World All-Time XI

[Ninjaman]

A greatest XI does not need a captain.

It is not going to play any games at all.

Convention has assumed that the "ideal" team is 2 openers, 2 middle order bats, an allrounder, keeper and 4 bowlers or some variant of.

As such the World XI should just be the the best players you wish to fill these spots.

No players getting in based on captaincy.

And anyway Lloyd was a superior captain to Waugh.
Waugh was a very good batsman but not great

[Rachael]

If you've got bowlers of the callibre of (say) Hadlee, Underwood, Marshall and Lillie... or Imran, Ambrose, McGrath and Muralitharan... or Wasim, Warne, Donald and McGrath... then your need for anyone else who can turn their arm over is pretty minimal (let's face it, even one as good as Kapil Dev would struggle to get tossed the ball with four colleagues of such high callibre).

The one thing you do perhaps want, if the same XI is to play on all surfaces, is an additional spinner... though if you were picking an Xi to play exclusively on the subcontinent I guess you'd ideally just change the attack (keeping Marshall, perhaps, but dropping Warne for Muralitharan, selecting a second finger spinner and choosing a complimentary bowler with a view to pace, variation and reverse swing rather than more orthodox virtues.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Milo

Maranello,

Just out of interest, who was more aesthetically pleasing than Viv in full flow??

No one when Viv was in full flow, but as you point out Milo, his supremacy over all bowling did wane considerably towards the end of his career. The Viv that I saw live from the early 1980s onwards, did produce some sporadic bursts of brilliance, was not the consistent destroyer of bowling that you recognise; for instance, during the whole 1987 tour and the subsequent WC, he probably played two or three brilliant innings, include a world-reocrd effort in an ODI against SL, but was not particularly dominant otherwise. Of course, this is entirely my subjective opinion; if I had grown up watching Viv in his prime, or had followed him closely during 1976, my view would be different.

Interestingly, I have also heard the argument that its better to treat 1976 as an aberration; as a once-in-a-lifetime purple patch which many players have (eg Waqar Younis 1990/1991), but which not many are able to sustain, and our assessment of the players should be based on how they perform over a longer period. As you watched Viv much more closely than I did, what is your view on this? For instance, if ones takes out 1976, Viv's career average is 'only' in the high 40s.

I don't disagree that he is one of the world's best batsmen; he would probably be in my team too if I had seen more of him; everything I have read about him, indicates that he had something that none of his peers and contemporaries had.

Originally Posted by Milo

I have to agree with Ninjaman about Warne. I can think of millions of Indians that wouldn't put him anywhere their side.

Sure but would you seriously pick Subhash Gupte instead of Warne? Most Indian commentators rate Gupte as their best-ever spinner, followed by Chandrashekhar.

[Milo]

Even if you take out Viv's 1976, his prime was lost to Packer's world series. His performances in these games (especially the first year in 1978) were remarkable. He continued to dominate well up to 1984. He was then well into his 30s and really cannot be judged on how well he played (batting at 5) often only motivated to produce the goods once the team needed it.

His final average is irrelvant to his performances (as it is not a true reflection on his entire career - it did actually finish at its lowest ever mark). The last five years of his career he no longer went in up the order to determine the way the game would go. Even when needed in his late 30s he still produced innings of quality (under immense pressure) - Unbeaten hundred in India 1987/8 and the match saving century against Pakistan in Trinidad 1987/88. Had the West Indies needed more (and this is the major point to remember with the ageing Viv) I'm convinced he would have come through.

Let's also not compare the averages of men in the 70s/80s with those nowadays. Make no mistake (and this is backed up by the article by Imran on your other thread), anything approaching 50 against the bowlers he faced is nothing short of supreme quality. This is the period where Gooch averaged 38, Kim Hughes 39, Gomes only 39, Wright 37, Boon 37, Vengsarkar 39 (before his purple year 1986), Majid 39. The list is endless. Only a handful of players averaged over 45 - and Richards when batting at 3 from 1974 to 1982 (excluding his Packer prime) was up in the 60s. His first 4000 test runs (over this 8 year period) averaged 62 and he was already 30 years of age. If he had the pleasure of facing the junk offered up now, then he would be virtually unstoppable. Imran's right to point out, every team had an all time quality opening bowler. This is just not the case anymore.

[Rachael]

Goatman talks often of a Viv Richards innings at Headingley where no-one else could hack it and Viv was clearly seeing the ball like a football and able to do anything with it.... kinda like Tendulkar was in one session of play where, as someone said, there was just no-where you could bowl the ball that wouldn't see it murdered. Awesome, certainly... incredibly effective... but surely brutality rather than beauty is the first thing that comes to mind?

Aesthetics is always going to be a bit subjective.. and I'm certainly not going to quibble with Milo's judgement that he found him aesthetically pleasing in full flow... but I'd suggest that's very much a matter of teste.

Many have marked out Mark Waugh, David Gower and VVS Laxman as the most sublime cricketers to watch... not least because it was NOT brutal: the apparent effortlessness of the strokeplay (and especially the delicate touches) won many over. Others were unmoved: for them perhaps the casualness seemed to detract from the spectacle.. or perhaps the evident lack of footwork grated.

I've actually heard folk single out Inzi as the player they found most attractive to watch... as they found the economy of movement and effort quite mesmerising: none of the exagerated back lift or foot movement of Lara... but exactly the same result in that he was always in position, perfectly still and with the bat fully under control as he played each shot.

My own preference would be for Ramps as he so often was in county cricket... and so rarely was in Test cricket: the footwork and movement was (and presumably remains) so light and natural... the body positioning, take back and follow through were always so classical... the strokes so orthodox.. the touch so delicate... and the placement so accurate. Kinda the best of Atherton and Gower rolled into one.

[Milo]

Rachael, Viv was the very example of effortless beauty. That the result was also devastatingly brutal is irrelevant. Little flicks that landed in the tavern stand. Graceful lofts over extra cover. You clearly never watched him bat if you are unable to recongise his beauty and lazy ease in which he despatched the ball into the crowd. I'm sorry, Lloyd was the murderer of the ball in that team. Viv was Gower, Laxman and Waugh all rolled into one with the added flamboyance (something which you don't like).

You should go and buy a video. You might like what you see. However, maybe you should stick with Ramprakash whose fidgetty, jumping around the crease was a stain on my eyes.

[Steveie Wonder]

This is my personal world XI. I'm not even claiming its not biased with my inclusion of the almighty Jack Russel but this is a selection of my favourite players of all time.

1. Greenwich
2. Hutton
3. Bradman
4.Viv Richards
5. Sobers
6. Botham
7. Russel
8. Akram
9. Murali
10. Marshall
11. Lillee

In my opinion Gilchrist is not a consistant enough wk and is not in the same league as Jack Russel.

[Ninjaman]

Originally Posted by Milo

Rachael, Viv was the very example of effortless beauty. That the result was also devastatingly brutal is irrelevant. Little flicks that landed in the tavern stand. Graceful lofts over extra cover. You clearly never watched him bat if you are unable to recongise his beauty and lazy ease in which he despatched the ball into the crowd. I'm sorry, Lloyd was the murderer of the ball in that team. Viv was Gower, Laxman and Waugh all rolled into one with the added flamboyance (something which you don't like).

You should go and buy a video. You might like what you see. However, maybe you should stick with Ramprakash whose fidgetty, jumping around the crease was a stain on my eyes.

Well said Milo.