little support for that with players/fans who saw both. hutton/gavaskar and hayden all a better claim (though greenidge a very fine player). greenidge averaged under 45 and remember that he never had to face the attack that destroyed so many players. that is a huge boost.

richards averaged over 72, granted a much smaller sample. he was a freak. whatever comp he played, he dominated. there is a story of him getting bored in an english county game when his side 9 down. he tore the attack apart for another hundred and then was even more bored so added another 70 batting by using the edge of the bat, not the face.

for me, behind bradman you argument pollock or sobers as next best. if richards had a few more tests, he'd be in that argument and probably clear second.

i can see the merit in all your other suggestions but not this one. but that is half the fun, i guess.

[Webbo]

I was just a small boy when Richards was playing for Hampshire so didn't really see much of him but my father did rate him highly. The problem for me with picking players like Pollock and Richards is that sadly for the game they did not play the level of cricket they should have for any sustained time so their picks are judgment calls based on an individuals view of their talent and what might have been rather than what they actually achieved.

[Ken Gargett]

I was just a small boy when Richards was playing for Hampshire so didn't really see much of him but my father did rate him highly. The problem for me with picking players like Pollock and Richards is that sadly for the game they did not play the level of cricket they should have for any sustained time so their picks are judgment calls based on an individuals view of their talent and what might have been rather than what they actually achieved.

fair point with richards (, although you can only do what you are allowed - in fairness, as well as the tests, he did play another 340 first class games with an average of 55.

less so with pollock. 23 tests is not huge by today's standards but they played a lot less in those days. but he played all the tests he could over that period (i think missed one or two with injury), from 1963 to 1970. coincidentally, he played another 260 first class games at almost an identical average as richards.

i was also pretty small when these guys were playing. did see both live once each. the richards innings at the gabba in a shield game (out for 160 first over post tea, from memory) was the greatest i ever saw live. pollock was at a double wicket cricket comp - he and brother peter beat sobers and hall in the final. for an 8 or 9 year old, what a day. australia had ian chappell and walters, i think, plus mckenzie and lawry? england pulled trueman and a few others out. kanhai and griffith another west indian pair.

the fun of these lists is no one ever agrees - i have copped a lot of flack from mates re pollock - but for me, barry richards and graeme pollock are two that go in unchallenged. bradman, sobers, warne are the only others who are automatic for me. the other six, one can argue.

[Ken Gargett]

okay, i put ( and ended up with a face? no idea how.

[Ken Gargett]

crap. that face is supposed to be a capital b.

[JohnS]

In regards to wicket-keeping skill, we could debate it incessantly I suppose, especially as the game has evolved to such a point that having pure wicket-keeping skill without having a test batting average above 30 is not seen in the game anymore (Both Rod Marsh and Ian Healy averaged below 30 in test cricket, whereas Alan Knott averaged 32. In the modern era, these players would be expected to average around 40 as a minimum). It's a testament to a bygone era to have a player like Peter Nevill as Australia's test keeper, you know, the type of player who is doing his role so well that you don't realise he's there sometimes!

A dear friend and mentor (to me) who played wicket-keeper in grade cricket in Sydney and coached at the junior level for many, many years ranked Bert Oldfield and Don Tallon as the best (with Tallon marginally better). Alas, he's reticent to coach youngsters these days, as he feels that players aren't committed to learning the skill of wicket-keeping solely as in the past, they keep in junior matches sporadically, not all the time s before.

[Ken Gargett]

In regards to wicket-keeping skill, we could debate it incessantly I suppose, especially as the game has evolved to such a point that having pure wicket-keeping skill without having a test batting average above 30 is not seen in the game anymore (Both Rod Marsh and Ian Healy averaged below 30 in test cricket, whereas Alan Knott averaged 32. In the modern era, these players would be expected to average around 40 as a minimum). It's a testament to a bygone era to have a player like Peter Nevill as Australia's test keeper, you know, the type of player who is doing his role so well that you don't realise he's there sometimes!

A dear friend and mentor (to me) who played wicket-keeper in grade cricket in Sydney and coached at the junior level for many, many years ranked Bert Oldfield and Don Tallon as the best (with Tallon marginally better). Alas, he's reticent to coach youngsters these days, as he feels that players aren't committed to learning the skill of wicket-keeping solely as in the past, they keep in junior matches sporadically, not all the time s before.

would be interesting to see how tallon would have gone these days. i believe he was a very tall keeper (all in favour of that) but mostly, today's fitness and scrutiny would have changed his life. gather he had a lot of problems staying off the grog and that this impacted adversely on him - no surprise.

as a kid, i started as a batsman (of fairly average ability) and a spinner. medium pacer (of even less). absolutely loved cricket but when i had a chance to keep, enjoyed it even more. you are involved in every ball. i always recommend to kids that they try for the keeper spot.