So Cricinfo put out its all time greatest test XI. I agree with most of the pics with some reservations. So here it is Jack Hobbs, WG Grace, Donald Bradman, Sachin Tendulkar, Viv Richards, Sir Garfield Sobers, Alan Knott, Wasim Akram, Shane Warne, Malcolm Marshall and Sydney Francis Barnes. For the no brainers, Jack Hobbs played for 29 years, scored 61,000 first class runs, 1999 first class centuries and averaged 57 in test cricket playing in the days of uncovered pitches, and if youve seen Slumdog Millionaire youd know that 1999 centuries is the all time record, a record its safe to say will never be approached. Bradman: nuff said. Sobers, could open the bowling off a long run, bowl fast off cutters as a change bowler, and spin you out on a wearing wicket, and avaerged 57 with the bat, he also held the world record for highest test match score for over three decades, 365, before Lara broke it in 1994. Malcolm Marshall was statistically the best of the West Indian pace battery between 1975 and 1996. SF Barnes took 189 wickets in 27 tests at an average of under 20. He is statistically the greatest bowler in the history of the game and should have been the second guy picked after Bradman. So next we have guys that may be contested, but I think are fair picks: that would be Sachin and Knott. Tendulkar was simply the finest batsman of his generation, and such is his longevity, he may have been the best batsman of the past two generations. A particularly prolific Australian or Englishman picked at a young age may some day break his record for test matches played and runs scored, but they wont be averaging 53+ in getting there. And Sachin was great in all conditions, against all countries, setting him apart from Lara. And while like Ponting, Sachin declined later in his career, it was to nowhere near the extent. While Sachins decline hurt his stats slightly, in Pontings case it removed him from the conversation. Alan Knott. Well, on the face of it Adam Gilchrist or Andy Flower should have gotten this spot, but Knott was a way better keeper than either, on top of being a gritty and determined batsman. I personally would take a great technical keeper with an average of 35 over an average one with a batting average of around 50, as I think the better keeper is worth 20 extra runs minimum per innings. now for the ones I really question: Grace- yeah I can see why hes included, he was the fist big superstar of the game, and one of the main reasons test cricket took off in the late 20th century, but his stats arent that startling. Two other Englishman Hutton and Sutcliffe surely had strong cases too? Vic Richards- probably the greatest batsman of his generation (it was either him or Pakistans Javed Miandad) but I think in this one they needed to go back further and recognize the first great West Indian cricketer, the Black Bradman George Headley. Had Headley not come back after World War 2, he would have averaged in the mid 60s, second only to Bradman, which is also where I rate him as a batsman. Shane Warne: heres a question for you, who is the only sportsman to be embroiled in match fixing, be banned as a drug cheat and constantly undermine his captain and not only still get picked but come out of it with the entire world sharing his ridiculously inflated opinion of himself? Answer: why Shane Warne of course! Now Warne was a great bowler and had a huge impact on the game, but you can make a good statistical argument he wasnt even the best spin bowler of his generation. And Grimmett and OReillys stats make Warne blush. So at least 3 guys with a better statistical argument on top of the fact that Warney disgraced the game in almost every way imaginable, and I just can not go with Warne here. Ill take OReilly thanks.
Posted on: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 21:13:41 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015