ALL-Time TEAM

[upthemaidens]

there may already be a thread about this,but i couldnt see it...
  pick your best two teams(1 test,1 one-day) from past and present players.
as the selector you are picking a side against an unknown opponent, playing on a neutral pitch( lets say MCG drop-in wicket). decent for seamers with new ball and will take spin on the last few days..
 
i have picked two players that i never saw play, purely on their records( im sure you can guess who)

      TEST                         ONE-DAY
    1,Hayden                   1,Jayasuria(c)
    2,Kallis                       2,Afridi
    3,Bradman(c)             3,V.Richards
    4,Tendulkar               4,Tendulkar
    5,Lara                       5,Bevan
    6,Sobers                   6,Symonds
    7,Sangakara(wk)        7,Gilchrist(wk)
    8,Akram                    8,C.Cairns
    9,Warne                   9,Akram
  10,Ambrose              10,Lee
  11,Donald                 11,Muralitharan
12th man-Jonty Rhodes in both teams(picked for his fielding)
     
i think these teams have pretty good flexibility and variety.. have fun picking your sides..

[PowerBug]

I recently picked up the ABC Cricket magazine for this summer and started to do the same thing. I am yet to have a full squad for Test Macthes, but this is who i have so far:

1. V.Sehwag (7000+ runs @ 52.41. Aggressive opener)
2. ----
3. R.Dravid (12000+ runs @ 53.36. Also leading catcher in cricket with 200)
4. S.Tendulkar (15000+ runs. Nuff said)
5. J.Kallis (12000+ runs @ 57.44. Also over 200 wickets)
6. ----
7. A.Knott (English keeper. Leading English wicket-keeper, 6th all-time. ave of 2.41 byes per innings. Less than all other top keepers)
8. ----
9. ----
10. M.Muralitharan (800 test match wickets, ridiculous doosra, average of 22.73)
11. G.McGrath (563 wickets @ 21.64)
12th man. ----

There are some surprise inclusions and exclusions, (e.g. no Bradman, Warne) but i am going oin the basis of how good the players were in terms of the whole team. If Warne had to bowl to Waugh and Ponting, would he really have 708 wickets?? If Bradman played against more countries on different pitches, would he have averaged 99.94??

Thus why players like Dravid/Murali get in before Warney and Don.

[upthemaidens]

 powerbug, on the"is bradman that good argument" i think u just have to look at the other players playing at the same time and their averages. also i think batting would have been harder back then( uncovered wickets, less effective equipment).
    The wicketkeeper position is a hard one, do u pick the best keeper or do u take their batting into account? if just picking the best keeper i would go Healy (btw im not going by stats just what ive seen)
    u have picked tendulkar,dravid,sehwag(all great players) ,but would u think differently if out of the 90 matches Sehwag has played 59 have been on the sub-continent (i gather it would be a similar ratio for the other two aswell). food for thought.
  anyhow its all abit of fun,  im sure A.Donald wasnt in the best 3 pace bowlers of all time,but hey he was "White Lightning"

[AFEV]

I'll put more thought into it over the next day or so but off the top of my head I'd say guys like Grace, Hobbs, Rhodes, Richards, Bradman, Warne and perhaps Hutton would be making my list.

[Voldemort]

I recently picked up the ABC Cricket magazine for this summer and started to do the same thing. I am yet to have a full squad for Test Macthes, but this is who i have so far:

1. V.Sehwag (7000+ runs @ 52.41. Aggressive opener)
2. ----
3. R.Dravid (12000+ runs @ 53.36. Also leading catcher in cricket with 200)
4. S.Tendulkar (15000+ runs. Nuff said)
5. J.Kallis (12000+ runs @ 57.44. Also over 200 wickets)
6. ----
7. A.Knott (English keeper. Leading English wicket-keeper, 6th all-time. ave of 2.41 byes per innings. Less than all other top keepers)
8. ----
9. ----
10. M.Muralitharan (800 test match wickets, ridiculous doosra, average of 22.73)
11. G.McGrath (563 wickets @ 21.64)
12th man. ----

There are some surprise inclusions and exclusions, (e.g. no Bradman, Warne) but i am going oin the basis of how good the players were in terms of the whole team. If Warne had to bowl to Waugh and Ponting, would he really have 708 wickets?? If Bradman played against more countries on different pitches, would he have averaged 99.94??

Thus why players like Dravid/Murali get in before Warney and Don.

Cricinfo already has the best team for test and ODIs, not just on records but the 'wow' factor as well

[c4v3m4n]

Just to throw my input on Murali v Warne...

Look at how many wickets Murali took against minnow nations compared to Warne. Also, look at how many wickets he took at home compared to Warne....makes for some very interesting comparisons.

There's also an interesting article about Murali by the late Peter Roebuck...

