Legends October 26, 2010

The best of the best

While it can be argued that picking fantasy XIs are ultimately exercises in futility, they also serve the worthiest of causes
239

I am yet to meet a cricket fan who doesn't fancy himself as a selector. This of course makes the job of professional selectors among the most hazardous in the business. Everyone thinks they could have done a better job than you and, no matter what team you pick, there would be a billion people disagreeing.

But picking all-time XIs is always fun because it allows you to enter the realms of fantasy with nothing material at stake. So we stand accused of having indulged ourselves for over 15 months in picking all-time XIs of each major Test-playing country and then capping it off with a World XI. Judging from your whole-hearted participation, though, it's clear that we haven't been the only ones enjoying ourselves.

However, fun was only part of the deal. While it can be argued that picking fantasy XIs are ultimately exercises in futility, they also serve the worthiest of causes. They give us a reason and opportunity to peek into the past, and regard the present in its context. Cricket is so incessant, so over exposed and, if you live in the subcontinent, so pervasive that it allows little room for contemplation. And the modern game can get so raucous, so frenzied and so over-hyped that it can feel too rarefied for its own good.

The word "great" is bandied around so casually and so carelessly - and never so insincerely as on TV commentary - that it has been stripped of all value. An exercise like picking an all-time team is to force yourself to examine greatness in proper context and restore it to its rightful place.

Picking an all-time XI is never about whom to include but whom to leave out. Selectors regard the problem of plenty as a happy one, but this is a problem of obscene abundance. Picking one player means leaving out at least five others who could have done the job as well. But, as Ian Chappell has said, the best way to examine great players is to judge them by their opposition. We can go on quibbling about the players we would have had in our team, but is there anyone in that XI who didn't earn his place?

Happily, my role was restricted to picking the jury and I can explain that part of the selection. We chose eight Test captains, most of whom started their first-class career in the 1960s; assuming they all started watching cricket at least ten years prior to that, that would have given them a span of almost 60 years. As captains, they were all keen students of game and were closely involved in selecting teams. Additionally, we chose three cricket historians for obvious reasons and one of world's most-travelled cricket writers who has been a captain himself.

Now we can go on quibbling about the players we would or should have had in our team - Where's Imran? Why not Hadlee? No Gavaskar? Gilchrist over Knott? Why not both Murali and Warne? - but to a great degree that's what it is all about: getting involved, digging into memories, caring and feeling for your heroes and celebrating them.

And in keeping with the spirit of things, I have allowed myself the indulgence of picking my own team. I would make two changes. Alan Knott wins my vote for being the better wicketkeeper and because this team might not be so reliant on Gilchrist's batting.

And because I saw him tackle the most fearsome bowling attack of our times with the assuredness none of his contemporaries could manage, and because so much my childhood and youth was spent worshipping his batting, I would have Sunil Gavaskar open the innings. But who would I drop - Hobbs or Hutton? - is a question to contemplate over the next few days.

Sambit Bal is the editor of ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • ahmaduetian on December 20, 2010, 7:33 GMT

    This is the perfect team.

    @ Heramb Gude.........I totally agree with u...

    Just that LARA should have done sth individually in WCs which did not....Lara's individulal performance is very pathetic in tournament finals WCs and of late against pace bowlers....He could only score against spin or slow medium bowlers He would always get lbw as the ball nipped in ...........As far as Sachin is concerned many argue that if AUS scored 360 on a pitch in WC 2003 it must have been a placid pitch and Tendulkar should have chased it down too....but they fail to understand that it is India's pathetic wavererd bowling that make every pitch look placid. That pitch had a lot of movement. but Pathetic Indian bowlers were failing to control too much movement that day, hence they bowled with cross seam.

  • Harsh Thakor on November 13, 2010, 7:52 GMT

    My all time 50 Cricketers of all time in order of merit are Sobers,Bradman,W.G.Grace,Imran Khan, Warne, Hobbs, Tendulkar,Viv Richards,Murlitharan, Marshall,Lara,Lillee, Hammond,Ponting,Gavaskar,Hutton ,Botham,Hadlee,Headley,Akram,Barry Richards,Trumper,Mcgrath,Graeme Pollock,Keith Miller ,Ambrose,Greg Chappell,Kallis,Lindwall,Trueman,Kanhai,Miandad,Weekes,Border,Kapil Dev,Worrel,Arthur Morris,Steve Waugh,Ian Chappell,Andy Roberts,Holding ,Hayden,Garner,Gooch,Greenidge,Walcott,Walsh,Harvey,Cowdrey,and Waqar Younus.

    When the chips were down we had greats like Ian Chappell,Javed Miandad and Allan Border who could bat for their lives.In his era in the 1970's Ian Chappell was the best batsman in a crisis even overshadowing both the Richards,and brother Greg Similary Stev waugh and Javed Miandad would overshadow contemporaries like Viv Richards or Tendulakr in a crisis-great bad wicket stars.

  • Harsh Thakor on November 13, 2010, 7:18 GMT

    West Indian maestro,Rohan Kanhai posessed more prowess and creative genius for batting than any batsman in Cricket .Had he done justice to his ability he may well have been the best batsman of all as at his best his batting entered regions even surpassing Bradman.He came in at one down where he averaged over 53 runs.He was the most consummate of all batsman which his average of 47.53 does not reveal.He was a superior player of fast bowling than Lara or Tendulkar.

    On wet pitches Jack Hobbs and George Headley were the best.Hobbs scored 12 centuries against Australia and scored a majority of his record 197 first-class hundreds on wet pitches.Headley outscored Bradman on wet pitches and was a better batsman on bad wickets.

    Had Barry Richards had a full International career he would have been the greatest ever opening batsman and perhaps even surpassed the likes of Viv Richards,Lara or Tendulkar.No batsman combined such pefect techniqe with such phenomenal destructive ability.

  • Harsh Thakor on November 7, 2010, 7:19 GMT

    My all time 1st team is Hobbs, Gavaskar, Bradman, Lara, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, Hadlee, Marshall, Warne and Akram

    My all time 2nd team is Hutton,Barry Richards,Viv Richards, Hammond,Pollock,Botham, Imran Khan, Knott, Lillee,Murlitharan, Mcgrath.

    Alltime 3rd team-Morris,Sutcliffe,Headley,Ponting,Greg Chappell,Clyde Walcott,Keith Miller, Lindwall,Trueman, Ambrose Bill O'Reilly

    In a combined one day and test team Viv Richards would replace Lara in the 1st 11,while Hadlee was the best fast bowler amongst allrounders.

    My best paceman are in order Marshall,Lillee,Hadlee,Mcgrath,Andy Roberts,Holding,Imran,Ambrose,Akram, Lindwall,trueman,Allan Donald

    best allrounders in order Sobers,Botham,Imran,Kallis,Keith Miller,Kapil Dev,hadlee,Shaun Pollock, tony Greig,Procter,Mankad,Chris Carins

    best batsman in order-Bradman,Hobbs,Sobers,Tendulkar,Richards,Lara,Hammond,Ponting,Gavaskar,Hutton,Greg Chappell,Pollock.

  • Harsh Thakor on November 7, 2010, 6:50 GMT

    Gary Sobers is the greatest allrounder as no allrounder changed the complexion of bat and ball together as consistently.Kallis matched his figures but never equally excelled in matches with bat and ball.In that light the Ian Botham of 1977-1982 was the best after Sobers,taking 200+wickets with 5 wickets per innings and scoring over 3000 runs at a 38+average.In the 1981 Ashes at home and the 1980 Jubilee tset in Bombay he even surpassed Sober's match-wining efforts.

    Imran Khan would beat Botham statistically and was the best from 1981-1987.However he never performed equally well in his career with ball and bat.In the mid 1980's when arguably the best fast bowler as a match-winner his batting did not match that mark.While similarly averaging over 50 with the bat from 1988-1992 his bowling was not at par with his batting.

    Kapil Dev was very close to Botham considering he was superb on docile Indian tracks,while Hadlee was vey much like Imran becoming a great batsman later.

  • Harsh Thakor on November 7, 2010, 6:39 GMT

    Those who undermine Dennis Lillee forget his peformances on docile tracks against great batting line ups eg. melbourne in 1977 and 1989 and at the Oval in 1972 and 1981.With Marshall he was the most complete of all fast bowlers taking 5 wickets per test and adding Packer supertests would have captured 434 wickets.Statistically Hadlee is he best paceman taking 36 5 wicket hauls and capturing 10 wickets 9 times that too at astrike rate of 50.9 with 5 wickets per test.Mcgrath is very close statistically.Imran was a great match-winner with his great pace and champion with the old ball with the ball but did not posess the armoury and versatality of Marshall and Lillee nor Hadlee and Mcgath;s accuracy,and control.Wasim Akram was the most versatile of all paceman who swung a new and old ball as much as the greatest paceman.Had he been consistent and a posessed the control and accuracy of Hadlee or Mcgrath he would have been the greatest fast bowler of all.

  • Harsh Thakor on November 7, 2010, 6:24 GMT

    Overall I feel Tendulkar is rated far above the other great batsman.True in combined cricket he is the greatest ever and been the most consistent and arguably complete but he has not equalled the prowess of brian Lara in a crisis nor could he like Lara compile such mammoth scores,that too at such a breathtaking strike rate,superior to Tendulkar.Lara has 9 200+scores including a 300 and a 400,while Sachin has 6.At his best Lara could change the complexion of a test match to a greater extent and would win my vote over Viv Richards and Sachin in a test 11.

    At his best Viv Richards was better than Lara and Sachin was witnessed in the 1976-1980 period where he demolished the greatest fastbowling with greater ferocity than even Bradman and changed complexion of matches in both forms of the game like no batsman ever.

    The most complete of batsman after Bradman was Gary Sobers-A great match-winner and a champion in a crisis in any conditions against the best bowling.

  • laurie on November 7, 2010, 1:17 GMT

    I played cricket up to the age of 40 in queensland nsw and tasmania not at state level but learned how to bowl and the rules of batting. You bowl line and length and dont try to buy wickets, patience is the name of the game. Batsmen wait for a ball to hit usually a couple each over. Mitchell Johnson is the worst bowler I have ever seen. His bowling is guesswork. Ricky Ponting fails the test of fundamentals crabbing across the wicket and skying balls to the legside for constant easy catches is novice stuff. Surely we dont need these two and then we drag up a player named hastings who I would think hasnt played cricket before. And then they drop Dougherty who got 4 wickets and a runout in his debut. Success is punished in this team of dopes. Maybe we could forfeit for awhile to give the fans some respite of incompetence and dumbness.

  • shrikanthk on November 6, 2010, 15:19 GMT

    By the way, Sambit - I recently did a post on Gavaskar's somewhat overrated reputation that owes a lot to his seemingly extraordinary average against the mighty West Indians. Would love to get your views on the same!! Awaiting your comment.

    http://skuvce.blogspot.com/2010/10/puncturing-inflated-legends-heres.html

  • amitava mukherjee on November 3, 2010, 19:20 GMT

    @hattrick..the fact that Lillee very few chances to play in subcontinent & WI cannot be held against him..somebody needs to play at least 10-12 tests in a particular country/continent for a fair accessment of his performances..he was outstanding in packer series 78-79 which had great icons in all teams & he was more hostile than most legendary fast bowlers cricket has seen.I agree weightage should be more for better performances in subcontinent..but check out Lillee's record at Aelaide..similar batting friendly pitch as in subcontinents..Lillee took 45 wkts in 9 games Av 27,Strikerate 55 balls /wkt..a good proof of his quality.He missed out 5 test in WI'78 & 6 test in India'79 during his packer stint..no doubt he's a top performer..Now in my one of earlier comments I missed out Ray Lindwall in my bowling rankings..& think he shd be at 14th spot jtly with McGrath & also giving imp on subcontinent performances I had rated Marshall at no1 ahead of Lillee(at 2).

  • ahmaduetian on December 20, 2010, 7:33 GMT

    This is the perfect team.

    @ Heramb Gude.........I totally agree with u...

    Just that LARA should have done sth individually in WCs which did not....Lara's individulal performance is very pathetic in tournament finals WCs and of late against pace bowlers....He could only score against spin or slow medium bowlers He would always get lbw as the ball nipped in ...........As far as Sachin is concerned many argue that if AUS scored 360 on a pitch in WC 2003 it must have been a placid pitch and Tendulkar should have chased it down too....but they fail to understand that it is India's pathetic wavererd bowling that make every pitch look placid. That pitch had a lot of movement. but Pathetic Indian bowlers were failing to control too much movement that day, hence they bowled with cross seam.

  • Harsh Thakor on November 13, 2010, 7:52 GMT

    My all time 50 Cricketers of all time in order of merit are Sobers,Bradman,W.G.Grace,Imran Khan, Warne, Hobbs, Tendulkar,Viv Richards,Murlitharan, Marshall,Lara,Lillee, Hammond,Ponting,Gavaskar,Hutton ,Botham,Hadlee,Headley,Akram,Barry Richards,Trumper,Mcgrath,Graeme Pollock,Keith Miller ,Ambrose,Greg Chappell,Kallis,Lindwall,Trueman,Kanhai,Miandad,Weekes,Border,Kapil Dev,Worrel,Arthur Morris,Steve Waugh,Ian Chappell,Andy Roberts,Holding ,Hayden,Garner,Gooch,Greenidge,Walcott,Walsh,Harvey,Cowdrey,and Waqar Younus.

    When the chips were down we had greats like Ian Chappell,Javed Miandad and Allan Border who could bat for their lives.In his era in the 1970's Ian Chappell was the best batsman in a crisis even overshadowing both the Richards,and brother Greg Similary Stev waugh and Javed Miandad would overshadow contemporaries like Viv Richards or Tendulakr in a crisis-great bad wicket stars.

  • Harsh Thakor on November 13, 2010, 7:18 GMT

    West Indian maestro,Rohan Kanhai posessed more prowess and creative genius for batting than any batsman in Cricket .Had he done justice to his ability he may well have been the best batsman of all as at his best his batting entered regions even surpassing Bradman.He came in at one down where he averaged over 53 runs.He was the most consummate of all batsman which his average of 47.53 does not reveal.He was a superior player of fast bowling than Lara or Tendulkar.

    On wet pitches Jack Hobbs and George Headley were the best.Hobbs scored 12 centuries against Australia and scored a majority of his record 197 first-class hundreds on wet pitches.Headley outscored Bradman on wet pitches and was a better batsman on bad wickets.

    Had Barry Richards had a full International career he would have been the greatest ever opening batsman and perhaps even surpassed the likes of Viv Richards,Lara or Tendulkar.No batsman combined such pefect techniqe with such phenomenal destructive ability.

  • Harsh Thakor on November 7, 2010, 7:19 GMT

    My all time 1st team is Hobbs, Gavaskar, Bradman, Lara, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, Hadlee, Marshall, Warne and Akram

    My all time 2nd team is Hutton,Barry Richards,Viv Richards, Hammond,Pollock,Botham, Imran Khan, Knott, Lillee,Murlitharan, Mcgrath.

    Alltime 3rd team-Morris,Sutcliffe,Headley,Ponting,Greg Chappell,Clyde Walcott,Keith Miller, Lindwall,Trueman, Ambrose Bill O'Reilly

    In a combined one day and test team Viv Richards would replace Lara in the 1st 11,while Hadlee was the best fast bowler amongst allrounders.

    My best paceman are in order Marshall,Lillee,Hadlee,Mcgrath,Andy Roberts,Holding,Imran,Ambrose,Akram, Lindwall,trueman,Allan Donald

    best allrounders in order Sobers,Botham,Imran,Kallis,Keith Miller,Kapil Dev,hadlee,Shaun Pollock, tony Greig,Procter,Mankad,Chris Carins

    best batsman in order-Bradman,Hobbs,Sobers,Tendulkar,Richards,Lara,Hammond,Ponting,Gavaskar,Hutton,Greg Chappell,Pollock.

  • Harsh Thakor on November 7, 2010, 6:50 GMT

    Gary Sobers is the greatest allrounder as no allrounder changed the complexion of bat and ball together as consistently.Kallis matched his figures but never equally excelled in matches with bat and ball.In that light the Ian Botham of 1977-1982 was the best after Sobers,taking 200+wickets with 5 wickets per innings and scoring over 3000 runs at a 38+average.In the 1981 Ashes at home and the 1980 Jubilee tset in Bombay he even surpassed Sober's match-wining efforts.

