Wisden's best Test XI

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/24640224

A good team ,as expected, but there could be plenty of debate, especially the inclusion of Grace.

dummy_half wrote:Stella
Agree with most of your names, but where's Truman?   

Oh, and surely Boycott's mother with her pinny and stick of rhubarb

Got to get the Yorkshire quota up a bit...

BTW - did you know that Sutcliffe and Hutton were both products of Pudsey St Lawrence cricket club? (I've played there...)

Fiery Fred? Mmmm, maybe a reserve squad?

That's quite a claim for fame for Pudsey.................having you and them two play for them  

Different kinds of wickets in different eras impacts all this though doesn't it? From the 90's the wickets were tailored for batting.

Anyhow, an old timer who saw them all, Hammond, Bradman, the lot, told me that IVA was the best. I concur.

Stats can be very misleading. Yes Steyne has a great strike rate, but how many of those are from skittling tailenders with a reverse swing ball?

Marshall regularly eviscerated the top order.

Raul Dravid the best batsman of the modern era for my money. The wall.

Imran the best all rounder I've seen.

Sangakkara has a monster average for a wicket keeper; never saw Sri Lanka, but some of their batsmen must be worth a shout.

My XI

Gavaskar
Dravid
IVA Richards
Ponting
Lara
Sangakkara
Khan
Warne
Marshall
Akram
Holding

4 quicks and a spinner. Should do the job.

Never saw Graeme Pollock, but he matched IVA in the Packer years, and is very highly regarded.

Sangakkara away from the sub con isn't quite as good but yes, averages about 70 without the gloves.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV_UULLBK4g&rl=yes&hl=en&guid=&gl=ZA&client=mv-google

www.youtube.com/watch?v=p090nMg5svQ&hl=en&gl=ZA&guid=&client=mv-google

www.youtube.com/watch?v=29MRZsdphso&hl=en&guid=&gl=ZA&client=mv-google

www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCgT7J8c3Qs&client=mv-google&guid=&gl=ZA&hl=en

Just because you say something doesn't make it so... Besides logic dictates all great bowlers get a crack at tailenders, where are their strike rates?

Of course. I just can't get De Villiers smashing Steyne for 28 in an over out of my mind.

But sure Steyne is clearly a great bowler. There are shouts for all sorts of people. McGrath was awesome. Ambrose, Garner, Croft, Lille, Hadlee and on and on.

Truthfully, if you want the best bowlers, ask the batsmen.

Richards said the only bowler he was twitchy about was I think Franklyn Stevenson, who for some reason never curried enough favour with the W.Indies selection panel.

Incidentally, for those who wonder why Richards was so good. For one thing he never wore a helmet. He also had cataracts, and decided not to get them operated on in case the result was terminal to his career.

I'm sure Richards could take anyone to the cleaners on an Asian pitch, in a format where runs at a premium, with only one bouncer for the over

True. You obviously rate Steyn as the best of the best? His strike rate certainly shows that.

And of course one crazy over doesn't really say very much.

marcus111 wrote:

Incidentally, for those who wonder why Richards was so good. For one thing he never wore a helmet. He also had cataracts, and decided not to get them operated on in case the result was terminal to his career.

Marcus - I saw quite a bit of Viv Richards and don't doubt his greatness for a moment. I didn't know though about him having cataracts. Oddly enough, I've commented before about Richards' eyes - being struck by the glowing determination which seemed to emanate from them at the crease and in later years when interviewed (as in 'Fire in Babylon').

That's my understanding. About midway through his career it started to become a problem.

Marcus - I do rate Steyn very highly. Best South African bowler post 're-admission, which means a lot if you see our fast bowlers stats post 're-admission (four guys with 300+ wickets). But, Best of the best? No, at least not now. I can't comment on bowlers before TV... but Marshall and McGrath are the best I've seen

Sadly we'll never know how good Proctor Pollock and Richards were, because politics got in the way

The sadder thing is that we'll never know if they were the most talented in South Africa to begin with.

