Cricinfo names All-Time World XI

After months of lead-up, Cricinfo has finally named its All-Time World XI. Link here.

It is:

1. Jack HOBBS
2. Len HUTTON
3. Don BRADMAN
4. Sachin TENDULKAR
5. Viv RICHARDS
6. Garry SOBERS
7. Adam GILCHRIST
8. Malcolm MARSHALL
9. Shane Warne
10. Wasim AKRAM
11. Dennis LILLEE

They also named a Second XI:
Sunil Gavaskar, Barry Richards, George Headley, Brian Lara, Wally Hammond, Imran Khan, Alan Knott, Bill O'Reilly, Fred Trueman, Muttiah Muralitharan, Syd Barnes.

For me, the most glaring omission from the First XI is Sydney Barnes. If we are to put any stock in people's opinions from years gone by then Barnes should be as automatic a selection as Bradman.

We did this on the old ABC forum. From memory it's pretty close. Though I think we had a proper wicket-keeper (Knott I think) and Imran was the all-rounder.

The shock for me is that Hadlee didn't make either XI. Most people have him on a par with Lillee. Perhaps it's because he played for an unfashionable side that he didn't get picked.

Wasim was a great bowler but i think he's only been picked because he was a left armer. And with that top six does the team really need to compromise on keeping ability by picking Gilchrist ahead of superior glovemen such as Knott, Healy, Marsh, or Bari?

both the 1st and 2nd xi teams look about right tho I would have found room for G Pollock in either team

That side has Bradman in it. I know cows who could captain a side with Bradman in it.

But you're right about the keeper. I think we had to pick them on their ability as keepers. And whilst I'd have in my team of the century there are better gloveman.

Tallon

horace wrote:both the 1st and 2nd xi teams look about right tho I would have found room for G Pollock in either team

Pretty good second XI isn't it? I'd have Sunni as an opener in the firsts.

I see the token bannie got a run . . .

horace wrote:Tallon

Well he's a QLDer. Not that that helped Eddie Gilbert.

Godfrey Evans would've been my pick.

Henry wrote:The shock for me is that Hadlee didn't make either XI. Most people have him on a par with Lillee. Perhaps it's because he played for an unfashionable side that he didn't get picked.

Wasim was a great bowler but i think he's only been picked because he was a left armer. And with that top six does the team really need to compromise on keeping ability by picking Gilchrist ahead of superior glovemen such as Knott, Healy, Marsh, or Bari?

Yes. Hadlee and G Pollock are the two men who can feel unlucky about not being in either team.

I'd have chosen Hadlee over Lillee in the First XI, with the New Zealander batting at 7 and Gilchrist moving to number six. Surely the whole point of picking Gilchrist should be to allow for five front-line bowlers? Sobers' bowling should really just be considered a bonus, not an integral part of the attack.

Glad G Mcgrath didn't make either line up

Actually tgm (much as I can't stand the arrogant prick) would probably edge out Lillee now I think about it. He was a bloody metronome.

Henry wrote:
Wasim was a great bowler but i think he's only been picked because he was a left armer. And with that top six does the team really need to compromise on keeping ability by picking Gilchrist ahead of superior glovemen such as Knott, Healy, Marsh, or Bari?

Have to agree with Mudge on this. Gilly isn't needed in this side and it's not as if Knott (for instance) was a dud batsman either.

Also agree that Barnes should be in for Wasim (as much as I admired Wasim). It would also be some recognition that Test cricket's history started over 130 years ago.

Interesting that Cricinfo believe that T > L. I happen to agree.

But for me the greatest problem with the side is Viv Richards. The "hole" in his Test record has been discussed many times here. I can't help but think that he has got in on the basis of his JAMODI exploits and his aura. He probably wasn't even the best batsman of his era (GSC and Miandad have claims to that title). I would have thought that Lara, Hammond, Headley and Pollock have greater claims to the first XI (I would go with Pollock myself).

Have to agree with Mudge on this. Gilly isn't needed in this side and it's not as if Knott (for instance) was a dud batsman either

I don't get this thinking. The side is never going to play so who cares if his batting is needed or not? Same goes with different types of bowlers for balance.

You pick the best player in that posistion end of. If Gilly is a better keeper/batsman than Knotty then he goes in.

As for the second team, I would have Sutcliffe ahead of B Richards. Also, Immy is not a ATG XI no 6 batsman and O'Reilly at 8 is a massively long tail.

Given that Hammond was a more than handy bowler, I would swap Murali for another batsman (noting that G Pollock is in my first XI and that Barnes was generally considered a slow bowler anyway). While not objecting to FST getting a run, I think he is basically interchangeable with a number of equally outstanding fast bowlers like Hadlee, Pidge, Ambrose, Donald etc.