    Imran Khan would beat Botham statistically and was the best from 1981-1987.However he never performed equally well in his career with ball and bat.In the mid 1980's when arguably the best fast bowler as a match-winner his batting did not match that mark.While similarly averaging over 50 with the bat from 1988-1992 his bowling was not at par with his batting.

    Kapil Dev was very close to Botham considering he was superb on docile Indian tracks,while Hadlee was vey much like Imran becoming a great batsman later.

  • Harsh Thakor on November 7, 2010, 6:39 GMT

    Those who undermine Dennis Lillee forget his peformances on docile tracks against great batting line ups eg. melbourne in 1977 and 1989 and at the Oval in 1972 and 1981.With Marshall he was the most complete of all fast bowlers taking 5 wickets per test and adding Packer supertests would have captured 434 wickets.Statistically Hadlee is he best paceman taking 36 5 wicket hauls and capturing 10 wickets 9 times that too at astrike rate of 50.9 with 5 wickets per test.Mcgrath is very close statistically.Imran was a great match-winner with his great pace and champion with the old ball with the ball but did not posess the armoury and versatality of Marshall and Lillee nor Hadlee and Mcgath;s accuracy,and control.Wasim Akram was the most versatile of all paceman who swung a new and old ball as much as the greatest paceman.Had he been consistent and a posessed the control and accuracy of Hadlee or Mcgrath he would have been the greatest fast bowler of all.

  • Harsh Thakor on November 7, 2010, 6:24 GMT

    Overall I feel Tendulkar is rated far above the other great batsman.True in combined cricket he is the greatest ever and been the most consistent and arguably complete but he has not equalled the prowess of brian Lara in a crisis nor could he like Lara compile such mammoth scores,that too at such a breathtaking strike rate,superior to Tendulkar.Lara has 9 200+scores including a 300 and a 400,while Sachin has 6.At his best Lara could change the complexion of a test match to a greater extent and would win my vote over Viv Richards and Sachin in a test 11.

    At his best Viv Richards was better than Lara and Sachin was witnessed in the 1976-1980 period where he demolished the greatest fastbowling with greater ferocity than even Bradman and changed complexion of matches in both forms of the game like no batsman ever.

    The most complete of batsman after Bradman was Gary Sobers-A great match-winner and a champion in a crisis in any conditions against the best bowling.

  • laurie on November 7, 2010, 1:17 GMT

    I played cricket up to the age of 40 in queensland nsw and tasmania not at state level but learned how to bowl and the rules of batting. You bowl line and length and dont try to buy wickets, patience is the name of the game. Batsmen wait for a ball to hit usually a couple each over. Mitchell Johnson is the worst bowler I have ever seen. His bowling is guesswork. Ricky Ponting fails the test of fundamentals crabbing across the wicket and skying balls to the legside for constant easy catches is novice stuff. Surely we dont need these two and then we drag up a player named hastings who I would think hasnt played cricket before. And then they drop Dougherty who got 4 wickets and a runout in his debut. Success is punished in this team of dopes. Maybe we could forfeit for awhile to give the fans some respite of incompetence and dumbness.

  • shrikanthk on November 6, 2010, 15:19 GMT

    By the way, Sambit - I recently did a post on Gavaskar's somewhat overrated reputation that owes a lot to his seemingly extraordinary average against the mighty West Indians. Would love to get your views on the same!! Awaiting your comment.

    http://skuvce.blogspot.com/2010/10/puncturing-inflated-legends-heres.html

  • amitava mukherjee on November 3, 2010, 19:20 GMT

    @hattrick..the fact that Lillee very few chances to play in subcontinent & WI cannot be held against him..somebody needs to play at least 10-12 tests in a particular country/continent for a fair accessment of his performances..he was outstanding in packer series 78-79 which had great icons in all teams & he was more hostile than most legendary fast bowlers cricket has seen.I agree weightage should be more for better performances in subcontinent..but check out Lillee's record at Aelaide..similar batting friendly pitch as in subcontinents..Lillee took 45 wkts in 9 games Av 27,Strikerate 55 balls /wkt..a good proof of his quality.He missed out 5 test in WI'78 & 6 test in India'79 during his packer stint..no doubt he's a top performer..Now in my one of earlier comments I missed out Ray Lindwall in my bowling rankings..& think he shd be at 14th spot jtly with McGrath & also giving imp on subcontinent performances I had rated Marshall at no1 ahead of Lillee(at 2).

  • hatrick on November 2, 2010, 8:49 GMT

    Again, @dmqi bring Lara's 2 triples..if that was the criterion, then Sehwag 2 triples way better than Lara, at least he scored pretty quickly and not waiting till 3rd day. Frankly, I lost respect for him that day he scored 400 runs when he should have declared much earlier to allow his bowlers to take 20 wkts.If Sehwag bats till 3rd day, you can bet he would have gone past 450 runs. @Amit Again why is Lillee' sub-continent record should not be brought in, India/Pakistan/SL were playing tests right? He played 60 out of 70 tests against Eng when so many other nations were playing at the time. Also, why he did not play in WI much as well - there could be good reasons like injuries but the fact of matter is he did not play and that should count against him versus some other quicks who deserve a place ahead of him and have better records - Ambrose, Waqar,Roberts,etc. To be honest, Lillee was not even in my radar for the second XI.

  • hatrick on November 1, 2010, 7:23 GMT

    Comparing Lara v/s SRT again..SRT is way more consistent & adaptable and please dont think that Lara's poor record in India is just a co-incidence as all great players will have some sort of poor record against some countries. His poor record is because Lara(may be because of his technique/high back lift or whatever) likes ball coming to bat. So he plays on pacy wickets very well and plays spin very well but where he struggles is when the pitch is slow. I wish I could bring in match by match stats to this point but the very much I saw of him seems to indicate that this his is weakness to me. Judging by his Not Out stat, he is not difficult to dismiss - way low for comparable batsman who has played that many innings. Again Lara sympathizers can bring that particular series against Aus as a highlight but all those couple of triple centuries (vs Eng) doesnt mean a thing to me. He got 400 because he wanted to (take it from Hayden) and not because he had to...batting well into 3rd day!

  • dmqi on October 31, 2010, 15:14 GMT

    I bet Lara deserves to be there. Whom would you take out. Viv Richards or Tendulkar? Is there any batsman who scored two triple centuries with authority and class, close to 400 runs in each, with 9 double centuries. He should have been picked in the top 4 in my opinion.

  • VSB on October 31, 2010, 11:44 GMT

    no as far as me world Test Squad is 1.Leonard Hutton 2.Sunil Gavaskar 3.Sir Donald Bradman 4.Brain Lara 5.Viv Richards 6.Garry Sobers 7.Adam Gilchrist 8.Shane Warne 9.Imran Khan 10.Richard Hadlee 11.Malcom Marshal 12th man:Sachin Tendulkar(batting back up) 13.Dennis Lillie. 14.Wasim Akram 15.Jack hobbs

  • Heramb Gude on October 31, 2010, 11:14 GMT

    Tendulkar is not the greatest batsman of all time say some jealous Indians.Talking about World Cups that is one-day cricket.Here we are talking about all time World Test XI and not one day XI.Even lesser players like Madanlal,Dharmasena, Moody have been part of World Cup winning sides as a World Cup can be won only through team effort and long-term planning.That India/West Indies have not and may still win the World Cup during Sachin/Lara's era does not reduce their individual brilliance and the entire team is to blame.Sachin's matchsaving inning in pakistan on his first tour in 1989 or his match-saving maiden hundred n partnership with Prabhakar at Old Trafford in 1990 at age 17 were match-saving and not match-winning bcoz India did not have the bowling attack to bowl out opposition sides twice and be in a winning position in those days in Tests.A weak bowling attack is certainly not his fault.If Tendulkar were born in Australia, Aus would have won 4 WC including 1996

  • Ryan on October 31, 2010, 10:14 GMT

    Especially when Garry Sobers was one of the 3 players unanimously voted into the all time XI

  • amitava mukherjee on October 31, 2010, 8:56 GMT

    Hemant Gude..a good WorldXI one day team..However wud like to make a few changes..even players of yesteryrs who never played ODIs should be open for selection..Bevan was a great ODI player but he cannot come into the category of real greats..3-4 players of past era who wud surely have been a sucess in ODIs are Bradman,Sobers,G Pollock & B.Richards..My best ODI XI;

    1.Sachin Tendulkar (no arguments..best ever ODI opener) 2.Adam Gilchrist (Wk..destructive bat & good LH/RH opening combo) 3.R.Ponting (3 times world cup champ..big match player) 4.Don Bradman (sure hit in ODIs..scored quickly in tests) 5.Viv Richards (big match player-a destroyer) 6.Gary Sobers (can b destroyer of best bowling+allr..autochoice) 7.Imran Khan (best bowling allr+capt) 8.Wasim Akram (rev swing..left arm fast & accurate+goodbat) 9.Shane Warne (big match spinner-better bat than murli) 10.J Garner (ideal for ODIs-oneof best strike & eco rate) 11.McGrath (accurate) So Murli,Miandad,Ambrose misses out.

  • Satyajit on October 31, 2010, 8:14 GMT

    It's interesting going through the comments. One guy claims Tendulkar has done "nothing" in test cricket. Wow Tendulkar must be very talented to actually do Nothing and yet score 14k runs ;-) Coming to comments of many disgruntled fans who didn't find their favourite in the 11, guys this is a 11 and not a 50 players list. If your favorite is at least in the second 11 then that's an acceptance of the greatness of the guy. Gavaskar, Lara, Imran, Murali... are all greats and missed out on the selection by a whisker. Personally I would have liked to have three changes; Gavaskar in place of Hutton, Knott in place of Gilchrist and either Ambrose/Barnes/Hadlee in place of Lilee. But in all fairness this was as good a jury as possible and they appear to have taken their call objectively.

  • amitava mukherjee on October 31, 2010, 7:20 GMT

    contd..Lillee was far & away the best bowler in WSC cricket 78-79 where the best collection of talents locked horns..he was more hostile than Hadlee,Imran..in my opinion.he ranks at 2 amogst all time great bowlers..who in order in my opinion are as under: 1. Marshall,2.Lillee 3.Warne 4.Hadlee 5.Murli 6.Akram 7.Imran 8.Ambrose 9.Trueman 10.ORielly 11.Roberts 12.Holding 13.Barnes.14.Mcgrath 15.Waqar 16.Donald 17.Garner 18.Kumble 19.Davidson 20.Chandrasekar. Batting wise my ranking as under: 1.Bradman 2.Sobers 3.Sachin 4.Viv Richards 5.G Pollock 6.Gavaskar 7.Hutton 8.Hammond 9.G Headley 10.Greg Chappell 11.Barry Richards 12.A.Border 13.Lara 14.Ponting 15.Dravid 16.Sehwag 17.S Waugh 18.Miandad 19.M Crowe 20.Aravinda D Silva 21. Laxman 22.Harvey 23.Kallis 24.Gilchrist 25.Greenidge ..& My final World XI: Hutton,Gavaskar,Bradman,Tendulkar,Sobers(batting-allr),Imran(bw-allr-capt),Gilchrist(wk),Akram,Warne,Marshall,Lillee..12thman:V Richards.13th:Murli(wud repl Akram on spin wkts).comments pls

  • amitava mukherjee on October 31, 2010, 6:45 GMT

    Hv gone thru articles on alltimeXI with interest:Hv also observed some mis-info amongst many. 1st it is made out that Gavskar had scored ton of runs v WI pace 2749(av 65) & 13 100s..reality is Sunny scored 774 runs on debut v WI with 4 100s vs an attack of holder,sobers,some spinners..who were nowhere as hostile as Marshall & co..again in 1978 at home he scored 732 runs v WI vs Phillip,Clarke(who later became a feared bowler),Holder(by now slow meduim),Parry,Marshall(debut series- a rookie then)..so 1506 runs & 8 100s in those 2 series..which means in remaining tests vs the actual quicks-holding,roberts,marshall etc he scored 1243 runs in 31 inn(2no)at av 42.86 & 5 100s..which itself is a v good record but not as great as made out to be..Some M Josh in one of the comments below have hinted likewise...another misconception is about Dennis Lillee's failure in subcontinent..well he played only 4 tests..3 in Pak in 1980 & 1 in SL .none in India..so he cant be judged on this...continued

  • Abubakar on October 31, 2010, 5:27 GMT

    World Eleven without Imran and Wasim is incomplete. Anyone who thinks they do not deserve are just speaking emotionally. I will put in Imran in place of Marshall. The openers in the world eleven are also need to be looked at as they have not played in variety of countries. Imran Khan and Wasim Akram are two of the deadliest bowlers of history. And Imran's value as a player is more than a bowler. He was the best all rounder of his time. And best captain in cricket history. Look at both their averages in subcontinent. They are ridiculous.

  • Goal Maal on October 31, 2010, 4:02 GMT

    Best Eleven bar none: 1. Sir Jack Hobbs 2. Vijay Merchant (averaged 47 against top quality attacks on uncovered pitches, playing for a much weaker side) 3. Sir Don Bradman 4. Sachin Tendulkar 5. Sir Viv Richards 6. Sir Gary Sobers 7. Sir Richard Hadlee 8. Alan Knott 9. Shane Warne 10. Malcome Marshal 11. Glen mcGrath

  • anon on October 31, 2010, 2:45 GMT

    No World XI would be complete without Phil Tufnell...

  • vamshi on October 30, 2010, 20:06 GMT

    yeah lara a better player than sachin how senseless people are.. a player who plays for 3 days to score 400 just because his earlier record was broken without caring for team's success or failure is better than SACHIN, the biggest joke i ever heard.... the attitude of the player is important. he has to gel with the team.. LARA always had attitude problems with his teammates like hooper. SACHIN never had such problems because he sacrifises anything for the team.. selecting sachin ahead of lara is right because the team chemistry gets spoit if lara is there who is hot headed while SACHIN is cool headed...

  • Ravi Sharma on October 30, 2010, 19:14 GMT

    Chamara, you are using "convenient" statistics. I still cannot figure why not-outs are treated with scorn. NOT OUTS MUST BE the first set of scores to include in a batsman's average. NOT-OUTS are as a result of DELIBERATE efforts, NOT like ducks. NOT OUTS are as a result of CLASS, why then they should be removed.

    Secondly, in a great part of Lara's career, he was surronded with some of the best bowlers-Ambrose and Walsh!!!

  • Jaya Prakash rao on October 30, 2010, 17:27 GMT

    I think we as readers were restricted by experts to make a selection from a shortlisted players list in each speciality.I have selected a world X1 on pure talent and not statistics or votes criteria.My team 1.J.Hobbs 2.S.Gavasker 3.D.Bradman 4.S.Tendulker 5G.Sobers(CAPT) 6.G.Pollock 7.A.Knott(WK) 8.W.Akram 9.R.Hadlee 10.S.Warne 11.F.Truman

    12th M. Muralitharan They were the ultimate in their talents as opening batsman,middle order batsmen,alrounders,WK,left arm swing bowler,Right arm swing bowler,Leg spin,genuine ,deadly pace bowler and finally the 12 th man ,the ultimate in off spin department,Muralitharan.My team can be aptly called "The Ultimate World X1"

  • Abbasi on October 30, 2010, 16:22 GMT

    Without class and character to look up to you don't define greatness, similarly without Imran Khan you don't make a World 11.

    Any one in the side ask them supposedly which cricketer they would love to be they'll say Imran Khan so why mock yourself with your technical Imagination.

    Khan Rules........

  • rehman on October 30, 2010, 15:07 GMT

    @bharat-tiwari. You are almost correct. In 1981-82 Gary Sobers made a list of 10 great batsmen including Graem Pollock, Ian Chappel, Gooch, Gavaskar, Barry Richards, Viv Richards etc. Out of these ten batsman he declared Rohan Kenhai as the best batsman he ever saw batting. The criteria was that Rohan has unbelieve capacity to consecutively play stroke after stroke correctly, in a big innings. On this standard I have seen Lara as the best having capacity to play consecutively successful stroke in a big innings.