True. But if the international community had really been serious about dealing with SA, they would have done something other than hanging a few sportsmen out to dry

With the despicable regime only willing to play against England, Australia and New Zealand, letting South Africa continue was never a viable option for the cricket community, and if anything, the international community acted a bit late. Its the misfortune of some of these sports persons, but there is a much larger section of the sport community in the country who were denied and no one other than the despicable regime could be blamed.
And, players like Procter and Richard may have been outstanding tallents, but they are not proven international performers, and there is no getting around this.

But if international sport was banned on the basis of human rights abuses, there would be very little sport. The Western powers had a very cosy relationship with SA that they were unwilling to disrupt. Ultimately it took sports to unsettle the status quo, but only because there was no real political will from the West to do things correctly.

very true msp. Windies joined ICC in 1928. SA couldn't play one non white country in 42 years. I can't imagine banning everything except sports changing that. indeed, the apartheid I
government was "sports crazy" to such a degree that those in the know in those days half jokingly say the governments curiosity as to how out forwards would scrum vs New Zealand was a bigger incentive to end apartheid than trivialities like human rights.

lol. Most governing is done by economic sanction Raf. It has always been so. The West never ceased their profitable business in SA, whatever sporting sanctions were imposed. They spoke out of both sides of their mouths, as always.

The horrers of apartheid cannot be reduced into a simple notion of human rights abuses. But yes, considerable sections of the western world were quite ambivalent in responding to the horrers in South Africa and the same was reflected in the cricket community also. Thanks to sensible and sensitive voices like that of John Arlott though......

Well, if you are talking in terms of international Law, Human Rights is quite a central notion. The fact that black people had no proper representation was a pretty critical issue

msp83 wrote:

And, players like Procter and Richard may have been outstanding tallents, but they are not proven international performers, and there is no getting around this.

Not necessarily. It depends upon how and where you set the burden of proof.

Been a bit slow off the mark to spot this thread.  But have now spotted the references to Barrington.  Bit of a dilemma here. I would accept that Barrington could be a bit short on the issue of dominating an attack and hence may not be one of the more obvious candidates for this team.  I suppose it depends on whether the more flamboyant characters might occasionally fail in which Ken Barrington would be the ideal batsman to bail out the team.  Probably wouldnt happen all that often....

I am thinking Headley or Hammond would be good candidates.  I do fear tho that if Hammond was selected aspects of his private life and relationship to other players might attract considerable and unwelcome media attention!

guildfordbat wrote:

msp83 wrote:

And, players like Procter and Richard may have been outstanding tallents, but they are not proven international performers, and there is no getting around this.

Not necessarily. It depends upon how and where you set the burden of proof.

You have to prove yourself against the best teams of your era and in different conditions. Richards or procter are not proven against the Indian spinners of his era, the best of the lot at that time, in spinning conditions, and they were not proven against the West Indies a top side throughout their active professional playing career, and the best team from the mid 70s. They are not proven against Pakistan who emerged as a top class bowling unit in the late 70s and 80s.
Vinod Kambli was a child protégé like Sachin Tendulkar, he cracked back to back double tons in test cricket, averaged close to 60 in a long first class career, and even has a test average of 54 that is better than that of Tendulkar.
Perhaps he should also be considered?

msp83 wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

msp83 wrote:

And, players like Procter and Richard may have been outstanding tallents, but they are not proven international performers, and there is no getting around this.

Not necessarily. It depends upon how and where you set the burden of proof.

You have to prove yourself against the best teams of your era and in different conditions. Richards or procter are not proven against the Indian spinners of his era, the best of the lot at that time, in spinning conditions, and they were not proven against the West Indies a top side throughout their active professional playing career, and the best team from the mid 70s. They are not proven against Pakistan who emerged as a top class bowling unit in the late 70s and 80s.
Vinod Kambli was a child protégé like Sachin Tendulkar, he cracked back to back double tons in test cricket, averaged close to 60 in a long first class career, and even has a test average of 54 that is better than that of Tendulkar.
Perhaps he should also be considered?

Msp - your opening sentence in your latest post is entirely understandable and reasonable but I take a different stance in exceptional circumstances, particularly where I saw the player. That may appear unreasonable but it is my choice and so my burden of proof. Richards and Procter were sufficiently proven to me.

Similar debates - particularly in respect of Richards - were comprehensively held on the Hall of Fame thread.

