Who would win a test match out of the greatest aussie test side and a world XI

Who would a win test match out of the greatest aussie test side and a world XI
Aussies:

Lawry
Hayden
Bradman
Ponting
G.Chappell
Waugh (c)
Gilchirst (wk)
Warne
Lee
Lillee
McGrath

World XI

Gordon Greenidge
Desmond Haynes
Jacques Kallis
Andy Flower (wk)
Wally Hammond (c)
Sachin Tendulkar
Imran Khan
Dale Steyn
Wasim Akram
Anil Kumble
James Anderson

Damien Martyn ahead of Punter to name one?

my bad i was editing and i took out the wrong player

Is the world XI a 'greatest XI' or just some great players you have picked?

CF wrote:its not a greatest XI but its a side who would pose a very strong challenge..

Cheers.

Both teams look pretty even. A draw

Lillee bowls the Aussies into an apparently unbeatable position. Then, egged on by his mate Marsh, he places a bet at astronomical odds on the World XI and the whole game changes ....

Couple of comments on the sides - surprising that Lee is included in the team of the greatest Aussies. If we are talking about Brett Lee - he is a fair enough fast bowler but I would have thought there might well be a dozen other candidates for a fast bowling slot in the team.

Also rather surprising that Hammond is captaining the World XI side. OK he did captain England but I would have thought that if one was just looking at the players named then Imran could have been stronger candidate for captain.

Oooh good match-up.

The world XI have 5 bowlers and Kallis (and Hammond of course), but their spinner isn't in the class of Warne (well, who else in the history of the game has been?) and I suspect an on-song McGrath and Lilee outbowl all their counterparts except for maybe Wasim (who was a wizzard with the ball).

The Aussies of course have Bradman, who would probably score a century (handy man to have in your line up) or 99 on average at least...

The middle-order is fairly even, as are the openers I think. Gillchrist is a better batsman than Imran Khan, but he's no mug at 7 either.

I suspect in a high scoring game the greater variety of the World XI's attack would probably see them through. On a low scoring pitch, I fancy the Australians (S. Waugh was a brilliant batsman in tough conditions and I think their bowling has a bit more quality).

That's not even a 'greatest Australian XI' but then again I wouldn't have Anderson anywhere near an All Time World XI.
Australia would win that one more than likely.

This would have to be one of the hardest things to make. In the Aussies side there is no room in the side for David Boon, Jeff Thompson or even Allen Border. Some of my favourite Aussie cricketers.

In the world side there is no room for Curtley Ambrose, Sir Richard Hadlee or Brian Lara.

But on the teams you have provided, swap Jimmy Anderson for Curltley Ambrose and you may have a better game of it

That would certainly strike more fear into the eyes of our batsmen.

I still remember the incident he had with Steve Waugh back in the day breaker, Curtley was certainly a scary man. Steve Waugh was so honest when he said that although he was holding his ground, his bladder was weak

This isn't a greatest world XI.

If so, Jimmy wouldn't be much nearer to it than me

Mike Selig wrote:Oooh good match-up.

The world XI have 5 bowlers and Kallis (and Hammond of course), but their spinner isn't in the class of Warne (well, who else in the history of the game has been?) and I suspect an on-song McGrath and Lilee outbowl all their counterparts except for maybe Wasim (who was a wizzard with the ball).

The Aussies of course have Bradman, who would probably score a century (handy man to have in your line up) or 99 on average at least...

The middle-order is fairly even, as are the openers I think. Gillchrist is a better batsman than Imran Khan, but he's no mug at 7 either.

I suspect in a high scoring game the greater variety of the World XI's attack would probably see them through. On a low scoring pitch, I fancy the Australians (S. Waugh was a brilliant batsman in tough conditions and I think their bowling has a bit more quality).

What a outragous statement.

Bowlers aren't only judged by their averages.

Warne had the luck to bowl behind McGrath and Gillespie etc.

Kumble played in a side with mediocre seam bowlers.

So most sides tried to just play out Kumble without trying to take him on.

When you are facing Warne, you try and get after him as its tough to score of Australia's Seamers.

Kumble had to do all the donkey work for his country and take most of the wickets.

There's not much difference in 'class' between Warne and Kumble.

But if an more 'classy' spinner was needed, go for Murali. The best of them all.

Linebreaker wrote:That's not even a 'greatest Australian XI' but then again I wouldn't have Anderson anywhere near an All Time World XI.
Australia would win that one more than likely.

its not a all time world XI....its just a side i threw together...

Gerry SA wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:Oooh good match-up.

The world XI have 5 bowlers and Kallis (and Hammond of course), but their spinner isn't in the class of Warne (well, who else in the history of the game has been?) and I suspect an on-song McGrath and Lilee outbowl all their counterparts except for maybe Wasim (who was a wizzard with the ball).

The Aussies of course have Bradman, who would probably score a century (handy man to have in your line up) or 99 on average at least...

The middle-order is fairly even, as are the openers I think. Gillchrist is a better batsman than Imran Khan, but he's no mug at 7 either.

I suspect in a high scoring game the greater variety of the World XI's attack would probably see them through. On a low scoring pitch, I fancy the Australians (S. Waugh was a brilliant batsman in tough conditions and I think their bowling has a bit more quality).

What a outragous statement.

Bowlers aren't only judged by their averages.

Warne had the luck to bowl behind McGrath and Gillespie etc.

Kumble played in a side with mediocre seam bowlers.

So most sides tried to just play out Kumble without trying to take him on.

When you are facing Warne, you try and get after him as its tough to score of Australia's Seamers.

Kumble had to do all the donkey work for his country and take most of the wickets.

There's not much difference in 'class' between Warne and Kumble.

But if an more 'classy' spinner was needed, go for Murali. The best of them all.

I couldn't disagree more strongly. I'm not basing myself on stats (if I were, then Murali is clearly ahead of Warne - even if you disregard their records against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh), I'm basing myself on what I've seen. In particular I haven't seen any player single-handedly and by almost sheer force of personality turn a game around as often or as effectively as Shane Warne. Take for example the Adelaide test in 2006 - the only reason anyone thought the game could be anything other than a draw going into the final day was because Warne was turning the ball square - that's the kind of effect he had.

The statement I have highlighted in bold isn't borne out by facts - Warne's economy rate (2.65) was marginally better than Kumble's (2.69) suggesting that he could contain as well as Kumble.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I think the vast majority of cricket fans would disagree. I certainly do. Kumble was a very good bowler, and at times a great one on subcontinental conditions. Warne was in a different league though.