  • Sherwin on October 30, 2010, 14:51 GMT

    Having a world best ever XI without the likes of Brian Charles Lara and Sunil Gavaskar is a farce. Not to mention the omission of Curtley Ambrose and Glen Mc Grath. These are the two best batsmen and the two best fast bowlers in the history of the game. (no offence to bradman or warnie)I do not fancy myself a cricket selector so i won't pick seven other greats to complete a team but to me omitting these guys makes the espn XI a joke. I respect all the players who have been selected, no doubt, but, in terms of players I would be eager to see bat or bowl......you guessed it.....Lara, Gavaskar, mc Grath and Ambrose top the list.

  • Hamish on October 30, 2010, 12:12 GMT

    Gavaskar averaged 51 as an opener Hobbs, Hutton & Sutcliffe all averaged significantly higher. There's certainly a case for Gavaskar but it's not a certainty.

    Oh, and requiring a minumum of 50 tests is way too many it rules out way too many players because they played when there weren't that many tests

  • Hamish on October 30, 2010, 12:06 GMT

    as for Sangaka as a keeper he averages 40, as a non-keeper he averages a lot higher (76) so really he's got a better case to play as a specialist bat than as a keeper, although his average against Australia is 41.

  • Hamish on October 30, 2010, 11:57 GMT

    Lillee didn't avoid series in the subcontinent. It's just that during his career there weren't many of them. There were 3 possible tours of India or Pakistan in his career. He was signed for WSC during one of them and injured for one of them and went on one of them. Headley only played 3 tests after WWII, one of them was in India and there wasn't a series there before WWII. He didn't do much in that match but he was about 38 or 39 at the time. If people want to argue that not playing on playing on sub-continent makes Headley an unworthy selection how about requiring people to have played on uncovered wickets?

  • world xi on October 30, 2010, 11:24 GMT

    The tean that will beat the world xi: Gavaskar S Shewag Lara Sangakara(WK) Andy Flower Imran Khan(C) Kapil Dev(VC) Murlidharan Mcgrath Waqar Younis Walsh c

  • pradeep behrani on October 30, 2010, 11:16 GMT

    very very difficult to choose a world eleven from so many wonderfull players who have played the game over the years but reacting to ian chappels comment about virendar sehwags selection,i would like to bring to ian chappels notice that virendar sehwags record overseas in countries other than indian subcontinent is very poor except for australia where also he never faced mcgrath & warne on the two tours he went there,he still has a long way to go before being put in the elite company of players named in the 2 world elevens

  • Zeeshan Ahmed on October 30, 2010, 7:47 GMT

    Amazing not to seen Lara in best XI. Best of the best Lara scored three double hundreds in front on Shane Warne and two double hundreds in front of Murli. Also he had not scored any double hundred against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. He scored two triple hundreds against England. Also his 153 not out against Australia in which bowlers were Warne, McGrath, Gillespie and MacGill. Master piece innings, situational innings and ability to tackle pressure of main strikers and so on. Also he was the most elegant left arm batsman with high backlift. He was highest runs gutter in test cricket, highest score in test inning, 19 times 150 or plus, highest no. of fours in test, highest runs (5889) runs with the help of centuries only, highest (9302) runs with the help of 50 or plus. He maintained all these records at at time in test cricket. No one had dominated cricket in batting like him. I do not think so any batsman can match his status in batting with him.

  • yasser on October 30, 2010, 7:03 GMT

    make the most difficult of them T20 ..cricinfo members

    openers Sehwag/Mcculum/Gayle/Hayden/Dilshan/Warner/Ryder/Smith/Watson

    followed by

    Afridi/KP/Pollard/D Villiers/Razzaq/Raina/Morkel/White/Hussey's/U.Akmal/Taylor/Duminy/Y.Singh/Morgan/Jayawardene/Dhoni

    Gul/Malinga/Tait/Akhter/Zaheer/Nannes/Steyn

    Swann/Ajmal/Afridi/Murali/Vettori/H.Singh/Botha

  • braj on October 30, 2010, 4:53 GMT

    well deserved world XI but still as an Indian and according to stats and class i would have gone for gavaskar. My XI would be:-

    1. Jack Hobbs 2. Sunil Gavaskar 3. Donald Bradman 4. Sachin Tendulkar 5.Viv Richards 6. Gary Sobers 7. Alan Knott 8.Richard Hadlee 9. Shane Warne 10. S Barnes 11. Malcom Marshall 12th man:- Imran Khan (allrounder qualities)

    I bet it for the better team than that of cricinfo.

  • shrikanthk on October 30, 2010, 4:33 GMT

    This selection essentially reflects the cultural and aesthetic biases of our era!

    Have a look at the pacers chosen. Lillie, Marshall and Akram. All magnificent fast men no doubt. But what makes them special among the countless great bowlers who've played this game

    I can counter this selecton by picking for instance Maurice Tate, Alan Davidson and Sydney Barnes! Now the mean bowling average of these three guys is about the same as that of the Lillie-Marshall-Akram combo. Yet, I don't think any of these three, barring perhaps Barnes, was seriously in the reckoning while choosing the XI

    My point is we carry with us certain forms of cultural and aesthetic baggage that is hard to get rid of. Given two bowlers with very similar records, we favour the guy with a longer, more dramatic run up than the guy who bowls medium pace with the wicket keeper standing up! These tendencies are hardwired in us

  • Chamara on October 29, 2010, 10:52 GMT

    Brian Lara played under huge pressure and he was in a team which is the worst in Tests and he didn't have world class batsmen around him to support. And no other player in test history won matches for his team like Lara did. And he only has 6 not outs to his test career and if he had 30 not outs then he has an average of over 59 in tests. That's far ahead what Tendulkar has. And to make things little easier even Sir Don Bradman wouldn't be able to handle Murali like Lara did not only in Sri Lanka he later did it again in West Indies following that amazing series where Lara scored another double hundred against Murali, Vaas co.,Tendulkar certainly couldn't do it when Murali at his prime. So when Ian Chappell selects Lara ahead of Tendulkar I don't think there is much to doubt.

  • Chamara on October 29, 2010, 10:38 GMT

    With all the due respect to Ian Chappel.,He said once if someone put a gun to his head and ask to pick one out of Lara and Tendulkar he said he will pick Brian Lara. So I don't understand what made him change his mind when choosing WX1. And I don't think there is any doubts about Bradman's ability.,I mean he has an average of almost 100 per test. I don't think Sachin can match that even he plays all his test matches against Bangladesh in their condition. And to clarify that to some extend you can summarize his first class average in India. Sir Don Bradman is way way ahead than the rest. The biggest mistake probably ever made was to not include Brian Lara to World X1. He has the most number of double centuries scored after Don Bradman and he has the highest score of a test innings ever and he has scored more runds than Don Bradman or Sachin Tendulkar in a first class innings(all not outs). Not even Don Bradman himself able to do it.

  • Dishan on October 29, 2010, 8:13 GMT

    When selecting a XI it should not be favorable because its not a favorite XI! so it should meet all requirements. selecting from judges itself wont work because they have their favorites. I think the following line up can win a match under any circumstance. The Opener as the wicket keeper because we need to balance the team. If Gilchrist is selected for his batting, why cant we select Kumar who has better batting. For me Kallis is the greatest all rounder ever

    Sunil Gavasker 125 10122 51.12 Kumar Sangakkara 91 8016 56.85 183 Don Bradman 52 6996 99.94 Sachin Tendulkar 171 14240 56.96 Brian Lara 131 11953 52.88 Ricky Ponting 148 12250 54.68 Jacques Kallis 140 11126 55.07 266 31.59 2.81 67.2 Malcom Marshall 81 376 20.94 2.68 46.7 Shane Warne 145 708 25.41 2.65 57.4 Muttiah Muralitharan 133 800 22.72 2.47 55.0 Glen McGrath 124 563 21.64 2.49 51

  • Zeeshan Ahmed Siddiqui on October 29, 2010, 7:07 GMT

    Does ESPN team really the best. I do not think so as an opener Gavaskar with 13 centuries against W. Indies should be there. Sobers said he is best batsman history ever produced. Brian Lara with two quadruple including one quintuple in first class and also two triple centuries maker in test cricket should be there. Only complete batsman in test history, Brian Lara with elegancy and grace in his style is unable to be there. Imran Khan should be included with natural born ability to lead as well as the best all rounder, history ever produced. I believe in Dujon but in case of Alan Knott versus Gilchrist, Knott was far better keeper than Gilchrist. We should consider who is better keeper instead of focusing on Wicket Keeper plus batsman. I do not believe in any dream team without Murli with 800 wickets. Now dream eleven is Gavaskar and Hobbs as an opener, no. 3 Lara, no. 4 Tendulkar, no. 5 Viv no. 6 Imran Khan no. 7 Dujon no. 8 Akram no. 9 Warne no. 10 Marshall no. 11 Murli.

  • Meety on October 29, 2010, 6:49 GMT

    On the topic of debating, I get annoyed that too often bloggers have to slur a great player to try and prove their player is better. There is no way that a World XI was ever going to appease everybody, so if your favourite player isn't in there, say so - but don't bag players that did. My World XI was pretty much the same (Top 7) as selected but I had Miller instead of Sobers, (to me either Sobers of Khan were pretty hard to argue against). I read somewhere that Hadlee was considered an allrounder, which I think was unfair - he should be considered a bowler who bats well, and so should be considered unlucky not to get selected ahead of Lillee. I had 3 of the 4 bowlers - I would of had Ambrose ahead of Akram (only just) - in saying that I don't think Akram is the undisputed best left han pace bowler ever - maybe Alan Davidson???

  • Meety on October 29, 2010, 6:38 GMT

    I liked the spirit in which this article was written, the problem I have is that I would love to see the rationale in the selection process. Another issue, which Gideon Haigh spoke about, is what was the scenario this XI was playing in. I think there should of been several XIs selected for certain conditions & rules. Who would you select if Bodyline was allowed? - I still would select Bradman there, (even though he was uncomfortable playing against it), he still averaged 56ish. What about before the minimum overs mandate, when the 4 prong WI pace battery use to chug along at around 11 overs an hour, bowling about 4 bouncers an over? Would it be in 4, 6 or 8 ball overs? Would helmets be allowed, covered pitches, UDRS, an nuetral umpires? (The umpires would have to be the greatest umpires ever by the way). This is not to mention WHERE the XI were to play. Would the XI be the same if they were to play in Oz or India or England? So for me there is quite a few loose ends.

  • Sajjan0007 on October 29, 2010, 6:19 GMT

    The all time X1 can never beat this modern killer X1 that is 1.sehwag 2.hyden 3.kallis 4.lara 5.sangakara(wkt) 6.laxman 7.hussey 8.macgrath 9.dale styen 10.murli 11.asif

  • Anonymous on October 29, 2010, 5:40 GMT

    i would have loved to see Marshall bowl to Sehwag. Id bet my life Marshall would have him out within 5 overs

  • Josh H on October 29, 2010, 3:14 GMT

    Gavaskar was indeed one of the greats. But a correction is in order. He never dominated the great West Indian attack as is frequently mentioned on this blog. Gavaskar scored tons of runs against West Indies when the bowling was quite weak. He didn't fare very well against the shock attack except a few times on dead tracks - Vanburn Holder, Keith Boyce and Lance Gibbs are not the same as Roberts,Holding, Garner and Croft.

  • saif Ahmed on October 29, 2010, 2:42 GMT

    Does any one remeber MIANDAD. His numbers may now seem insignificant but his presence in the field gave any oppostion a lot to think. The greatest reader if the game who was always in control against all opposition. One of the greatest improvisors the game has ever seen.

  • WI4EVA on October 29, 2010, 0:33 GMT

    No LARA. No way!!!!!

  • Anony mouse on October 28, 2010, 23:24 GMT

    I totally agree with Ian when he says that the batsman have to dominate and there have to be bowlers that can take all 20 wickets. The keeper's job is to take all the catches that come his way and for that Alan Knott should be preferred though anybody who has seen Gilchrist bat will agree that he is kind of tough to leave out as well.

    I would much rather have Sehwag in the team than Gavaskar cause if Sehwag gets going then the other team is on the backfoot straight away plus he can keep going on and on. One of the englishmen in the opening slot can make way for him. Lillie makes way for Imran Khan.

  • Fuddian Sujawa on October 28, 2010, 22:12 GMT

    Imran was an ordinary player without things he did before cameras started to catch all the shenanigans. He was also an atrocious fielder who would often let himself go many balls to the boundary while expecting all his fielders to be Jonty Rhodes like a feudal lord. am so gld he is not a part of this galaxy of stars.

  • Zeeshan Ahmed Siddiqui on October 28, 2010, 21:42 GMT

    5th best, as an opener Trumper and Greenidge, no. 3 Hammond (Captain), no. 4 Weekes no. 5 Walcott No. 6 Laxman no. 7 Marsh (keeper), no. 8 Botham no. 9 Trueman no. 10 Underwood and no. 11 Walsh

    6th best, as an opener Smith (Captain) and Saeed Anwer, no. 3 Headley, no. 4 Martin Crowe, no. 5 Zaheer Abbas No. 6 Salim Malik no. 7 Boucher (keeper), no. 8 Dev no. 9 Bedser no. 10 Abdul Qadir and no. 11 Lance Gibbs.

    I think it is good exercise as we should know about different players in this way. In my opinion the best ever All rounder is Imran Khan reason is he was one of the best Captain (Natural born leader with autocratic style), one of the best bowler and also good batsman plus good fielder at a time. In Sobers case, he was not as good captain as Imran was so his overall impact on team planning was not as good as Imran had. Imran's impact on team was more than him or any other all rounder. No one could prove himself in all four departments like Imran Khan did.

  • WIF4EVA on October 28, 2010, 21:18 GMT

    I agree that Mr. Sunil Gavaskar should be on the team. As a true West Indian from Trinidad and Tobago, I really can't believe that none of you commented on Lara's omission. Where have you all been all these years. Were you all asleep. Mr. Brian Lara really became the envy of the cricket world and it was proven this past week. That whole panel and you bloggers are just anti-Lara. Whether you all are from the West Indies or the rest of the world. He should be the first name chosen as well as he should be batting at no. 4 position. Also what about all the fast bowlers from the 80's West Indies team. Also all the batsmen that made that team great toooo!!!1 OH MY GOODNESS!!!! Just now there would be an all time football 11 without Mr.PELE and all time basketball 11 without Mr. Michael Jordan. LOL!!!!1

  • Muhammad Durrani on October 28, 2010, 20:33 GMT

    No matter how you look at it, any World XI will be questionable. This is not the perfect World XI that ESPN has picked. I can come up with a variety of combinations with the talent on cards and it can beat this XI hands down, and my World XIs would be all comprising of different players. If I am the captain of the team and especially World XI, I am not gonna look only for big name players, but, I would also look at the temperament, match-winning skills, Big-Match pressures, crucnh situations, etc. I would rather make a plaeyr sit on the bench for his records, if I see that he has not contributed much in winning, and pick a player who has dragged the team many times over the finish line. There are number of players, who have given us sheer joy, more than Tendulkar or Sobers etc, but, there personalities were so low keyed that the media never talked much about them, and they stayed in the background. Who can forget the Saeed Anwar of 90s, a pur blissful joy to watch, he was an artist!!

  • Taha Kaleem on October 28, 2010, 20:06 GMT

    I agree with you Sambit, every cricket fan thinks hes a selector. But i just want to ask you one thing, they made a world xi without a captain. Infact there is no great captain in the side. My opinion is that Imran, Chappels, Benued, Clive Loyd, Ponting & Ganguly have been the few great captains. Cricinfo's World XI does not have a single player who was well known for his leadership at test level. The best option in this team is Shane Warne for his IPL credintials. :P

  • Raj on October 28, 2010, 18:24 GMT

    I cannot imagine Gavaskar being not part of the XI. Gilchrist and Akram were my surprises. But then looking at it in more depth, seems like a good choice. However, my choice for keeper was Rod Marsh.

  • Saransh Mittal on October 28, 2010, 17:10 GMT

    Followup from the previous comment: I am not being pro tendulkar but i really feel tendulkar is the unquestionable one in the side..question others in world XI who had a tinge or 2 in their armour, not sachin I think.

