Wisden's All Time XI

WISDEN WORLD XI:
1. Jack Hobbs (England, Wisden Cricketer of the Year 1909) 61 Tests, 5,410 runs at 56.94
2. W. G. Grace (England, CY 1896) 22 Tests, 1,098 runs at 32.29
3. Don Bradman (Australia, CY 1931, capt) 52 Tests, 6,996 runs at 99.94)
4. Sachin Tendulkar (India, CY 1997) 198 Tests, 15,837 runs at 53.86
5. Vivian Richards (West Indies, CY 1977) 121 Tests, 8,540 runs at 50.23
6. Garry Sobers (West Indies, CY 1964) 93 Tests, 8,032 runs at 57.78, 235 wickets at 34.03
7. Alan Knott (England, CY 1970, wkt) 95 Tests, 4,389 runs at 32.75, 250 catches, 19 stumpings
8. Wasim Akram (Pakistan, CY 1993) 104 Tests, 414 wickets at 23.62
9. Shane Warne (Australia, CY 1994) 145 Tests, 708 wickets at 25.41
10. Malcolm Marshall (West Indies, CY 1983) 81 Tests, 376 wickets at 20.94
11. Sydney Barnes (England, CY 1910) 27 Tests, 189 wickets at 16.43.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/don-bradman-and-shane-warne-named-in-wisdens-alltime-xi-20131024-2w2fp.html#ixzz2iaaWZAdJ

Saw the thread title and wondered how the hell Stacky, Warwick Armstrong or Mark 'Meatloaf' Cosgrove missed out....

Fred Nerk wrote:Saw the thread title and wondered how the hell Stacky, Warwick Armstrong or Mark 'Meatloaf' Cosgrove missed out....

Thanks. Now fixed.

rofl at 4 poms being included...but at least none were imported from the colonies

knott's inclusion is a bit of a joke...a tidy keeper at best as is Grace...I would also have taken about ten quicks ahead of barnes who bowled on uncovered pitches

fat jack (esp v Tendy) and g pollock a bit stiff to have missed out

It's just a bit of fun.

clearly

Does this selection follow the usual Wisden ethos of concentrating on performances in England?

It would explain the inclusion of WG to an extent and the omission of the likes of Peter Toohey

Sutcliffe is a bit stiff to miss out. He had a far superior record to the good Doctor. Perhaps WG's bowling (9 wkts @ 26) got him across the line?

Out of all of them, WG played in the shittest conditions. Not that I'm advocating his selection.

Seemed to have wound horrie up, so I'm all for it.

Horrist.

horace wrote:rofl at 4 poms being included...but at least none were imported from the colonies

knott's inclusion is a bit of a joke...a tidy keeper at best as is Grace...I would also have taken about ten quicks ahead of barnes who bowled on uncovered pitches

fat jack (esp v Tendy) and g pollock a bit stiff to have missed out

Can't talk about Tallon, Grout or Evans, but Knott is the best keeper I've seen, only Healy, Taylor and Gilchrist come close.

horace wrote:rofl at 4 poms being included...but at least none were imported from the colonies

knott's inclusion is a bit of a joke...a tidy keeper at best as is Grace...I would also have taken about ten quicks ahead of barnes who bowled on uncovered pitches

fat jack (esp v Tendy) and g pollock a bit stiff to have missed out

Barnes was more of quick(ish) spinner - something you would know if you'd done a modicum of research.

Barnes regarded himself as a fast spinner and, at 90, that he hadn't really seen his like much before or since. Says that he obtained swerve rather than swing, the swerve deriving from the spin he was imparting.

Of course, he would say that, so it's something we'll never know for sure.

Quite some record regardless of the helpful conditions he bowled in.

Did pretty well in Aus on decent wickets against very good batting line-ups, if you were inclined to doubt his calibre.

of course he was a great bowler...no doubt...but hey this is Wisden and I fully expected Underpants to get a gig instead of SKWarne so I am not complaining...I expect the times would mount a convincing case for Barrington instead of Bradman

that said the inclusion of Knott is a complete joke...akin to including Tuffers or Chinhead

Here is the Torygraph's alternative XI:

Alternative World XI:  

1 Sunil Gavaskar (India, 1971-87) 125 Tests, 10,122 runs at 51.12
2 Len Hutton (England, 1937-55) 79 Tests, 6,971 runs at 56.67
3 George Headley (West Indies, 1930-54) 22 Tests, 2,190 runs at 60.83
4 Brian Lara (West Indies, 1990-2006) 131 Tests, 11,953 runs at 52.88
5 Graeme Pollock (South Africa, 1963-70) 23 Tests, 2,256 runs at 60.97
6 Wally Hammond (England, 1927-47) 85 Tests, 7,249 runs at 58.45, 83 wickets at 37.80
7 Adam Gilchrist (Australia, 1999-2008) 96 Tests, 5,570 runs at 47.60, 379 catches, 37 stumpings
8 Imran Khan (Pakistan, 1971-92) 88 Tests, 3,807 runs at 37.69, 362 wickets at 22.81
9 Fred Trueman (England, 1952-65) 67 Tests, 307 wickets at 21.57
10 Dennis Lillee (Australia, 1971-84) 70 Tests, 355 wickets at 23.92
11 Muttiah Muralitharan (Sri Lanka, 1992-2010) 133 Tests, 800 wickets at 22.72

It's a pity PeterG no longer posts here as he would go nuts at the suggestion of Trueman getting the nod over Alan Davidson.

Pretty good team from the Torygraph. I'd prefer B Richards to Sunny mind and Hammond was never really a 6.

And Davo at least adds some variety to the attack (as well as being a far superior batsman and fielder to Fiery).

Here is my alternative XI

1. Baz Richards
2. Eddie Barlow
3. George Headley
4. Everton Weekes
5. Eddie Paynter
6. FS Jackson
7. Alan Davidson
8. Jeffrey Dujon
9. Shane Warne
10. Curtly Ambrose
11. Anderson Roberts

and this picked out of the cauldron of a picking fest.

PeterCS wrote:Here is my alternative XI

1. Baz Richards
2. Eddie Barlow
3. George Headley
4. Everton Weekes
5. Eddie Paynter
6. FS Jackson
7. Alan Davidson
8. Jeffrey Dujon
9. Shane Warne
10. Curtly Ambrose
11. Anderson Roberts

and this picked out of the cauldron of a picking fest.

wtf?

embee wrote:

PeterCS wrote:Here is my alternative XI

1. Baz Richards
2. Eddie Barlow
3. George Headley
4. Everton Weekes
5. Eddie Paynter
6. FS Jackson
7. Alan Davidson
8. Jeffrey Dujon
9. Shane Warne
10. Curtly Ambrose
11. Anderson Roberts

and this picked out of the cauldron of a picking fest.

wtf?

That would be the alternative Warne.

Yes, the debauched one.


I said an Alternative XI, not eleven alternatives. Similarly, for example, Headley was also in the other team.

But I thought it might be a bit obvious a pinch of salt was intended. At the ad lib quality of 'official' prejudices.

I thought it obvious you farqued up

Code:

embee wrote:I thought it obvious you farqued up

snap.

Great is the shruggage.

It's a free world. As long as guns, incendiaries, bombs or poison are not involved, you can think pretty much whatever y'like and get away with it.