World All-Time XI

[Paoli]

Oooh, If Current World XI's are generating such discussion, this should get even more.

Preliminarily...

1. WG Grace
2. Barry Richards
3. Donald Bradman
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. Graeme Pollock
6. Sir Garfield Sobers
7. Adam Gilchrist
8. Shane Warne
9. Malcolm Marshall
10. Dennis Lillee
11. Wasim Akram

[Freddie=GOD]

It seems everytime there's nothing to talk about, someone comes up with this 'Making your own World XI' idea.
Really...haven't we made enough World XI teams to still be asked to make more?

P.S - WTF there's no Kevin Pieterson for the first Test... And we were thinking about winning the Ashes...

[Rachael]

The following is on the web as Richie Benaud's "Greatest XI"... but he did an excercise on Channel 4 along the lines of "the team he would most like to have representing him".. and it might just be that. If so, he made no claim that it was a "greatest ever", merely that he'd love to have had them playing for him.

He had several alternatives for each position on the channel 4 thing but the list I found on the web reads as follows:

1. Hobbs,
2. Gavaskar,
3. Bradman,
4. Richards,
5. Tendulkar,
6. Sobers,
7. Imran,
8. Gilchrist,
9. Warne,
10. Lillee,
11. Barnes

I don't think Barry Richards, Wasim Akram or Malcolm Marshall would look out of place in that company... but then.. nor would Lara or Muralitharan. Leads me to think you could probably get a 2nd XI of pretty much the same "greatness".

[Ernest]

1. Greenwich,
2. Haynes,
3. Bradman,
4. Jardine,
5. Hutton,
6. Sobers,
7. Botham,
8. Gilchrist,
9. Warne/Laker,
10. Lillee,
11. Larwood,

[John]

1.Hobbs
2.Gavaskar
3.Vivian Richards
4.Bradman
5.Hutton
6.Sobers
7.Gilchrist
8.Warne
9.lillee
10.Ambrose
11.Walsh

[Rachael]

Why Walsh? I admired the old workhorse immensely... but all time great?

Richie Benaud didn't actually manage a single WI bowler in his selection of 6 or so alternatives... but if you had to choose one then surely Marshall has to get the nod for his incredible cunning and for the way he was able to make things happen on all surfaces (even on the subcontintent). He's also a nice contrast to the likes of Lillee (or Akram). I can understand the desire to see Ambrose with that pair just because of the height thing... but equally... I reckon you could as easily justify any of 4-5 others.

Not Walsh though...

[Paoli]

Again, England bias from Ern.

Warne and Laker are incomparable if you ask me. Larwood and no spot for Marshall? Jardine and no Tendulkar?

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Paoli69

Again, England bias from Ern.

Warne and Laker are incomparable if you ask me. Larwood and no spot for Marshall? Jardine and no Tendulkar?

None of my 5000+ posts have ever been bias for bias sake, some of my predictions could be construde as bias, but to my way of thinking, it is a duey of a supporter to support and get behind their team.
To get back to the matter in hand,(the team)I-

I could have found a spot for 100s, but I will justify my inclusion of Jardine and Larwood.

Don't forget England were facing Bradman on his own patch, his plan was dedication over moths to regain the Ashes, and he trained Larwood to the peak of physical perfection, (akin to player today), and he got the simple things right, he was able to bowl to orders.
Lets not forget Ambrose and garner who I was forced tp leave out.

Tendulker, ok he is a record run scorer,but you have drawn the paralel with jadine, Jardine brough back the Ashes for England against the odds.

Laker/Warne, what's you problem?, I could have used underwood or Bedi, so I see no problem here.

Take care when calling be biased, and read my posts, and you will notice I say what I think, never call other nations players rubbish.

[Rachael]

Ernest, the convention in discussions of this kind is that you take OFF your "fan" hat and get off your high horse and model yourself rather more on St Peter at the Pearly Gates: as rather above such mortal concerns.

From a practical point of view, every selector that's ever sought credibility has had to face up to the fact that it's at least as important to be SEEN to be neutral as it is to BE neutral... and in practice that often means that in any marginal decision it's your preferred choices that have to miss out.

Think of yourself as a club captain: can you play your son ahead of a rival just because you think he's marginally better? Not easily: you either need to declare an interest and back out of the decision or ensure that he's actually also widely SEEN to be better - in short you need to set marginally higher standards for those you may be perceived to favour than for others.

I don't believe for one moment that you are doing that here.. or in many of the current "World XI" nominations you make: they read more like the nominations of Alf Garnet than of St Peter.

[Milo]

Hobbs
Hutton/Richards
Bradman
Richards
Pollock
Sobers
Gilchrist
Imran
Marshall
Ambrose
Underwood/Warne

In my opinion, most are simply personal preferences, but Bradman, Gilchrist, Sobers and Hobbs are fixtures. They must be in an all-time world XI.