  • Saransh Mittal on October 28, 2010, 17:08 GMT

    Say this World XI plays a 5 match test series, we know that tendulkar is more consistent than lara or ponting so he is automatically the winner...say this world XI plays a one match have to win match... I would say tendulkar rules them out both again...because tendulkar's best is better than lara's best or ponting's best. Tendulkar of 90s was way superior than the best of lara or ponting. If you compare performances in world cup tendulkar single handedly drove india to almost a world cup glory on 2 occassions 1996 and 2003, lara has had a dismal show in world cups while ponting had a mediocore impact given the team around him. Also you should pick a player on the basis of his wholesomeness....ponting cant negotiate spin....lara is not consistent at all his standard deviation is more than his mean....tendulkar is the closest definition of consistency. And if you are talking of aesthetics of shot execution there is no better sight than seeing tendulkar in full flow.

  • Mangesh on October 28, 2010, 15:58 GMT

    Assuming numbers don't lie, and we stick to averages, we should easily come up with the best 11 (minimum matches 50). This team will score 400 odd runs every time they go out and get the opposition out for 200 runs! 1 Bradman 99.94 2 Sutcliffe 60.73 3 Barrington 58.67 4 Hammond 58.45 5 Sobers 57.78 6 Tendulkar 56.96 total 392.53 7 Knott is arguably the best keeper 8 Marshall 20.94 9 Garner 20.97 10 Ambrose 20.99 11 Trueman 21.57 average 21.1175

  • Aki on October 28, 2010, 15:41 GMT

    @Gude: Your team is good but you dont need Bevan to finish as the top order is too good. Need a solid hitter to be promoted if wickets are in hand to take score beyond opposition.

  • RAJESH THADANI on October 28, 2010, 15:02 GMT

    MY WORLD X1 1-BARRY RICHARDS 2-V. SHEWAG 3-DON BRADMAN 4-SACHIN TENDULKAR 5-VIV RICHARDS 6-GARY SOBERS 7-IMRAN KHAN (C) 8-A. GILCHRIST (W) 9-WASIM AKRAM 10-SHANE WARNE 11-M. MARSHALL

  • ArunS on October 28, 2010, 14:47 GMT

    Guess what? You can actually get an equally good World XI if you made it representative of the major cricketing nations with the criteria that you pick atleast one from each of the 8 National XIs. I'll therefore pick one automatic choice for each of the National XI into the World XI and then fill the remaining 3 with my judgment. 1. Jack Hobbs. 2. Sunil Gavaskar. 3. Don Bradman 4. Sachin Tendulkar 5. Graeme Pollock 6. Gary Sobers 7. Imran Khan 8. Alan Knott 9. Richard Hadlee 10.Shane Warne 11. Muttiah Muralitharan

    Throw in Andy Flower instead of Knott to make it even more representative, drop Warne and add Marshall or drop Sunny and add Hutton if you're an English fan. Call this the Inclusive XI. This team can win under any conditions with pace, swing and a variety of spin, right-arm and left-arm. My captain will be Imran Khan. If he can lead a bunch of volatile talent that can go off on a tangent, leading this XI will be a piece of cake - the Don's ego permitting :-)

  • sherwin ramkissoon on October 28, 2010, 14:20 GMT

    cric info continues to be as biased as ever how can triple world record holder brian charles lara not be selected in any world 11 mabe if he was an aussie

  • khan on October 28, 2010, 9:37 GMT

    i want to thanks cricinfo for giving a chance to pick our own world XI. It would be great if we get a chance to pick all time India XI, anyway i want to make few changes in these world XI picked by Cricinfo. first sehwag should be there in place of hutton and kallis should be there because of his batting skill and ability to break the partnerships and imran khan as an alrouder because of his ability to bowl with old ball and reverse swing and as a keeper i will prefer gilly as he can bat aggressively which gives the team a chance to declare early or win the match in last inning. As for bowling is concern mcgrath should be there for his line and length and seam bowling and courtley ambrose for those devastating spells when things are not going well.Warne is a match winner and should be there ahead of murali because murali gots wickets after bowling 30 to 40 over per innings but warney can change the game with his aggressive bowling and rest are fine.

  • Zuber on October 28, 2010, 7:16 GMT

    Apart from @ chnages i m ok with thw World X1. i wud have Sunny And Imran the Grt in place of Hobbs and Lille.Lille selection shows the biasness towareds the Aussies,his record in the sub continent was pathetic to say the least...and Sunny was the best opening batsman in the era of the Most fearsome fast bowlers ever produced.

  • AMIT on October 28, 2010, 7:15 GMT

    Its really nice to see the all time best XI with all time best players but with due regards,I slightly disagree with the exclusion of Sunil Manohar Gawasker (All time best opening batsman of cricket history).Well, best need no explaination. His record itself selfexpainatory.The bowlers he faced,the pitches he bat,ther courage he showed while facing marshel, Lilee,thompson without helmet and his 13 centuries against all time best bowing attack... I am sure with this record, he can easly push out one opener of this eleven(hobs or hutton I dont mind). About Gilcrist, he is a all time best wicketkeeper batsman but not a all time best wicket keeper.But selection cometee must have considers some other aspects as well while chosing him.

  • Shahid Rizwan on October 28, 2010, 6:57 GMT

    @Cricy: I would like to have Imran Khan in any World XI as he had all the qualities u have mentioned but may not be at the expense of Garry Sobers. As said earlier he would be in my team at the expense of Dennis Lillee. Dennis Lillee was a great bowler but if you see, Imran played 58% of his career's tests in Sub-Continent yet his bowling average was better than Lillee. If we still say that Lillee was a slightly better bowler than Imran Khan, then again Imran Khan would edge him out because of his great batting and leadership skills.

    People saying about Pakistani bowlers not being included should check the record books instead of moaning about reverse swing and umpiring. When people who were pioneers of cricket mastered reverse swing (Won Ashes using it), they promoted it from the title of "cheating" to an "art". India has given great batsmen (Gavasker, Tendulkar) to this great game of cricket and Pakistan has produced the most exciting fast bowlers (Imran Waseem Waqar) of all time.

  • Sanjay on October 28, 2010, 6:22 GMT

    Wait a minute!Has everyone forgotten Graeme Pollock? A man with a Test average of over 60? Barry Richards played only 4 Tests and made it to the 2nd XI. Pollock made it to neither. I would replace Viv Richards with Graeme Pollock and relegate Viv to the 2nd XI. Pollock was a left hander and could take apart the strongest attacks of the day. The only things missing from his resume was that he did not play Sobers's West Indies and the Indian spin wizards of the 70s.

  • kirksland on October 28, 2010, 5:23 GMT

    My comments and complaints are few. The main one though is to replace Lille with the Great Glenn Mcgrath. He is the most accurate and probing bowler ever who had success every where and whose record in this batters era speaks for itself. The second major greivance is the selection of Akram over Imran Khan. To me Imrfan is the better bowler, batsman and could be vice captain the team. To me its unfortunate that Lara was left out but the middle order was the strongest part of the team and there wassn't much reallt to separate Lara from those selected. Minor quibbles there after would have included Knott over Gilchrist, though I feel you couldn't go wrong with either and mabe Gavaskar over Hobbs. Ambrose, Hadlee and Graeme Pollock were also wrongly overlooked in the second 11.

  • Harsh Thakor on October 28, 2010, 4:41 GMT

    It is ridiculous to remove Dennis Lillee.Remember his brilliant performances on placid tracks in England at the Oval in 1972 and 1983 and at Melbourne in the Centenary Testin 1977.No fast bowler has ever been more complete,combining great speed,with great swing,control,versatality and agression.Taking 5 wickets per innings speaks for itself and if adding Packet Tests it would have been 422.

    Considering he faced the greatest paceman and broke records Gavaskar should have made or ahead of Hutton.Overall considering his briliant flair to compile mammoth scores Lara was arguably a superior test batsman than Tendulkar or Viv Richards.In combined Cricket Viv and Sachin overshadow Lara.

    Imran Khan was more appropriate as a selection than Akram,with his match-winning ability and better batting performances,or even Richard Hadlee.Mcgrath was the best paceman of the modern era and a better bowler than Wasim Akram.

    Barry Richards,Brian Lara amd Glen Mcgrath lost out in a photo -finish.

  • dmqi on October 28, 2010, 4:29 GMT

    All I can say is "this is craziness". How can you select 11 when you have at least 20 top rated players who can have 10 different permutation and combination for the best team. I think the selectors do not qualify to judge all these greats. No one can say who is better, Tendulkar or Lara. 399 and 375 in test cricket by Lara versus 49 centuries without any triple by Tendulkar. I do not know which one to pick. Same is true for Lilee vs Imran Vs Hadlee. Imran is definitely more versatile to be in the team just like Sobers. I would not dare to call the best 11 but it would have been easier to pick the best 20. Hersa and Andy should try that.

  • Shehryar on October 28, 2010, 3:26 GMT

    I totally agree with everyone making a case for Imran Khan's inclusion in the all time X1. With all his outstanding allrounder skills he was also blessed with an ultra intelligent cricketing brain. A model of inspiration for fellow teammates alike.

    I feel sorry for all those Indian cricket fans who are bringing up the ball tampering issue for 'obvious' reasons.... I would urge them to first try and dig out a GENUINE fast bowler out of India who can prove himself to be able to find a way into the World X1 and only then they should consider themselves WORTHY of talking about ball tampering or GENUINE FAST BOWLING capabilities allied with pure talent as a pre-condition for reverse swing abilities. Please make time to study the real skills involved of using ur wrist/ball shine to be able to generate or impart reverse swing on a used cricket ball to lethal effects. As a reference, please watch the 1995 Benson & Hedges cup one day semi final between Lancashire v Leicestershire at Grace Rd

  • rockx on October 28, 2010, 0:03 GMT

    This was my XI: Gavaskar,Hutton,Bradman,Richards,Graeme Pollock,Sobers,Gilchrist,Imran,Marshall,Warne,Mcgrath. To me Mcgrath was a far better bowler than Lille, awesome record in all conditions and all opposition. Picked Pollock over Lara/Sachin as I truly believe he was a greater batsman than either but unfortunately his international career was cut short due to apartheid.

  • iluv cric on October 27, 2010, 23:43 GMT

    The middle order comes down to a choice between Viv Sachin and Brian.statistically Brian must be the premier WI batsman of all time, since he has surpassed viv, further you can never put viv into perspective without taking the strong team he had into the equation. Sachin always had vvs ganguly and later sewag Whereas Brian always was batting in a weaker WI team. If you say warne, and mcgrath are greats den brian averaged high with dem in d Aus team. Also if you say murali should be there remember how Brian mastered him at home in sri lanka. Viv was exceptional and redefined a style of batting so in that regard he has been considered. Is sachin better than brian dat is debatable but certainly brian arrived at 11 000 test runs b4 him less innings.. and wud have reached 12000 b4 too, were it not for WI administrators forcing him out. His las test innings a double 00 in Pak. When wisden published its top test innings only sir don and lara had two innings each.

  • Zeeshan Ahmed Siddiqui on October 27, 2010, 23:02 GMT

    Please find my own dream team although I believe it is only imaginary situation.

    As an opener, Gavaskar and Hobbs, no. 3 Brian Lara no. 4 Tendulkar, no. 5 Viv Richard, no. 6 Imran Khan (Captain), no. 7 Dujon (Wicket Keeper), no. 8 Shane Warne, no. 9 Wasim Akram, no. 10 Malcom Marshall and no. 11 Murli.

    2nd best XI, As an opener, Herbert Sutcliff and Len Hutton, no. 3 Don Bradman, no. 4 Greig Chappell, no. 5 Gary Sobers, no. 6 Clive Lloyd (Captain plus batsman), no. 7 Alan Knot (Wicket Keeper), no. 8 Richard Hadlee, no. 9 Anil Kumble, no. 10 SF Barnes and no. 11 Glen McGrath.

    Third best, as an opener Morris and Sehwag, no. 3 Ponting (Captain), no. 4 G. Pollock, no. 5 Miandad, No. 6 Border no. 7 Adam Gilchrist (keeper), no. 8 Reilly, no. 9 Lillee, no.10 Waqar and no. 11 Ambrose.

    4th best, as an opener Hayden and Hanif, no. 3 Dravid, no. 4 Barrington no. 5 Haq No. 6 Waugh (Captain) no. 7 Ian Healey (keeper), no. 8 Donald no. 9 Holding no. 10 Garner and Laker.

  • JK on October 27, 2010, 21:34 GMT

    @SJS - Speaking of the 90s and BCL vs SRT, I will readily admit that stats wise there is a clear choice (SRT), but let me point you to THAT series in the WI when Lara single handedly won 2 tests for the WI vs Gillespie, McGrath, Warne et al.....That was the greatest batting feat I ever saw....SRT discipline and planning are unmatched but BCL achieved almost everything that SRT did WITHOUT any of the abvoe qualities...

  • Raj on October 27, 2010, 20:58 GMT

    The world XI selection was well thought and considering all the best for the past century, it was a fair and good selection, no doubt about it.

  • Jamai Su on October 27, 2010, 19:53 GMT

    A player is selected on the basis of overall stats and not first and last few matches...if that is the criteria Vinod kambli would be a certainties ....he averaged about 220 in first few matches. So stop manipulating the data. test captains know better and not one voted for him...why?

  • M.RJayaprakash Rao on October 27, 2010, 19:38 GMT

    I think Gavasker should be there as opening batsman,if we consider the strenght of the opposing teams he played ,as Ian Chappel said.Secondly i think the greatest right arm swing bowler of altime R.Hadlee should be there in the team(400 wickets in 70 tests,he took his first 100 wickets in 20 tests and followed it by 300 wickets in the next 50 tests only,awesome indeed) along with D.Lilee(the most perfect bowler in cricket history)and ofcourse W.Akram the best left arm swing bowler and S.Warne. My team would be 1.S.Gavasker 2.L.Hutton 3.D.Bradman 4.S.Tendulker 5.V.Richards 6.G.Sobers 7.A.Gilchrist 8.W.Akram 9.R.Hadlee 10.D.Lilee 11.S.Warne.

  • SND on October 27, 2010, 18:53 GMT

    I didnt know that so many indians DONT want sachin in the team. This is something I never felt b4 in the last 21 yrs. I think he is improving day by day but what is happening to his popularity. I dont see a single opposition on sobers or bradman or marshall or even akram. @shiven, u surely got guts to say what u r sayin about sachin in test cricket in a place which think saachin to be the god. Grt grt. dude, stop that. at least dont do it in public or else people can go to some other limit. hope u understand what i mean

    I WANTED SACHIN TO BE IN THE TEAM and he is THERE... so I dont want anything.

  • Murtaza on October 27, 2010, 18:48 GMT

    If people want see team with big records so look at my XI:

    #1 Jack Hobs, #2 Brian lara, #3 Bradman, #4 Tendulker, #5 Ricky Ponting, #6 Sanagkara(wk),#7 Garry Sobers, #8 Imran Khan, #9 Ian Botham #10 Richard hadlee, #11 Muralitharan,

  • PSS on October 27, 2010, 18:43 GMT

    @rehman. I agree on ur point. NO Place for SACHIN TENDULKAR in this team. He plays for records. Nervy in the 90s and can never score a triple as it will take 3 days to score that. Ur team selection is very very strong. I would just change a bit with gilly as he is a bit better batsman and u have chosen 4 only. Great team.

    @shiven. I think ur name is almost as frequent as sachin in this blog. Dude, I agree with u. He is BORING in Test cricket. Definitely not aggressive.

    @Matt Copper... this is a blog where people discuss and not a religious grnd that u dont question motives. If motives are not questioned then why SACHIN is there in test cricket? What he has done??? 14k? even dravid is 11K that doesnot mean he is better than Bradman (who is not even 7k) or is sachin 2twice better? They chose as India is a business hub.

    @GS... stop this nationalism.

    @ruchit... u r losing to shiven. dude come up with soemtihng better

    @to all who wre sayin KAPIL dev is better than IMRAN, c urself...