I never saw Kambli play. I also don't know much about him. That doesn't count against him but it does mean a case would need to be made to justify him to me as a proven international performer. I am happy to consider such a case if you want to make it although don't think that that was the point you were trying to make.

Isn't the HOF and the best 'test' XI two different things though guidlford?

Stella wrote:Isn't the HOF and the best 'test' XI two different things though guidlford?

Very much two different things, Stella, but the arguments on Richards and Procter are similar and I don't have the energy to go through them again.

If I wrote a thesis on why cricketers greatness shouldn't be overly (almost completely in Richards case) influenced by FC stats, it would be three words long.

See: Graeme Hick.

As an aside - MSP, why didn't Khambli get more chances in the Indian national team? Stats give him a Test average above 50 and a FC nearly 60.

Aah, the next Bradman. To be fair, he looked like a nervous wreck as soon as Curtly got hold of him.

Stella wrote:Aah, the next Bradman. To be fair, he looked like a nervous wreck as soon as Curtly got hold of him.

Wouldn't you?

dummy_half wrote:

Stella wrote:Aah, the next Bradman. To be fair, he looked like a nervous wreck as soon as Curtly got hold of him.

Wouldn't you?

Oh yes!

kingraf wrote:As an aside - MSP, why didn't Khambli get more chances in the Indian national team? Stats give him a Test average above 50 and a FC nearly 60.

Despite an absolutely brilliant start to his test career where he cracked 2 double and 2 single tons in his first 7 tests, Kambli then struggled to maintain
consistent good form, and when the West Indies toured India in 1994-5, he had an absolutely terrible series that resulted in him getting dropped.
He continued to perform well in first class cricket, but he got into lots of disciplinary issues that made the team management reluctant to pick him in
the test side and the feeling remained that Kambli's problems with short pitched bowling could hamper him in the longer formats . Then in 1996, Rahul Dravid,Sourav Ganguly and VVS Laxman emerged, and with Sachin and Azharuddin already in the middle order, Kambli didn't get an opening. And even though he played more than
30 ODIs between 1996 and 2000, he couldn't make a good case for retaining him in there let alone a test recall.
Kambli's story is the story of a massive loss to Indian cricket. He even had a greater range of shots and more style than even what Sachin had at the
early stage of his career, perhaps the team management could have given him a longer rope which they'd have done in all likelihood had his disciplinary
issues not cropped up regularly. Perhaps the kind of support systems that we have for contemporary cricketers been there during his formative days, Kambli's
case could have been different, but........

guildfordbat wrote:

msp83 wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

msp83 wrote:

And, players like Procter and Richard may have been outstanding tallents, but they are not proven international performers, and there is no getting around this.

Not necessarily. It depends upon how and where you set the burden of proof.

You have to prove yourself against the best teams of your era and in different conditions. Richards or procter are not proven against the Indian spinners of his era, the best of the lot at that time, in spinning conditions, and they were not proven against the West Indies a top side throughout their active professional playing career, and the best team from the mid 70s. They are not proven against Pakistan who emerged as a top class bowling unit in the late 70s and 80s.
Vinod Kambli was a child protégé like Sachin Tendulkar, he cracked back to back double tons in test cricket, averaged close to 60 in a long first class career, and even has a test average of 54 that is better than that of Tendulkar.
Perhaps he should also be considered?

Msp - your opening sentence in your latest post is entirely understandable and reasonable but I take a different stance in exceptional circumstances, particularly where I saw the player. That may appear unreasonable but it is my choice and so my burden of proof. Richards and Procter were sufficiently proven to me.

Similar debates - particularly in respect of Richards - were comprehensively held on the Hall of Fame thread.

I never saw Kambli play. I also don't know much about him. That doesn't count against him but it does mean a case would need to be made to justify him to me as a proven international performer. I am happy to consider such a case if you want to make it although don't think that that was the point you were trying to make.

In this case, I think we have to be in opposite camps, Guildford. I don't think a case can be made for Kambli as a great of the game despite being very very highly rated in his formative years, despite a very fine first class record over a 15 year career, despite an outstanding start to test cricket, despite him establishing a hold over Shane Warne even before Tendulkar's 1998 exploits, despite a test average of 54 and a First Class average of 60.
Kambli certainly did deserve another chance in test cricket that never came, so his career ended with 17 tests despite all the promise. He couldn't quite prove himself as a top class international cricketr.
I empathize with the lost generation of South African cricketers, but that's all I can do, as you said, the argument that they should be considered on the basis of our expectations of what might have been and what would have been rather that what actually did at the highest level appears to me as a rather unreasonable argument.