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/467143.html

Arguably Murali was not quite as dangerous with the doosra at his disposal. Different fields had to be set and a straighter line had to be bowled so that it did not stand out or lose the element of surprise. He was forced to aim more at the stumps and his offbreak was easier to tuck away to leg. In time he began to rely too much on the doosra for wickets, and eventually batsmen began to pick it. Perhaps he had little choice. By then the fingers had lost a little of their snap and the wrist could not perform its gyrations quite as well.

Sorry, but IMO, there is only one truly great spinner and it's not Murali.

[Voldemort]

Just to throw my input on Murali v Warne...

Look at how many wickets Murali took against minnow nations compared to Warne. Also, look at how many wickets he took at home compared to Warne....makes for some very interesting comparisons.

There's also an interesting article about Murali by the late Peter Roebuck...

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/467143.html

Arguably Murali was not quite as dangerous with the doosra at his disposal. Different fields had to be set and a straighter line had to be bowled so that it did not stand out or lose the element of surprise. He was forced to aim more at the stumps and his offbreak was easier to tuck away to leg. In time he began to rely too much on the doosra for wickets, and eventually batsmen began to pick it. Perhaps he had little choice. By then the fingers had lost a little of their snap and the wrist could not perform its gyrations quite as well.

Sorry, but IMO, there is only one truly great spinner and it's not Murali.

Sorry, but IMO, Murali has the most wickets and Shane doesn't. And Murali is a better sportsmen, he doesn't have a go at anyone and everyone still has a bit more respect for him than Warne.

Just check the stats  ;)

[bomberboy0618]

Just to throw my input on Murali v Warne...

Look at how many wickets Murali took against minnow nations compared to Warne. Also, look at how many wickets he took at home compared to Warne....makes for some very interesting comparisons.

There's also an interesting article about Murali by the late Peter Roebuck...

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/467143.html

Arguably Murali was not quite as dangerous with the doosra at his disposal. Different fields had to be set and a straighter line had to be bowled so that it did not stand out or lose the element of surprise. He was forced to aim more at the stumps and his offbreak was easier to tuck away to leg. In time he began to rely too much on the doosra for wickets, and eventually batsmen began to pick it. Perhaps he had little choice. By then the fingers had lost a little of their snap and the wrist could not perform its gyrations quite as well.

Sorry, but IMO, there is only one truly great spinner and it's not Murali.

Sorry, but IMO, Murali has the most wickets and Shane doesn't. And Murali is a better sportsmen, he doesn't have a go at anyone and everyone still has a bit more respect for him than Warne.

Just check the stats  ;)

Murali isnt the best. Stats dont lie and if Australia played Bangladesh and Zimbabwe as much as SL did while Warne was playing, he would have decimated Muralis record.

[upthemaidens]

my 2 cents, its personal choice. they are two different bowling styles, may as well compare murali to lillee or warne to holding..
   anyhow  most people consider warne as the best leggie and murali has the best offie..
For a test match if having to choose between a world class off-spinner or a world class leg-spinner, i would take the leggie.. and even better would be to have both in the side, the only reason i didnt put murali in my test side is because sobers would play as the second spinner and very competently i may add..

[pyronerd]

Just to throw my input on Murali v Warne...

Look at how many wickets Murali took against minnow nations compared to Warne. Also, look at how many wickets he took at home compared to Warne....makes for some very interesting comparisons.

There's also an interesting article about Murali by the late Peter Roebuck...

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/467143.html

Arguably Murali was not quite as dangerous with the doosra at his disposal. Different fields had to be set and a straighter line had to be bowled so that it did not stand out or lose the element of surprise. He was forced to aim more at the stumps and his offbreak was easier to tuck away to leg. In time he began to rely too much on the doosra for wickets, and eventually batsmen began to pick it. Perhaps he had little choice. By then the fingers had lost a little of their snap and the wrist could not perform its gyrations quite as well.

Sorry, but IMO, there is only one truly great spinner and it's not Murali.

Sorry, but IMO, Murali has the most wickets and Shane doesn't. And Murali is a better sportsmen, he doesn't have a go at anyone and everyone still has a bit more respect for him than Warne.

Just check the stats  ;)

Murali isnt the best. Stats dont lie and if Australia played Bangladesh and Zimbabwe as much as SL did while Warne was playing, he would have decimated Muralis record.

agreed, also Warne just had a thing about him that you would always feel that he could get anybody out at any time, no matter how well they were batting or how flat the pitch was, whereas Murali didn't.

also Warne was a 20x better fielder and batsmen :P

[Voldemort]

Warne played for one of the greatest teams of all time. SL relied on Murali and Murali alone to do the job. If Warne was having a day off, GMac would do the job. The batting unit made the 400-500 runs and the bowlers finished it off. It's an age of argument which could go on forever

[Nails]

Warne played on seam dominated wickets and still destroyed

Murali bowled on dust tops that are perfect for him.

The fact Warne could get anywhere near Murali's stats show he is far better.