  • Raj on October 27, 2010, 18:16 GMT

    @shiven what was that on Samy's reply... ha ha ha I am still laughing on it. R u a fun maker

  • Damon on October 27, 2010, 17:48 GMT

    There is little need for us to be at each others throat. Moreoften than not our choice will be on emotions. However there are certain names that are not debatable:bradman; we have all read what he did and no matter the strengh of the bowling at the time he deserves to be remarked upon:sobers; the complete and ultimate cricketer: viv; the original master blaster, the one reponsible for the style of play that we have come to adore(ask sehwag,gilchrist and a younger sachin)and the indefaticable Sharne Warne; the man who revolutionised the art offspin bowling, before him it was difficult for a spin bowler to make a oneday side, now they open the bowling. All these men were pioneers and have earned there places. Lets debate the other seven spots!

  • Shiven on October 27, 2010, 17:05 GMT

    @ruchit... did Mcgrath say u personally that he rates sahin better than lara becoz when I saw the fox video in utube he says lara is my fav opponent so as murali. Bradman said sachin reminds of himself watchin his match vs aust in 1996 world cup and i thikn a world cup is ODI. Barry richards said he is GOD when sachin scored sarjah twin centuries. Losing the sahraj, Steve waugh said he lost to sachin not to india. Everyone said about him in ODIs. No one said anything excet KP aftr his 103 in chennai. I do follow cricket. I know something too. SACHIN IS 1st in ODI but done nothing in TEST. If the value is to be given to change india from a pathetic team to Num1, then Imran khan has to be there. SHeer class is not 14000 runs but winning world cups. How many matches he won for india. He is having 6600+ runs in draws. Yes india was not a team who supported but again he is not at all that universally accepted in test. It is not me, i see some arguments in favor of me and that is true. thx

  • Radha on October 27, 2010, 16:57 GMT

    @Shiven. Nice arguments. Even u remember that sachin made centuries 5 times with a six was gooooood. I personally don't like sachin as he is very very boring to watch. I watch his centuries as the whole cafeteria gets flooded. Personally I like sehwag and gilchrist. I don't know whether sachin needs to be there or not but he is boring to me. As u say, I loved him in 2010 ipl and his ODIs are treat to watch. But I would love one indian to be in world XI and sachin is the best from all indian cricketers. Dravid is dead slow. Ganguly lasts "2 minutes". Gavskar is good for opening but a game saver. Is there anyone? Yeah Laxman!!! He is the best cricketer from india. I heard of his expletives when ojha was not runnin in 1st test. What a player. Great :-) any arguments on it

  • Sudhir on October 27, 2010, 15:15 GMT

    Richard and Lillie have won on their aura. Richards has an average record overall , his reputation created on his hammering of England. Being in that team, he has only on match winning hundred against the Aussies and I think none against Pak (the strongest teams at that time). He did score in the WSC, but those were no pressure games.Would pick Lara over Richards.

    Hadlee and McGrath should have been picked over Liliie, their sub continent record should be enough for that.

    I think Azhar's team of the 90 would beat this side 3-0 in India (assuming the dust bowls of the 90's and the Sachin would be in Azhar's team).

  • Jazy on October 27, 2010, 14:51 GMT

    For me Lille selection was absoloute disgrace in likes Imran Khan.

  • cricy on October 27, 2010, 14:20 GMT

    You just cant have an all time X1 without Imran Khan. I respest G sobers and its legacy but look at the impact Imran Khan put on the world cricket. Avg 50 in last 50 test with bat and 19 with ball amazing plus he performed everywhwre in the world,against every team with great average. The impact he put on the cricket the fame he got, and moreover he was behind the neutral umpire campaign. People say sober best cricketer of all time, what about Imran, i mean best 3or 4 bowlers in histroy, best 2 allrounders in history and plus best captian in thw world.

  • Shahid on October 27, 2010, 13:26 GMT

    @James Atkinson:

    It seems you are so obsessed with Botham that you are trying to negate the comments of the guru's of the game and history. Out of the four greats of their time i.e. Hadlee, Kapil, Botham and Imran Khan, all ex cricket players and gur's rate Imran the best of the lot (Batting average of 50 in his last 50 matches and bowling average of 19+ during the same time). Imran Khan's exclusion from the World XI was due to the brilliance of Garry Sobers as an all rounder and no one could deny that. In my view Imran Khan could have sneaked into the World XI at the expense of Dennis Lillee because Lille was not able to prove himself in Sub-Continent (He played very few matches in sub continent) otherwise its ok. No one who understands cricket would rate Afridi as a batsman. Its your own created views which seem to be biased as instead of commenting on this great exercise of selection of a World XI, you are trying to drag match fixing like issues into this great debate.

  • trev on October 27, 2010, 13:18 GMT

    cricfan24.... look at the amount of matches more tendulkar played. obviously he would get more runs. and the old geezer still is playing, typical indians. point is and most agree, tendulkar out, Lara in. for me, Lillee out, Ambrose in. warne or murali? dont really have a prob with any cause my 11 wouldnt have any, if marshall was so great in the subcontinent y cant he along wid sobers as a spinner deal with them? and obviously roy gilchrist. difinitely hutton out, gavaskar in.

    but if chappell said ure not looking to draw a match but win, y not put in roy 'theinsane' Gilchrist.

    hobbs, gavaskar, don, lara, viv, sobers(c), gilly(wk), marshall, akram, amrose, gilchrist.

    viv scare the bowlers, Gilchrist scare the batsmen... game over

  • Vinod Pathiyal on October 27, 2010, 12:39 GMT

    on going thru the comments, yes, Andy Flower is a big name as far as all time greats are concerned. he was a one man army, sorry for him his team mates were not as good as half as him! gavaskar pushed to second XI? ok. where is sehwag? do they think it will get on to his head? imran, aravinda, ponting??? anyways, its just a virtual reality!

  • GS on October 27, 2010, 12:35 GMT

    Never have any Pakistani bowlers in the team. Have them only when ball tampering is made official. Then they will swing the bowl like there is no tomorrow. Imran, Akram, Waqar, Aaqib and Nawaz all were ball tamperers. Besides that they always had biased umpires who favorued them esp in matches against India.

    Also Hadlee should be in place of Lillee. Lilles did nothing on subcontinent. Dunno how he is rated so high among all time great bowlers and esp by Ian Chappell. I can smell some "white pride" in this.

  • sb on October 27, 2010, 12:05 GMT

    The article transported me to my school days, spent idolizing Sunny...in those days India didn't collapsed only if he had seen off the new ball, his contribution can not be judged by the runs he has scored, because sunny scoring a 20 or 30 odd but departing after lunch was much more important for India than him scoring a 70 odd and departing before lunch. All said and done it just impossible to dismiss the claims of Hutton just like that..what many readers have done...Hutton scored lots of runs against pace of Lindwall and Miller, spin of O'Rielly, lost his most important years in second world war..got his left hand badly injured during commando training. Master Technician left behind legacy of great technical batsmen like Cowdrey and May. No I simply cannot pass a judgement. I am a bit perplexed at the lack of support for Botham and Richard Hadlee. Botham may not be Sobers.but.he is the person who has taken five wickets in an inngs and century in the same test most no. of times.

  • shiven on October 27, 2010, 9:35 GMT

    @ruchit. dont say the argument is foolish. If it is foolish then we all r fools as we r discussing something which is choosen already. The point is we are arguing the selction and eveyone has points to ponder or say. Coming to ur argument, if only battin is concerned, then boycott and kallis (if given some more incentives) will score like hell. The point is in world XI, we want aggressive players (like afridi) how can bat for 4-5 hrs (unlike afridi) and score and more importantly the opposition FEARS (richards and DOn and lara). No one fears sachin in test cricket and since people hav reservations ... he doesnt deserve. In case (I hope) he comes to know abt some who are logical and wants him to succeed, then he will scourge the NZ with more than 970 runs in 3 tests. I WANT sachin to be the best .... nothing else and before that, I will always stand aginst him. He has to bat with AUTHORITY . I love him but not blindly. d day he retires, ALL shld say.. he was betr than don. He needs that

  • shiven on October 27, 2010, 9:16 GMT

    @ALL people. I am sorry if sachination is hurt but one ting to reiterate... in odi, he is the boss. But not in test cricket and if some think my reasoning is foolosh then ask WISDEN why they didnt put any century of sachin in TOP 100. I argued for Ricky for player of the century and he became too. What I am tryin is not to be protective of our hero but to have a hero who is universally acepted. You talk of Bradman, no one in oppose his selection. Whether u say or not, people will oppose and u can find some along with me who dont like sachin to be there. It's simple. The team selected is aggresive. Its not how much u churn out. Kallis is better in churnin out in ODIs even but he is not at all dominant. World XI has to be dominant (gilly was choosen ahead of alan for this) and Sacihn, abring 136 vs pak in 1999, has nevr been domintn. b4 u chk the numbers, put a and on ur chst nad ask this... has sacihn done anythinin test as 98 vs pak, 136,143, 175 vs aus, and many other odi centuries.NO

  • lanka on October 27, 2010, 9:11 GMT

    David, do you know why Hadlee was not selected? Because Duleep Mendis was in the selection committee. He had hadleephobia. His record against Hadlee is the proof. He must have thought 'It's time to take revenge'.

  • vats on October 27, 2010, 8:39 GMT

    no hobbs; hutton; lillee; warne and gilchrist in my XI. The first two for the reason of not having played in the subcontinent be replaced by virendra sehwag and Gavaskar; Lilee for being no performer and regular breakdown bowler be replaced by Ambrose and warne by murali who was better. Gilchrist by alan knott.

  • charith on October 27, 2010, 8:33 GMT

    I think this is a very fair selection.The jury has correctly picked warne over muraly because warne has a higher average & a higher strike rate, So obviously they rate warne higher than muraly.(probably higher alcohol levels too)I mean all those 800 batsmen just got out to muraly because other bowlers were poor.(sorry vaasy).How nice of them.lol!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Paul on October 27, 2010, 7:07 GMT

    @Emancipator - what? Brevity is the soul of wit you know. Character limits exist for a reason.

    Skimmed through your post(s) and it seems like the usual bollocks about everyone is out to get India, and how everyone is biased towards Australia. It's very tiresome. Personally, I think you're just bitter that all the judges displayed the impartiality you so clearly lack, and chose pretty close to the best XI that you could find. I would agree though, that picking Gilchrist seemed a bit of an extravagance. The best keeper of all should have been picked, which, given that Don Tallon wasn't an option, would have been Knott.

    But hey, lighten up. Just because Sehwag, Gavaskar, Qadir, Murali or anyone else didn't get in doesn't diminish their stature, skill, or reputation one iota. All these players are secure in their greatness, regardless of what this little exercise achieved.

  • sundu on October 27, 2010, 6:40 GMT

    Having watched n followed cricket from 1958 onwards, i am OK with the team but for Sunny coming in place of Hobbs and Knot in lieu of Gilchrist. Gavaskar had the guts at that young age to face the mighty WIndians in WI without a helmet with a screaming n savage crowd ,on his debut which speaks volumes about his steely nerves.And dont forget that Gavaskar was a walker. That one series is enough to prove his mettle. Choice of Wasim Akram also has been well made. Almost all leading batsmen have confided that he was the most difficult in all wickets.Thanks for the entertainment n keeping the adrenalin flowing.

  • sundu on October 27, 2010, 6:37 GMT

    Having watched n followed cricket from 1958 onwards, i am OK with the team but for Sunny coming in place of Hobbs and Knot in lieu of Gilchrist. Gavaskar had the guts at that young age to face the mighty WIndians in WI without a helmet with a screaming n savage crowd ,on his debut which speaks volumes about his steely nerves.And dont forget that Gavaskar was a walker. That one series is enough to prove his mettle. Choice of Wasim Akram also has been well made. Almost all leading batsmen have confided that he was the most difficult in all wickets.Thanks for the entertainment n keeping the adrenalin flowing.

  • Gizza on October 27, 2010, 6:15 GMT

    Everyone including me has a bias in selecting teams like this. But some people have stronger biases than others. There's one person above in the comments section who thinks there should be TWO Bangladeshis in the World XI. Tamim Iqbal one the greatest openers ever? Shakib Al-Hasan the best all-rounder in the history of the game? Oh man...

  • SJS on October 27, 2010, 6:09 GMT

    JK your comment on BCL better than SRT in the 90s doesnt cut much ice, the decade of 90s is considered the worst (post World War 2) for batsmen as even statistics would prove, only 4 batsmen averaged above 50 in that decade. SRT 58.00, Steve Waugh 53 Graham Gooch 52 (retd. in 1995)BCL 51. As you can see sachin was head and shoulders above the others and that too against bowlers like Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Pollock, Mcgarth, Warne, Murli, Wasim, Waqar all of whom played in the same decade, the 90s, and each of them has taken more wickets than any other bowler in any other era in the history of the game.

  • kc on October 27, 2010, 5:37 GMT

    Andy Flower... Good job cricinfo in selecting all time XI, I think all players who feature in this all time XI are great, but I do feel 1 cricketer has been left out, and that is Andy Flower. I know the pool was only from 8 top test playing nations, but when one is picking all time XI, exception can be made. Andy's record as batsman in test is superior to even Gilchrist's record and his wicketkeeping is at par with wicketkeeping of all great wicketkeepers. Also he played for Zimbabwe, which was a week side in test then and carried batting burden with ease.

  • tbranch on October 27, 2010, 5:29 GMT

    Warne over Muralitharan without any quibbles? All this shows is serious cultural bias. They played in the same era, except Murali had to face the No. 1 team over and over, while Warne never. There is not a single statistic where Warne is better. To recap, in 12 fewer matches and 43 fewer innings, Murali took 92 more wickets at a faster strike rate, while conceding fewer runs, and taking more sets of 5 wickets in an innings and more than double the number of 10 wickets in a match: Statistic Warne Murali Matches 145 133 Innings 273 230 Wickets 708 800 BestInn 8/71 9/51 BestMatch 12/128 16/220 Average 25.41 22.72 Economy 2.65 2.47 StrikeRate 57.4 55.0 5W inning 37 67 10W match 10 22

  • Mohit Suryawanshi on October 27, 2010, 5:28 GMT

    My XI:1) Sunil Gavaskar. The best test opener ever. 2)Jack Hobbs. Simply for sheer weightage of first-class runs and centuries.3)Don Bradman. Just for his average, although I think he would struggle like Ricky on the subcontinent.4)Sachin Tendulkar. I am NOT a fan of his but for sheer remorseless runmaking, there's none better.5)Viv Richards. Like Sehwag, put the fear of God into the bowlers.6) Garry Sobers. The best no.6, great fielder, versatile bowler.(he's a far better batsman, bowler, and fielder than Kallis).7)Alan Knott. The best KEEPER-batsman.8)Wasim Akram. Genius with the ball.9)Malcolm Marshall. Best West Indian fast bowler.10)Glenn Mcgrath. Most accurate opening bowler. 11) Muthiah Muralitharan. Deadliest spinner in the game. 12) Kapil Dev. Imran Khan was a better all-rounder, but Kapil was a magnificent athlete in the field, and Imran was rather lazy.

  • FanForever on October 27, 2010, 5:20 GMT

    I agree with most of the selection. But don't think the team needs Richards if there is Sobers and Gilchrist in the team to dominate the bowling. Gavaskar's record against the "Complete pace attack" of West Indies shoul guarantee him a place in the World XI.. And Lillee doesn't deserve a place due to his inefficiency on subcontinent pitches.I reckon the bowlers should be good enough to perform at the same level on all conditions around the world.. My Team would be 1) HOBBS 2) GAVASKAR 3) BRADMAN 4) TENDULKAR 5) SOBERS 6) GILCHRIST 7) IMRAN KHAN 8) AKRAM 9) MARSHALL 10) WARNE 11) AMBROSE

  • raj on October 27, 2010, 5:15 GMT

    JUST ONE BLUNDER IN THE TEAM....GILCHRIST. With a stellar batting line up like this and the bowling attack that cannot get better its a no-brainer e that only the best wicketkeeper has to be chosen. NOT the best best wicket-keeping batsman. And for this reason alone Alan Knot should have made the cut.

  • Anonymous on October 27, 2010, 4:56 GMT

    People who mourn on not having Mcgrath, with all respect to the great bowler, Ambrose was way better than Mcgrath in any day, anywhere, against any opponent (considering accuracy, average, and support from other end). Mcgrath is great but not really the greatest as Ambrose is.