Like the unknown bits of the lost generation those who never even got a proper chance to play first class cricket in South Africa due to the obnoxious regime, those who got a chance at the first class level without quite being able to express themselves at the highest level, are also unfortunate victims of apartheid, but I don't think we can have special dispensation for the latter alone.

I've no doubt Clive Rice would have made a great test allrounder like Imran, Botham, and Dev.

Msp - I entirely agree with you about ''the obnoxious regime'' of apartheid and trust that has particularly been shown by my championing of D'Oliveira and Arlott on the HoF thread together with related comments.

Clearly and shamefully many ''never even got a proper chance to play first class cricket in South Africa'' due to that regime, as you say.

That said, my support of Richards and Procter is not essentially because they were ''victims of apartheid'' (and I agree with you that they were lesser victims than others) but because of my own certainty as to the cricketing ability I saw them display. I do not expect or even ask you and others to judge these cricketers on how they came across to me. However, I feel it is for me to determine the burden of proof when making my own judgment and that you should allow me that.

Of many famous cricketers down the ages, various questions can be asked as to whether they proved themselves. Did he play enough Tests? Did he play for long enough? Did he demonstrate enough consistency home and abroad? Was his average good enough? The correct but unsatisfactory answer to all these questions is, ''It depends''. Accordingly, a subjective element comes in. Very much influenced by what I saw, both Richards and Procter did enough for me.

Btw, I think you misunderstood my comment about Kambli. There is no disagreement from me about your assessment of him. I was simply trying to make the point that if someone put up a case for him, I would certainly be prepared to consider it (as I would for anyone). However, as I never (or hardly ever) saw Kambli play, I would begin that consideration needing a lot of evidence to support the case. That's a different starting point than I had for Richards and Procter but not, in my view, unfair; different circumstances, different approach - it all depends.

Finally, I note that kingraf throws the name of Graeme Hick into the mix to tarnish or, at least, waterdown the legacy of Richards. I believe there are valid cricket and character reasons why the two do not belong together. However, it is again most of all subjective.

When I first saw Hick, I had high hopes for him and readily acknowledge that. However, with Richards, it was far, far more than hopes.

I'll leave it at that.

It's quite clear when you watch Hick and Richards bat that there's a gulf in class between them. Even when you watch Hick make runs at County level his definciancies are there, it's just that the bowlers aren't good enough. With Richards you have no such problems (also bowlers in County Cricket were generally of a higher standard back then)

Richards did excel in world series cricket didn't he? That was apparently of a very high, and very competitive standard. Still not test cricket though  

Whilst understanding msp's reasoning behind his Proctor and Richards comments, it remains unquestioned, presumably, that they both excelled over an extended period of time-at-the-top in every form of cricket they played.

As an aside Richards was arguably the best slip fielder of his day, whilst Proctor was a massive leadership influence on every team he played in.

guildfordbat wrote:Msp - I entirely agree with you about ''the obnoxious regime'' of apartheid and trust that has particularly been shown by my championing of D'Oliveira and Arlott on the HoF thread together with related comments.

Clearly and shamefully many ''never even got a proper chance to play first class cricket in South Africa'' due to that regime, as you say.

That said, my support of Richards and Procter is not essentially because they were ''victims of apartheid'' (and I agree with you that they were lesser victims than others) but because of my own certainty as to the cricketing ability I saw them display. I do not expect or even ask you and others to judge these cricketers on how they came across to me. However, I feel it is for me to determine the burden of proof when making my own judgment and that you should allow me that.

Of many famous cricketers down the ages, various questions can be asked as to whether they proved themselves. Did he play enough Tests? Did he play for long enough? Did he demonstrate enough consistency home and abroad? Was his average good enough? The correct but unsatisfactory answer to all these questions is, ''It depends''. Accordingly, a subjective element comes in. Very much influenced by what I saw, both Richards and Procter did enough for me.