  • Roshan on October 27, 2010, 4:40 GMT

    People who are talking against sachin are plain Jealous! The world acknowledges him as the best ever after sir Don. So, I guess, Sachin does not need an recommendations from anybody here or anywhere. He has earned it big time and no one can take that away from him.

  • Satyajit on October 27, 2010, 4:34 GMT

    Well, those two would be my picks as well. Gavaskar and Knott. In a team of batting stars you do not need wk to bat a lot. Plus Knott wasn't a pushover as a batting contributor. Just not as good a batsman as Gilly. Actually there are quite a few like Healy and Kirmani who are better wk than Gilly. In a team of best, you go for best in that discipline. Gavaskar redefined Indian batting, had the capacity to go against the best pace attack of all time. I would leave out Len Hutton. Hobbs had incredible endurance plus including him makes the team more inclusive of various ages. The third change would be Barnes instead of Lilee. Lilee didn't do too well in the subcontinent (and Barnes never played against!) so let's take Barnes's better strike rate. Rest all are fine.

  • NAP73 on October 27, 2010, 4:31 GMT

    Yes, everyone will have their own opinions against a background of context and situation. However, there is definitely an argument for ensuring an effective 12th man like Murali to employ in particular conditions (instead of say Lillee). Some would say that if you were looking at purely stats and calibre of opposition then Kallis would be considered, but like many he is just not entertaining enough. Entertainment is an argument for Gilchrist, but Knott or Healy would be preferred for actual skill given quality of batsmen in positions above in this fantasy side. One final comment - I am particularly annoyed with the continued baseless comments people like chetan continue to espouse. Ponting was not the umpire in Sydney 2008 remember! There is also a reason why Australia ranks so highly in terms of country integrity and anti-corruption rankings, unlike other countries... Moreover, it is a far more competitive and less gentlemanly game now in association with professionalism & careers

  • Emancipator007 on October 27, 2010, 4:30 GMT

    Folks,also try and track Gilly’s Test batting and records (have watched most of his Test innings); it is not all that great as it is being made out to be as compared to the classy and correct Kumar Sangakkara (as stated by a commenter here, Sangakkara will be retrospectively considered a legend in the future and it is not his fault that Sri Lanka do not get more Tests in SA or OZ where he has done very well unlike Mahela J.). Gilly’s flamboyant personality and ODI blitzkriegs at the top of the order in ODIs has captured the imagination of analysts and fans alike (and of course his pioneering attacking batting style at no. 7 in Tests) and tends to blur his Test and ODI records for a more objective analysis but he was sorted out by Indian and English bowlers in the mid-latter half of his career.

  • Cricfan24 on October 27, 2010, 4:22 GMT

    I think Brian Lara, bless his heart, was a great batsman. But he is held in such high regard partly because of his swashbuckling style and the fact that his few highest notes in a career spanning hundreds of matches were as high or higher than anyone else's. The truth is that he was nowhere near as consistently good as Tendulkar has been and still is. Consider this. In 4th innings, Brian averaged 3 runs lower than Sachin, In 3rd match innings 7 runs less. Lara has 8 hundreds in winning causes vs Sachin's 20. And apart from the 153*, he has done virtually nothing in 4th innings chases. But that innings has always been cited in a "what has sachin done?" argument. Before Sachin buried the idiots at Chennai, of course.

    And let's not even bring ODIs into the picture. I'll risk sounding like a troll and say that it's ludicrous to me that anyone would look beyond Sachin as the greatest player in limited overs history. He has 33 hundreds in winning causes, has made runs eveywhere and in real pressure cooker situations (he averages 56 with 6 hundreds in ODI finals v Ponting's 38 or Lara's 28). The closest anyone comes in the ODI greatness stakes is Viv Richards, and Tendulkar has more than 10,000 more runs (say it out loud - more than TEN THOUSAND), at a marginally (45 v 47) lower average and marginally lower strike rate. So, please, I beg of you fine folks, end this Sachin v Lara debate once and for all. I'll get an aneurysm if I have to listen any more about Brian Lara winning more matches (all eight of them) or having been a better batsman than Sachin.

  • Cricfan24 on October 27, 2010, 4:22 GMT

    YES!!!........... I got 3 out of 11 right !I had picked 5 Tendulkars, 5 Akrams , 1 Gilly................Unfortunately the 12 experts got Tendulkar, Akram and Gilly right but went in for 8 other lesser players.

  • Emancipator007 on October 27, 2010, 4:17 GMT

    rated Abdul Qadir as the greater and more allround leg-spinner and Sobers has called Subhash Gupte as the best leg-spinner of all time. Warne’s overwhelming persona (admittedly he did revolutionize and bring spin bowling to the fore again), Ashes successes (there you go again for the Friths and Wisdens for whom only Ashes battles matter! ) have blinded many cricket analysts. I have disliked and despised McGrath for his on-field shenanigans and bad attitude (and doff off my hat to Ramnaresh Sarwan for his immortal repartee -Google for It! which got Pidge all mad), but unlike the Gideon Haighs am not biased and would include McGrath in the all-time XI ahead of Lillee because of his awesome all-conditions and especially sub-continental records and purely because no single batsman has been able to collar or master him in Tests consistently -Sehwag came close in the 2004 Test series in India (Tendulkar and Abdul Razzaq only in ODIs). CONTD.

  • Emancipator007 on October 27, 2010, 4:11 GMT

    As for the inclusion of Warne and Lillee in an all-time XI, shocking to say the least and typical of rating and including flamboyant Aussie personalities or Ashes series performers. Remember reading quite a bit in the early 80s about Lillee always looking to skip tours to the sub-continent (though he was extremely lucky that the one scheduled in 1979 in India happened during the Packer World series). Whereas Warne has been called over-rated by Arjuna Ranatunga, Salim Malik, Aravinda de Silva - all masterful players of spin. Let’s not even talk about the Indian batting greats who have collared and mastered him thru the 90s and the noughties (Indian batsmen are too submissive or gentlemanly to make bombastic comments in public about Warne being over-rated). Running webs around leaden-footed English and South African batsmen [or badly disciplined 2000s era Sri Lankan (circa 2004 series in SL) and Pakistani batsmen] don’t make for an all-time great spinner. By the way, Graham Gooch CONTD.

  • Emancipator007 on October 27, 2010, 3:56 GMT

    have been expected to pick Gavaskar over Hobbs and Hutton (however great their performances and records). Ian Chappell would have been the most ruthless and detached (but for his over-zealous playing-up of Lillee whom he happened to captain and so the resultant myopic nostalgia). Note Chappelli has known to have taken Bradman to task too on quite a few issues without bothering about Bradman’s holy cow status internationally and would generally be expected to be unbiased in cricketing matters. He rated Ganguly as the best Indian Test batsman after his comeback in 2006 (despite knowing his brother’s extremely bad fallout with Gang).

  • ShakiRon on October 27, 2010, 3:55 GMT

    Why all you are thinking about the picks? you have your best team in your mind. Lets have a look on my XIs 1st: Sehwag,Gavaskar,Bradman,Lara,Viv,Imran(c),Boucher(wk),Wasim,Marshal,Warne,Mcgrath 2nd: SAnwar,Jayasuriya,Dravid,Sachin,Laxman,Sangakara(wk),Holding,Murali,Ambrose,Donald,Bond

    ODI XI: Tamim,Sachin,Ponting,Bevan,Ganguly(c),Gilchrist(wk),Sakib,Bond,McGrath,Murli,Wasim

    This what you see is the clear thing that there will be some more great players. If you want me to pick captain then Ganguly is the right choice. Openers to come Tamim, Gambhir. Allrounder to come Sakib-al-Hasan. Middle order to come from India,Australia,S Africa,England. So don't think its the best time to pick alltime world XI. It is Cricinfo's Business strategy.

  • Emancipator007 on October 27, 2010, 3:54 GMT

    102 in that famous win against WI chasing 406 and the aforementioned masterful 96 against Pakistan with India falling excruciatingly short by 16 runs).He also scored a well-paced 90 in the 1986 Tied test against Australia apart from scoring an unbeaten 67 in India’s historic win over the WI in his first Test itself in 1971! On the Judges, have done a psychoanalysis; Gideon Haigh should never EVER be called a historian per se but an Anglo-Aussie cricket historian with some stated rantings (some understated visceral hatred ?) against India (read BCCI and Gavaskar whom he would have reflexively omitted); Tony Greig who for some unaccounted reasons also hate(d)s Sunny’s guts for taking on the old, imperial ICC(read Anglo-Aussie cabal); John Wright too has had some issues with Sunny and surprisingly once rated G. Chappell above Sunny. Frith while being a respected historian is clearly and overtly Anglo-inclined; 4 judges with known biases and pre-disposed perspectives could not CONTD.

  • Anonymous on October 27, 2010, 3:45 GMT

    Gavaskar is possibly the most classically perfect Test batsman in Test history (note did not say authoritative, attacking, positive like Lara, Bradman, Richards, Sehwag, Tendulkar or even G. Chappell at times). Dig up videos of Sunny (quite widely available now) and you will never see a more assured and technically sound batsman EVER against hostile, potent, extreme pace bowling or even spin (his final and master class Test innings of 96 on perhaps the worst dustbowl of a track in the 80s attesting to that). By the way, Gavaskar could collar attacks at will when he so desired (his 121 in Delhi to go past Bradman’s then record 29 centuries and 90 in Ahmedabad were exhilarating attacking virtuosos against Marshall and Holding at their snarling best). Gavaskar was also indisputably the supreme 4th innings batsman and played 3 of the best in that era with mixed results (221 against England at the Oval in 1971with India falling short by just 9 runs while chasing 438, CONTD.

  • Emancipator007 on October 27, 2010, 3:42 GMT

    Folks once and for all:Since this is about debating World X1s, the time has come to appreciate Gavaskar’s masterful batting, his handling of extreme pace bowling prevalent right through his era and his technical excellence(deliberately understated and under-rated by much of the Anglo media) and his status as possibly the greatest Test batsman after Don Bradman(Tendulkar is undoubtedly the most consummately skilled and complete batsman of all time). Sobers, Andy Roberts, Marshall(and from what I remember Colin Croft too on on-air cricket programs) have at different times considered Gavaskar the greatest Test batsman bar none. Both C. Lloyd and V. Richards in quite a few private conversations admitted to Gavaskar’s all-time great status- purely because they understood the difficulty of doing so well against the WI pace bowling attacks(even accounting for his highly modest returns on the 1983 WI tour against the pace quartet in what was essentially M. Amarnath's renaissance series)CONTD.

  • bharat tiwari on October 27, 2010, 3:10 GMT

    I have been reading all these names considerd for an all time world eleven and not even one time the name of Rohan Kanhai has not come up.From 1961 to 1968,he was arguably the best batsman inthe world and an automatic selection at first wicket down in any World eleven team.This is very puzzling for players with far lesser skill are being mentioned here.Even the judges know of his batting prowess and even being mentioned in this exercise is indeed very puzzling.

  • hatrick on October 27, 2010, 2:46 GMT

    @shiven...what ridiculous arguments for Lara ahead of Sachin for test side. Bringing up arguments about how SRT avge very low when McGrath/donald was involved. Have you done the same for Lara when Kumble and/or India is involved? He avgs. 34 against India and 25 when Kumble plays. Same low avg.with when Akram was involved. I could go on like this for all other players perhaps except the Don. But that is not the reason, I personally have SRT shade ahead of Lara but because he is adaptable to different situations including variety of pitches/conditions/needs of the team and overall consistency. I do not judge a player that way and this is why I really do not care about Sachin's 200 in a ODI or Lara's record breaking 375 and even more painful - "going for record" - 400. Easily he belongs Second XI or ahead of his country man Viv in the First XI (for Tests alone). ODI different story - Viv is the first name along with SRT.

  • Kalyan on October 27, 2010, 2:10 GMT

    Say what you may, test cricket is alive today because of Sehwag. He is indeed the icon of modern test cricket. I say this even as I have followed the game for decades.

  • drmsar on October 27, 2010, 2:10 GMT

    I really have one strong objection, other are minor quibbles. Minor ones first. I would prefer Knott over Gilchrist, 'cause pure keeping skills are the most important in this XI. And I would take Headly over Richards (Headly carried the entire WI, while Richards is slightly overrated because of his personality, and his performance against the English). Now the major quibble: unanimous choice of Warne ahead of Murli. If Warne won by one or two points, I would still disagree but understand. Aussies voting for Warne is understandable, but not others. Murli is the best spinner there ever was, and his action was cleared. Remove B'desh and Zim, and Murli is still ahead. Warne feasted on the weak English sides of the 90s while Murli hardly played them, I could go on. And Warne was actually banned for taking drugs! How come no one ever mentions that? How many years prior to getting caught was he taking drugs? How much of his famous energy came from that? Being tainted like this is massive.

  • darklion on October 27, 2010, 0:25 GMT

    @lcg I'll say it again because it bears repeating. Shane Warne could NOT be selected over Muttiah Muralitharan on ANY OBJECTIVE grounds. Absolutely correct. We've seen recently on Cricinfo a stats analysis comparing the two bowlers. There's almost no statistical measure that gives Warne an edge over Murali, while there are several that go the other way.

    For an honor as important as this, with ESPN, Wisden, and Cricinfo's names all attached, there should be more justification to selection than just "I think he's better". All those people saying "great team, great committee, nice job, etc. etc. where are your brains? Why do stats not seem to count at all? This is all just an exercise in hairsplitting, so why aren't we doing it PROPERLY? If "99.94" is Bradman's ticket, "199" is Hobbs', and 14240 is Sachin's, why aren't "66", "22", or "800" Murali's?

    To Sachin and the others, I'm glad you were honored, but this award isn't worth a sack of cow dung. I'm sorry it had to be this way.

  • James Atkinson on October 27, 2010, 0:12 GMT

    Botham was definetly a better bowler and surely a better batter than Imran any day. Imran had very few match winning innining in comparasion. But then most people asking for Imran are from pakistan so its understood. After all they consider Afridi to be better bowler and batter than most people in the world and his record clearly shows he plays one match innings every 20 innings.So logic can be ruled out in that case only bias exists. Wont be surprised if they create a furore over leaving out Amir from the world XI based on his 2-3 innings he has bowled so far. Well but on other hand I guess we do a need a qualified spot fixer in World XI dont we? ;) because Akram is not a proven one..just a suspect one.

  • PT- the Axis on October 26, 2010, 23:56 GMT

    majority is sheep and they tow the line. the line is that - bradman is great. so they all agree without ever having really seen him in action. he would would be just another cricketer in modern era. everyone is a 'great' when playing the english. even vengasarkar made 3 centuries at lords against them. richards always pummeled them. english like to give opportunity for everyone to shine. they want to and do create heroes for these other nations desperately in need of idols. no cricketer is actually great. all have their flaws and none of them are regular matchwinners for their respective teams. there is not one player in this 11 who one can be sure of performing under any conditions. the truth is that most of the genepools here on earth have not reached god-like perfection but they all would like to believe they have. all the cricket players are mediocre at best. they are not jedi's or shaolin monks or rishis. they are all average joe, don & sachin.

  • Gizza on October 26, 2010, 23:19 GMT

    Arif, no Shoaib CAN'T do everything that Lillee can do but 15km/h faster. When Ian Chappell said that about Lillee and McGrath, what he means is that Lillee is equal with McGrath in accuracy, and both in the prime could swing the ball both ways. Only difference? Lillee was faster. But Akhtar 1. Was not accurate at all 2. Didn't even swing (or reverse swing) the ball much. Wasim Akram was also fast, accurate and a swinger (but reverse instead of traditional style).

    Also everyone should remember we are selecting a team not the best, say three fast bowlers. So Wasim Akram does add variety because he is left-handed (although Sobers was also left-handed so maybe there's an argument to replace him with Imran Khan like Richie Benaud did).

  • 12th man on October 26, 2010, 23:19 GMT

    The XI Jack Hobbs, Virender Sehwag, Sir Donald Bradman, Sachin Tendulkar, Sir Viv Richards, Imran Khan(c), Adam Gilchrist, Sir Richard Hadlee, Wasim Akram, Malcolm Marshall, Shane Warne.

  • Paulk on October 26, 2010, 23:00 GMT

    I respectfully disagree with Sambit and Ian Chappell re' the quibble over Gilchrist's place in the side. Although their argument is logical, and even though Gilly played in a very strong team I think his batting made a huge difference between an imposing team to an all-time great team. Often he would walk out when Aussies were in trouble and turn things completely around while attacking all the time. While he may not been the greatest wicketkeeper in history, his batting may have overshadowed superior keeping skills and he even had the most dismissals for a while. Plus for most of his career he maintained an average between 55 and 60 which fell of drastically at the end. With an outstanding strike rate he might have been considered on batting alone.

  • JK on October 26, 2010, 22:56 GMT

    There cannot be a world XI that is truly "all time"...Conditions were vastly different in the Bradman/ Hutton/ Hobbs and even the Headley era. You cannot compare these various time frames... The only solution is to have post and pre-TV XI's......pre TV XI should constitute a time before majority viewership was via TV..I believe the advent of TV changed cricket as a viewer sport completely (and still continues to do so).... Gavaskar will walk into any post -TV world XI and so would Brian Lara...One cannot underestimate the quantity of runs scored by Sachin and his longevity - but he is clearly the 2nd best batsman produced by India....For me, the greatest batman of the 90s will always be BCL

  • Arshad on October 26, 2010, 22:41 GMT

    What is ball tempering? 'If any Pakistani quick legend gives an outstanding performance with the ball', it is ball tempering, else it is an art and outstanding performance.

    Great player is one who enables his team to win the games from losing state, not losing the games from winning position. So compare Tendulkar and Lara on this scale. For example, recently, India won against Sri Lanka by skills of VVL as Tendulkar got out when India was almost 100 runs away. Against Australia, he left the jon on the shoulders of injured VVL. Against Pakistan, India needed 16 runs with 4 wickets in hand including Sachin, India lost the game from that point. Personally, Sachin is a great record holder, but he can not bear the pressure all alone.

  • David on October 26, 2010, 22:13 GMT

    Hadlee deserved a spot in the team for the sheer longevity and ability to take wickets in any conditions despite a sub standard team. He carried his team unlike many of the other players who if they couldn't get someone out, someone else would opening the next batsmen up to them.

    Anyone who doesn't rate Hadlee as the very best fast bowler of all time obviously didn't watch enough of him play and see how he steps up against the best of the best - this guy averaged 30 with the bat against the great West Indian team of his time and managed wickets at an average of 20 against Australia and 22 against said West Indies. He single handedly beat these teams in the 80s!

    Added to that his robust fielding and batting, he's an automatic selection for mine, he's better than any of the guys in either of the 2 XI's picked.

  • Raj on October 26, 2010, 22:11 GMT

    @Praveen.. How do you dreamt of the team with out sachin tendulkar? and punting as captain lolll..

  • Sharath on October 26, 2010, 21:36 GMT

    The most outrageous selection (or non-selection, rather) is that of Glenn Mcgrath over Dennis Lillee. It was interesting to note how Chappell said Lillee could do whatever Mcgrath could do but do it at 15 kph faster. It was interesting because the first part of his statement wasn't true. Mcgrath averages two points lower than Lillee at an identical strike-rate over 54 more matches. He played in an era of flat pitches and inflated batting averages.

    Mcgrath over Lillee any day. Marshall, Mcgrath, Akram and Warne would be my team if we're playing in Australia or South Africa. Anywhere else, I'd drop Warne for Murali.

    And yes, Knott for Gilchrist as keeper.

  • Scott on October 26, 2010, 21:24 GMT

    Let's put this in perspective people. I think some respect is deserved to Ian Chappell for his selections as he WAS CAPTAIN OF AUSTRALIA some years ago and saw much cricket on and off the field. He is very good at anylising cricket. For those who say they would not have chosen bradman, maybe you need to do some more research on his abilities? As for bowling, there have been many great bowlers sicne cricket was invented and if you cant pick the best spin bowler the world has ever seen (Shane Warne) then who are you going to pick? Don't forget that the laws of cricket were changed to suit the BEYOND 15 degrees that murali exntends his arm at. But always remember too, IT IS BOWLERS WHO WIN MATCHES AND NOT BATSMEN.

  • don talon on October 26, 2010, 21:20 GMT

    Dennis Lillee. 355 wicket and 327 of them came in England and Australia. I mentioned this statistic to an old friend and he couldn't believe it. No way is he a better bowler than Richard Hadlee.

  • Phil S on October 26, 2010, 21:14 GMT

    It is easy to believe that there is a reason why selectors are selectors and fans are fans. Selectors have a history in the game and the contacts that come from that. However, a studied outsider, rather than a fan (which after all derives from the word "fanatical") can at times be free of the baggage and contacts that selectors carry and can make some quite rational, alternate decisions. So we shouldn't bag people for having an opinion as long as it isn't just fanaticism like Sachin-worship.

  • GD on October 26, 2010, 21:14 GMT

    @Shiven, the point is that SRT's stats are as good if not better than Lara's even against McGrath, Donald and 2Ws; and he was dismissed far fewer times by McGrath or Donald or the 2Ws than Lara was (Lara fell 6 times to Donald in 8 innings and over 10 times to McGrath). Also you can check that Lara got to play 5-test series vs. Oz in the '90s and 4-test series vs. Oz and SA in the 2000s...and on more than a couple of occasions he scored mostly in the 4th or 5th test, by when the bowlers were less fresh. Whereas SRT always played 3-test series vs. McGrath and Donald and the 2Ws (except for his debut series in Pak which had 4 tests and 4 tests in SA when he was 19). But like I said before, both Lara and SRT are SUPERBATS, and deserve to be considered for the all-time side.

  • Singh is King on October 26, 2010, 21:05 GMT

    My all time XI is better than the above 1) Gavaskar- best openser ever 2) Jack HObbs- 197 first class centuries- period 3) Don Bradman- enough said 4) SR Tendulkar- refer to the above 5) Vivian Richards- He will destroy anyone 6) Garry Sobers- Most complete cricketer 7) Adam GIlchrist- Best keeper batsman of all time 8) Imran Khan- best bowling all rounder ever 9) Wasim Akram- Scary Left Armer 10) Warne- unarguable 11) mcGrath- greatest quick of all time 12) Kapil Dev- probably replace Richard on a bowling track and give team more versatility

  • GD on October 26, 2010, 21:00 GMT

    @Shiven...here are some stats for you to consider that a fellow reader (sublime_sport) dug up: SRT and McGrath have only played in 2 full-series 1998/99 in aus - [ 61 & 0 (both times incorrectly given out),, 116 & 52,, 45 & 4]series avg = 46.33. 2000/01 in india - [76 & 65,, 10 & 10,, 126 & 17] Series avg = 50.67 McGrath dismissed him 4 times out of 12 inns. SRT and the 2Ws (Pak) have played in 2 series. 1989 in Pak [15,, 59 & 8,, 41,, 35 & 57 ] Series avg at an AGE OF 16! = 35.83 Imran dismissed him twice, Akram & Waqar once. 1999 in India [ 0 & 136,, 6 & 29] Series avg = 42.75; 2Ws failed to dismiss him. SRT and Donald played in 3 full-series 1992 in SA (SRT just 19!) [11,, 111 & 1,, 6 & 0,, 73] Series Avg = 33.33 1996/97 in SA- [15 & 4,, 169 & 9,, 35 & 9] Series avg = 40.17 2000 in india [97 & 8,,21 & 20] Series average = 36.5 In these 3 series he was dismissed 5 times by Cronje and 4 times by Donald out of 16 inns.

  • rajnyc on October 26, 2010, 20:55 GMT

    All I have to say, take Sobers, richards, and marshall out. Put them back on the WI all time team and watch the trashing the world team gets from the West Indians.

  • Joe on October 26, 2010, 20:22 GMT

    Hello ut4me87...you need to check your words before you type mate...how can you even compare Sir Viv Richards with Shewag.Cant you see the difference in pitches,quality of bowling et al

  • Kit Gun on October 26, 2010, 20:18 GMT

    Surely Murali is a greater match winner over a sustained period of time over Warne, lower average, lower economical rate, lower strike rate, much better 5 for and 10 for frequency, also after 1994 Warne never had to play against the best team in the world, a luxury Murali never faced, and he never had Glen McGrath tie batsmen down at the other end, although Vaas did a great job his stats dont compare with McGrath. Neither did Murali often have a large score to defend, a luxury Warne had often.

  • crikkfan on October 26, 2010, 19:43 GMT

    My personal 11 has the same middle order as cricinfo's but differences are with the openers - Sunny (as Sambit suggested as well) walks in to bat with Barry Richards for me. Wk is Alan Knott for the same reasons as above. No dispute with Marshall, Akram and Warne - Akram for the left-hand variety but my fourth bowler would be Holding or Ambrose or Donald. How come white lightning is never mentioned in the bowlers discussion?

  • Fuddian Sujawa on October 26, 2010, 19:36 GMT

    @murty...u should get your head examined and soon

  • ruchit on October 26, 2010, 19:32 GMT

    @shiven Tendulkar average of 36 odd when Pigeon was involved. Let us take that. This analysis included 9 games. Did Tendulkar face up to McGrath in all the innings in these 9 matches?? Did McGrath get him in all those innings ? Do you know that in those 9 matches was a 3 match series in 1999 where Sachin won the man of the series? Did you know that 2 of those matches were played immediately after Sachin returned back from injury. Leave all that aside MCGrath and Donald on more than one occassion have rated Sachin as one of the best batsmen they have bowled to with Donald having rated him uthe best. Those guys know better than you and your figures. Based on your passionate pleas about Sachin being the best in ODI and then comments like not even 3 Pontings and Lara can match him (which is a rubbish and plain emotional statement) I can safely assume that you are good only in number crunching but not in solid analysis.Sachin plays for a purpose and t

  • Fuddian Sujawa on October 26, 2010, 19:28 GMT

    @sheryaar..this is a test eleven..why are you quoting ODI figures?

  • ruchit on October 26, 2010, 19:24 GMT

    @Shiven What foolish arguments. International cricket is not played just to entertain spectators.. It is played to win ,win and if possible not lose. Crowd entertainment is done by Afridi also. When he gets in with the bat the excitment and buzz is enviable. He is a great entertainer but not a great. Proffessional cricket has lot more at stake than pure entertainment of crowds. Or else you are one of those who want to see their favorite hit a 50 of 30 balls in losing cause but not a 70 of 100 in a winning cause. Probably you are not so much concerned about success of the team in a team sports like cricket. In the end what would always make Tendulkar higher than some of his peers is the fact he left Indian cricket in a much better state than he got it when he made his debut. 1989 Indian team was a rubbbish side. Tendulkar not only reinvirogated it but was an inspiration for generation of cricketers after the greats like Dravid and Laxman not to forget Veeru.

  • Roshan on October 26, 2010, 19:23 GMT

    "I am yet to meet a cricket fan who doesn’t fancy himself as a selector." Best line ever!!

  • CompleteTruth on October 26, 2010, 19:15 GMT

    Mr. TheTruth, before flattering the audience with your sheer brilliance it would be great if you could share your credentials..I am sure you have spent the last 1000 years of your life(evident from your grasp on the subject) observing each and every bowl bowled in cricket history to be able to dismiss other people's opinion so outrightly. Viv richards was great no doubt about that, but he was no Bradman and there's nothing wrong in comparing him with other greats instead of blindly making him a part of the team.

  • Arif on October 26, 2010, 19:10 GMT

    Sorry, its Ian Chappen mate. HAHAHAH...... Denise Lille could do everything what McGrath do with 15 km/h faster. How about Soaib Akhtar, He could do everything 15 km/h faster than Denise Lille, and with reverse swing < I bet Denise Lille never bowled a ball that reversed>. You gotta be kidding me when making such type of Arguments Mr.Chapple.

  • Shv on October 26, 2010, 19:08 GMT

    @The truth... I loved your comparisions... inzy over bradman??? wow... good one. But again on a serious note, I think inzy and bradman comparison holds for sobers and IK. someone how bowls fast and averages 21-22 is good enough to be in world XI and then the average of 50 (excluding the time when pakistan was zimbabwe) is Oh my Gawd! So Sobers is a definite YES, but IK is almost there and will be there till someone pips him out. And one ting. He shane is there becoz of flamboyance... IK is the father of it. One thing for sure, with all the greats lined up... people will still flood arnd IK (read girls)... so flamboynce, captaincy, fast bowler and decent batsman... amazing isnt it. This argument is not to replace Sobers but to say inzy bradman is not applicable for IK and sobers. Newaz, nice comparisons :-)

  • Anonymous on October 26, 2010, 19:08 GMT

    @The truth... I loved your comparisions... inzy over bradman??? wow... good one. But again on a serious note, I think inzy and bradman comparison holds for sobers and IK. someone how bowls fast and averages 21-22 is good enough to be in world XI and then the average of 50 (excluding the time when pakistan was zimbabwe) is Oh my Gawd! So Sobers is a definite YES, but IK is almost there and will be there till someone pips him out. And one ting. He shane is there becoz of flamboyance... IK is the father of it. One thing for sure, with all the greats lined up... people will still flood arnd IK (read girls)... so flamboynce, captaincy, fast bowler and decent batsman... amazing isnt it. This argument is not to replace Sobers but to say inzy bradman is not applicable for IK and sobers. Newaz, nice comparisons :-)

  • hatrick on October 26, 2010, 19:04 GMT

    I agree with some posters about Lillee - he had poor record in sub-continent and for whatever reason he hardly played in Windies. 60 out of 70 tests only in Eng/Aus. No idea what the jury was thinking about that selection except that his action was perfect for a fast bowler. There were so many others to choose from - Ambrose,Holding,Waqar,Trueman. May be the selectors split up the votes for other Windies greats. About Sir Viv, he is devastating and would be the first choice on an ODI-XI but for a test side his record is just "okay" compared to his World XI team members. I personally think he does not have that "grind out" mentality that is required for a test side. Food for thought, Lara is absolute great when he gets going but for a batsman that good he only has 6 NotOuts in 100+ tests. Bradman who played 1 drop in less than half the number of tests that Lara played has 10 NO. One of the reason why I have SRT a hair ahead of Lara on this - SRT is just more adaptable to situations

  • ruchit on October 26, 2010, 19:03 GMT

    @Shiven What foolish arguments. International cricket is not played just to entertain spectators.. It is played to win ,win and if possible not lose. Crowd entertainment is done by Afridi also. When he gets in with the bat the excitment and buzz is enviable. He is a great entertainer but not a great. Proffessional cricket has lot more at stake than pure entertainment of crowds. Or else you are one of those who want to see their favorite hit a 50 of 30 balls in losing cause but not a 70 of 100 in a winning cause. Probably you are not so much concerned about success of the team in a team sports like cricket. In the end what would always make Tendulkar higher than some of his peers is the fact he left Indian cricket in a much better state than he got it when he made his debut. 1989 Indian team was a rubbbish side. Tendulkar not only reinvirogated it but was an inspiration for generation of cricketers after the greats like Dravid and Laxman not to forget Veeru.

  • shiven on October 26, 2010, 18:42 GMT

    @Sammy. One thing for sure. I can beat ur team if i bat 11 times and bowl 5 times (read bowl and bat continuously)... how??? your team has: 1)S M Gavaskar, 2)A R Border, 3)B C Lara, 4)R T Ponting, 5)J Miandad, 6)J H Kallis 7)I Khan 8)M V Boucher 9)M Muralitharan, 10)G D McGrath,11)C E L Ambrose

    so first of all gavaskar and ponting will kill each other. if ponting wins lara kills him or miandad kills gavaskar. mcgrath will abuse lara and miandad will try to captain which will make imran back bit with border. Border is angry that gavaskar is hurt as "border-gavaskar" name is in peril. He will suport imran and kill miandad.Ambrose will kill kallis for his late scourge on WI (against the minnow bowlers). that leaves boucher and muralidharan against me. Bourcher by his nature will stop battin to be my wicketkeeper (i knw this role of his only) and I yorker muralidharan for a duck. Only thing is I cant score a run aginst murali... so it will be the fourth tie in the history of test cricket

  • M R HARSHAN on October 26, 2010, 18:37 GMT

    Ian Chappel's selection of all time world x1 is baffling.Ian and the world jury was found wanting in knowledge about cricket and cricketeres.Only Bradman,Gary Sobers,Tendulkar,& Wasim Akram along with Marshall gain automatic entry in to this famed list of all time world x1.The rest of the names are debatable.Iam appalled to see some ordinary cricketer's name like Lilee figure in that list.He has played test only against England and West -Indies.Not one over has been bowled by him on this sub-continent.When he has not proved his mettle at the international level by playing against all countries,on all types of wickets in different climatic conditions,how can his name be included in that list.May be, he is Ian's friend.He played under Ian Chappel.