Btw, I think you misunderstood my comment about Kambli. There is no disagreement from me about your assessment of him. I was simply trying to make the point that if someone put up a case for him, I would certainly be prepared to consider it (as I would for anyone). However, as I never (or hardly ever) saw Kambli play, I would begin that consideration needing a lot of evidence to support the case. That's a different starting point than I had for Richards and Procter but not, in my view, unfair; different circumstances, different approach - it all depends.

Finally, I note that kingraf throws the name of Graeme Hick into the mix to tarnish or, at least, waterdown the legacy of Richards. I believe there are valid cricket and character reasons why the two do not belong together. However, it is again most of all subjective.

When I first saw Hick, I had high hopes for him and readily acknowledge that. However, with Richards, it was far, far more than hopes.

I'll leave it at that.

Guildford
You certainly determine your base point regarding the burden of proof and I wouldn't even think of not letting you do that. However as we are involved in a rational debate, I think it is only fair on my part to question those foundations through reasonable arguments. That is the basic rule of a deliberative engagement in my view. There is a difference between the reasonable and the rational, the former is relative and the latter is absolute. If we had the course to the latter, there would be no need for a debate. There of course is a subjective element in all the debates, though the subjective itself is partly context determined and the subjective also has to be opened to a reasonable discussion so that we can try and see whether there is a chance to arrive at a reasonable intersubjective agreement.
And I don't think I misunderstood your initial Kambli comments, I was trying to reinforce my original point.

Are we warming up for the HoF thread?  

Both points of view have merit.

Test cricket is of course littered with examples of people who had astonishingly hot streaks before turning out to be very good (Hussey, but no one is putting him in their best test XI of all time are they), simply good (Vaughan) or even not that good at all (too many to mention). To take an even more recent example, someone like Faf du Plessis.

msp's point is that it is unfair to put Richards on a pedestal when he may have turned out to be one of any of those categories and he has a good point. There are a couple of arguments against it though:
1) those who saw Richards play unanimously agree that he was something special. On the whole one can argue against this though: such views are surely tinged with nostalgia (and regret that he unfairly never got the chance to prove himself), and there are numerous examples of people stating confidently that the likes of the aforementioned Hussey and Vaughan were on the way to becoming all-time greats; had their careers been unfairly cut short whilst at their peak they may well be being spoken of in similar terms.
2) well ok, but you see, I've seen footage of Richards play, and frankly and without any exaggeration I rate him higher than any other batsman I've seen reasonable footage of (this excludes Bradman and other pre-war players, but TBH not that many others; it certainly includes Hussey and Vaughan at their peaks, and of course Hick...). This is completely subjective, and possibly irrational, but the fact remains. There is no real argument for this, and no real argument against it; it is simply an opinion formed by watching (quite a lot of) cricket.

So on the one hand, logic dictates one can't really judge Richards's career at test level fairly, and it's probably wrong to pick him for an all-time test XI ahead of Hutton, Suttcliffe, Gavaskar, etc.
On the other hand though, ask me to name any best XI based on purely my opinion (and allow me Bradman and Barnes for statistical anomaly) and he makes every one.

I should say that Proctor, whilst a fantastic bowler, wouldn't make such an XI. I have a few seamers ahead of him: Akram, Holding, Marshall, possibly McGrath and Ambrose, quite possibly a few others around the same. Plus Barnes of course.

Mike:
Saw Richards a few times live and dozens of times on TV. His genius, whether batting or fielding, was that he saw the ball earlier than anyone I've seen before or since, plus of course the techinique to do something with it. Would say that Federer at his peak saw the ball, out of server's hand, off opponent's racket, as early as Richards. Just for comparison.
I mentioned on a Fred Couples thread on the 606 golf board that the only sportsman I've ever seen who makes their art more effortless than Couples was Richards.
Agree that he shouldn't make any all-time Test cricketers XI, not for lack of skill, but for lack of opportunity - not his fault but tough luck.

Don't think too many would advocate Proctor at the top of the fast bowler charts, but as an all-rounder (leadership included) he was the best of his era, after Sobers (and obviously Miller), before Botham, and possibly better than Botham who apparently doesn't get much love on here.

It's great to say Richards was the greatest player you have ever seen live (it's an assertion I have absolutely no reason to doubt, by the way), and there is every chance he would have gone on to separate himself from the pack. However, the reality is we don't know what could have happened. Given the high opinion so many have of Barry, I was expecting a much better FC record, the reality I was faced with is one quite similar to Hick's. Averages 2 runs more, but hardly the chasm which the ridiculing of my "thesis" seemed to suggest. An average of 54 is of course very good, but it hardly promotes the idea of World XI candidate (considering Kambli averages 60 in FC). His record also doesn't include subcontinent trips, had Ponting managed to stay away from the place, he could have been the Best Since Bradman.

Of course none of this should stop anyone from having Richards in their personal XI. It's your opinion, and there is no definitive way of proving it wrong.

What does surprise me, however is how little Ponting's cause has been championed. Given the fact that he was your Overlord for the best part of a decade, I thought he would be better received.

Regardless, my XI would probably be:
Hayden
Greenridge
Bradman
Pollock
Lara
Kallis
Gilchrist
Akram
Steyn
Murali
McGrath

This is my favorite XI, not the best one, and I'm quite happy with the lads.

kingraf wrote:
...
What does surprise me, however is how little Ponting's cause has been championed. Given the fact that he was your Overlord for the best part of a decade, I thought he would be better received.

Regardless, my XI would probably be:
Hayden
Greenridge
Bradman
Pollock
Lara
Kallis
Gilchrist
Akram
Steyn
Murali
McGrath

This is my favorite XI, not the best one, and I'm quite happy with the lads.

Kingraf - I'm a very considerable supporter of Ponting and would have no major concerns about seeing him named in a World XI. The reason he wasn't in mine (and I suspect this applies to others) is two-fold. Firstly, every sensible poster has to pick Bradman at number 3, thus excluding Ponting there. Secondly, the immensely high quality of the other candidates to bat at 4 and 5 - (Viv) Richards, Tendulkar, Lara and Pollock immediately come to mind with stalwarts like Headley and Barrington also in reserve.

Glad to see you giving a place to Gordon Greenidge in your XI. Loses out to (Barry) Richards in my book but still a magnificent batsman and one who now generally doesn't get enough credit. More than worthy of a shout. Only fair to flag that when Hants won the County Championship in '75 (I think it was), Greenidge outscored his opening partner Richards. Also named by Richie Benaud in 2004 as one of the six greatest openers of all time.

kingraf

There's a simple reason Ponting hasn't been more strongly advocatd - for much of his career he was only the third best middle order batsman of his time, never mind ever - Tendulkar's overall record is even stronger, while Lara was the most extraordinary talent. His bad fortune to come through at the same time as two absolute legends. Still not bad if you can be mentioned in the same breath as the other two without it sounding silly.

As Guildford then states, no-one would seriously pick Ponting ahead of Bradman (probably including Ricky himself), with Sobers being an equal certainty at 6 as the batting all rounder. Leaves you perming two from Tendulkar, Lara, Richards, Pollock, Hutton perhaps a couple of others before you get to Ponting

Ponting didn't even make cricinfo's all time Australian team. I think G Chappell, and Border were ahead of him, plus Bradman of course. Miller was at six.

Stella - I'm not suggesting he deserves a spot (although some of the names ahead of him in the Australia ATG list can consider themselves fortunate), what Im saying is, given how well he did in the Ashes, I'd have thought Posters here would be more likely to take up his cause.

kingraf wrote:Stella - I'm not suggesting he deserves a spot (although some of the names ahead of him in the Australia ATG list can consider themselves fortunate), what Im saying is, given how well he did in the Ashes, I'd have thought Posters here would be more likely to take up his cause.

Yeah, see your point, was just pointing out he wasn't in that team. Richard Hadlee is a player who's name hasn't come up too often, but should have for me, as he was a real great fast bowler, and handy number 8, a bit like Akram.

Tests

Hutton
Gavaskar
Bradman
Tendulkar
Viv
Sobers
Knott (wk)
Hadlee/Steyn/Mcgrath(at 11)
Wasim
Warne
Marshall

Hutton or Bradman as captain.

ODI

Tendulkar
M Waugh
Viv
Ponting
M Hussey
Dhoni (c-wk)
Klusener
Wasim
Saqlain
Garner
Mcgrath