    Where is Muthiah Muralidharan's name,the legend of the legends.How did Warne gain selection over Muralidharan.It has become a laughing stock to read.Comedy of errors.Muralidharan the worlds greatest bowler of all time who has taken 800 wick

  • TheTruth on October 26, 2010, 18:31 GMT

    Whoever said drop Viv knows nothing about cricket and should pick watching a new sport because they obviously have a defect of some sort.

    No one is ever going to happy with a world XI but its funny how some want Imran over Sobers? Imran over Sobers? I'll repeat Imran>Sobers??!!!!!!!!!!! Are u(mostly pak fans i bet) kidding me? I love Imran Khan, but I must say Khan, Kapil, Botham, and Hadlee will always be 2nd class to Sobers.

    Next they will want Inzi over Bradman. No wait, I think Kamran over Gilly too right? Stop the patriotism/favouritism and just enjoy what is entertainment or fantasy. In the real world this means very little I'm sure to Imran who lifted the 92 world cup.

    The only real gripes (IMO) can be about Gavaskar, Holding/Ambrose, Murali and Knotts. Sorry Brain Lara and George Headly.

    I am not totally happy about this list, but its mostly fair. Its as fair as it could've been I think.

  • shiven on October 26, 2010, 18:29 GMT

    one more thing... except for BRADMAN, I think the second XI has better players as compared to world XI. Sunny and richards as compared to hobbs and len. second XI scores. Then headley, lara and wally scores equally with sachin richards and bradman (if he is asked to score a hundred and get out... and cant go on and on). Then alan knott is better than gilchrist. Bill O'Reilly, Fred Trueman, Muttiah Muralitharan, SF Barnes are 2 notches up compared to Malcolm Marshall, Shane Warne, Wasim Akram, Dennis Lillee. Dennis Lillee even dont know how it feels to play in India. Shane is not comparable to Murali. We are talking cricket not flamboyance. And one thing. He sobers and bradman say murali is the greatest aftr o'reily then how the jury feels he is chucking? Warne is highly overrated. In all rounder position, Imran is amazing if not better than sobers. He avearages 50 with bat (in his last 50 tests) and averages (19+) with the ball in that period. What else u need from him. SHeer Class.

  • Mactautocrat on October 26, 2010, 18:29 GMT

    Absolutely rite...Sachin doesn't deserve a position in the world XI. Why should he, he has only scored the highest no. of centuries and most runs in test cricket history. Who cares for longevity anyways..How does it matter if he has managed to maintain the same average as the other greats despite playing twice as many tests..It's absolutely a trivial achievement that he has faced bowlers from more generations than any other player and adapted his game beautifully to be successful against each of them..Look at his performance in SA...pathetic rite...all the other greats have conquered every single ground where a cricket bowl has been bowled..isn't it..and how can we forget that he didn't tear apart a fast bowler in tests as these other greats did. He might have done it in one-dayers, but in order to prove that he can do it, he should have done it in tests. I think he should start playing like Sehwag, throw his bat at every bowl outside the off-stump, to get into the world 11.

  • Sheheryar on October 26, 2010, 18:28 GMT

    Waqar Younis! 416 ODI Wickets. Im surprised he didn't even featured in second World XI

  • shiven on October 26, 2010, 18:13 GMT

    @GD, I appreciate your points. I am one of the greatest fans of Sachin who even remembers when and where he goes for outings. As I say, in ODI, even three pontings or lara can match this genius. My concern is his stature in test cricket. He averages 36.58 against australia when McGrath is playing. A pathetic 31 against pollock and donald and not so good record against pakistan. I am not judging him against lara or richards. What I feel is, if someone who dominates as he does in ODI, how he is missing the equation in test cricket. He gets slower when in 90s and never dominates as he did this time against australia. This was fun and amazing. I would love to see him doin it to all teams. But since the team is selected now, Lara is preferred to Sachin. AGain I am talking of tests. In ODIs, it is SACHIN with 96 points (the 12 jury members will cast him in second team as well...)

  • krishna on October 26, 2010, 17:44 GMT

    i think selecting an all time XI is such a waste of time - for this talented bunch of selectors. An all time XI is just an exercise in futility - like comparing a Charlie Chaplin with a Roger Moore or Sean Connery where Buster Keaton or Grouch Marx would be more apt. Will make more sense if this is done for every two decades - for a level playing field and comparing like players , like pitches and opposition -

    hence 1920-40 would constitute one team ;1950-60 second ; 1970-90 (the golden age team); 1990-onwards final team. I have a great regard for Ian Chappell as an upstanding leader . Isnt this the same Ian Chappell who had suggested Sachin retire from cricket during a patchy run in 2006

  • guru on October 26, 2010, 17:36 GMT

    my all time great x1 is gavaskar,grenidge,bradman,sachin,richards,kallis,gilchrist,marshal,hadlee,lilee & murali

  • Prahlad on October 26, 2010, 17:32 GMT

    If you go by quality of opposition, it has to be said that more recent players (post 1970) should be given preference simply because the game has become increasingly global. That was one reason why Gavaskar was ahead of Jack Hobbs on my list, although it is hard to argue against 199 centuries.

    Murali got the better of Lillie in my team because off-spinners are a very underrated breed, and it added more variety to the team (seeing as Sobers could bowl pace, the CricInfo team has 4 pace bowlers!).

  • svasudevan on October 26, 2010, 17:27 GMT

    While Imran Khan is one of the greatest captains, and a very decent batsman and a bowler, I cannot convince myself that Imran could have earned all those wickets thru genuine skill alone; ball tampering by Imran,Sarfraz,Aaquib etc will always be in the back of my mind; possibly they abused it more than anyone else to earn wickets

  • Arif on October 26, 2010, 17:24 GMT

    By far the best comment made is from Khochal "His royal highness Ijaz Butt should have been there as well". I laughed so much that I got stomach ache. The team looks impressive. Except, we dont need Lille. If I had no other option to choose than I would go out and play with 10 players Honestly, and still beat the team who has Lille. Who need another bowler if we have Akram and Marshal. First of all, Mr. Chappel just wanted to include him based on "I like him criteria". Lille does not have a good attitude and he does not have any thing that is good. Pity... There are so many great bowlers were not selected for what to be a greatest team of all time. Ambrose, Garner, Holdings, Walse, Waqar, Donald, Pollock, McGrath, Hadlee, Imran, and the list goes on and on. Come On Lille in All XII. You gotta be kidding me.

  • vicky on October 26, 2010, 17:23 GMT

    why this fuss about strike rate in test cricket..and when you player like bradman and richards you need to have player like sachin ..who can play second fiddle role when others are going great and at the same time can play big shots if situation demands...by the way talking about sehwag i would say that yes he is most destructive bats mean in present era..but i have yet to see him dismissive against player of lees,mcgraths,warnes,murlis calibre....i still remember sachin innings of 37 against aussies in which he hit 3 sixes of mcgrath...that is what champions are made about...well sehwag..hmmm..he can hit mendis,johnson,hauritz and the players who have been chosen dint have any shortcomings...but many would doubt sehwag ability against hostile short stuff..yes no doubt he can handle it but he can not dictate terms as what these elite players would do..and then when pitch is turning square i dont see him playing nicely(check out his record in 2nd innings)..so my advise is to have some

  • RahulBose on October 26, 2010, 17:19 GMT

    Picking of this world XI has been presented well and has caught interest of the fans. But the biggest thing it has achieved is underline the bias against Murali in cricket circles. What a shame that such a distinguished jury, who mostly claim to support Murali, decided to snub him. Apparently Bedi is not alone in this.

    This list should be released with a * note saying we all think Murali is a chucker.

  • kartick on October 26, 2010, 17:19 GMT

    The team looks fine except for one thing..

    If sobers is in the team,then Knott should have been the keeper given his superior keeping abilities.As sobers is a great batsman himself,gilly's batting services wouldn't be required much.

    If gilly is in the team,then Imran khan shoulld have been picked ahead of Sobers.Since there is gilly in the team,Imran khan's superior bowling(compared to sobers) would have been more useful.Also imran khan averaged close to 40 himself.

    So,except for these two factors,the team looks well settled and perfectly balanced.

    note: As i was writing this,i just felt that sobers might have been included(over imran khan) because he was left handed.May be,they wanted a balance between LHBs and RHBs..

  • Roshan Jain on October 26, 2010, 17:15 GMT

    The whole jury selection was incorrect. There was no one from the current era in the jury. Someone like Steve Waugh in the jury would have given so much credibility to the selection. He could have easliy represented the mordern era.. Though there was enough representation from the people of the older era , but no one representing the mordern era.. bit of unfair to players like Sehwag, Dravid, Kumble, Steve Waugh, Mcgrath, Kallis, etc.

  • Balaji Krishnan on October 26, 2010, 17:11 GMT

    Four slots in the team were always contentious...the openers and the new ball bowlers. simply because there were many great players in those categories. sehwag should've been simply picked instead of over hutton. Just his sheer presence at the crease strikes terror in the minds of bowlers. Mcgrath would have walked hands down in any world XI. but he's not even in the second XI. I do agree Akram was a legend in ODI's, but comparatively he wasnt at his best in tests. Personally i would've picked Sid Barnes in my WOrld XI in place of Lillee.

  • kartick on October 26, 2010, 17:06 GMT

    The team looks fine except for one thing..

    If sobers is in the team,then Knott should have been the keeper given his superior keeping abilities.As sobers is a great batsman himself,gilly's batting services wouldn't be required much.

    If gilly is in the team,then Imran khan shoulld have been picked ahead of Sobers.Since there is gilly in the team,Imran khan's superior bowling(compared to sobers) would have been more useful.Also imran khan averaged close to 40 himself.

    So,except for these two factors,the team looks well settled and perfectly balanced.

    note: As i was writing this,i just felt that sobers might have been included(over imran khan) because he was left handed.May be,they wanted a balance between LHBs and RHBs..

  • Rockon on October 26, 2010, 17:05 GMT

    How many guys here believe that Bradman would have averaged 99.9 if he had played in modern era? I am sure he would still been truly great but doubt avg above 60.. that helps you put in perspective players like Sachin, Lara, Ponting and Kallis ..

  • senthil on October 26, 2010, 16:57 GMT

    feeling for kumar sangakkara for his exclusion...if the selection is purely based on wicket keeping i accept alan knott should be selected. but they selected gilchrist because of his batting abilities..he might be great in one dayers...but not in test..really not in tests...so it should be kumar sangakkara.a great and eye-catching left-hand batsman of our era..that one innings 192 at hobart against aus will speak volumes abt his batting abilities...mark my words..by the time he retires he will regarded as the one of the greats of the game.." kumar sangakkara is the most under-rated test cricketer in the world now"..but im sure opinion will change...

  • manu on October 26, 2010, 16:52 GMT

    I think it is impossible to achieve a perfect all time eleven simply because people are bisaed in favour of either country or race. It is best I think to stick to something like Best India eleven, best Australia eleven ever and so on.

  • Amit on October 26, 2010, 16:52 GMT

    Sambit, this is indeed fun. I am surprised McGrath was not picked over Lillie or Lindwall. Ian Chappell's explanation that Lillie and lindwall did all McGrath did and were faster doesn;t cut it. McGrath Averaged better than both in day and age when batting is so much easier (look at the batting averages these days). Beside McGrath average 18 in India! GO figure. 18 in worst condition for fast bowler against perhaps the best batting side ever. He may not be exciting, but you take McGrath out of Australias team, and they drop from one of the 2 best ever to just a very good side as we fouund out during McGraths absense in 2005 Ashes and 2003-04 India's tour of Australias. And Sehwag: People tend to fantasize about the past and not appreciate the present. 20 years from now, it will dawn upon us what Sehwag means. Nobody, not even Richards or Gilchrist, in the last 40 years I have followed cricket comes close to destruction he causes consistently anywhere in the world. Overall, great job.

  • Aamod on October 26, 2010, 16:49 GMT

    Lillee and Warney woudnt be in my team. Lillee could be replaced by Imran or Hadlee, both were better batsmen obviously,Imran's avg is superior too (why cant u replace a bowler with an allrounder who could bowl eqaully well?) Also Lillee's record in Asia as someone pointed out aint that good. Same applies to Warne.(and the doping scandal evry1 has forgotten about - disrepute to the game) Murali too didnt have a dominating time in India, but his sheer ability to keep taking wicket after wicket, makes him the spinner of my side.

    Havent seen hobbs or hutton to make a case for Gavaskar/Sehwag.

  • Gautam on October 26, 2010, 16:36 GMT

    How can Imran or for that matter of fact any Pakistani bowler be sleected in the first 11. Looking at the say ball tampering has hounded them for ever....its only fair that thier records be taken with a pinch of salt. However Imran, Akram and Waqar are all greats but with the same shadow looming oer them as chucking loms over Murali. It would be interesting to see how Kapil Dev would have performed if he tampered the ball and if he had a decent frontline bowler to bowl alongside him. Come one having Kapil open with Lal/Binny/Amarnath/Sandhu is not the same as Imran opening with Nawaz/Akram/Waqar (though he came in much later) or for that matter of fact Botham opening with Willis (who was a very very good bowler).

  • zafar Mehmood on October 26, 2010, 16:36 GMT

    I'm in total agreement with the selection simply because both the batsmen & bowlers are capable of performing under all conditions. Keepers choice is interesting & must have been tough for the panel but i guess very few would disagree with the fact that Gilchrist is capable of competing for selection both either as a batsman or keeper. Since he is that capable,he got the nod. Hats off to the selection panel.

  • Gautam on October 26, 2010, 16:31 GMT

    How can Imran or for that matter of fact any Pakistani bowler be sleected in the first 11. Looking at the say ball tampering has hounded them for ever....its only fair that thier records be taken with a pinch of salt. However Imran, Akram and Waqar are all greats but with the same shadow looming oer them as chucking loms over Murali. It would be interesting to see how Kapil Dev would have performed if he tampered the ball and if he had a decent frontline bowler to bowl alongside him. Come one having Kapil open with Lal/Binny/Amarnath/Sandhu is not the same as Imran opening with Nawaz/Akram/Waqar (though he came in much later) or for that matter of fact Botham opening with Willis (who was a very very good bowler).

  • Murty on October 26, 2010, 16:30 GMT

    This World XI selection is just a few opinions from the Australian perspective. World Cricket when it comes to Tests was dominated throughly by WestIndies and especially by their bowling attack. Big bird was a fear factor for any batsman in the world. Michael Holding, ND Roberts, plenty to name. Lillie had played only on fast tracks and hence his record does not justify his place in this World XI selection. When it comes to test batsman, Gavaskar was a better choice than any as opener and so was Gary Sobbers and Don Bradman in the middle order. Tendulkar is a good batsman, no doubt about it, but he is far far behind the likes of Gavaskar, Dravid, Laxman, Lara, David Gover, Graham Gooch, Sehwag and Gundappa Viswanath. I also wanted to have Chandrasekhar/Kumble in the spin attack along with Warne/Murali. But it is restricted to XI, and hence we have less options. Also it would have been nice to have 2 spinners, 2 fast bowlers and an all-rounder(Sobbers). Who would be the Captain?

  • zafar Mehmood on October 26, 2010, 16:28 GMT

    The selection could not have been more pin point accurate. Selecting this XI out of a huge number of equally brilliant performers must have been a nightmare for the panel. I think the greatest quality of the selected lot is that the batsmen would have performed under all conditions & likewise the bowlers who are all outstanding,aggressive wicket taking bowlers. The keeper's slot must have been extremely tough too but i'm sure 80% of cricket followers would concur with Gilchrist's inclusion.

    Can you imagine how great the net session be where the Batsman from this XI are facing there bowling mates. If held at Eden Gardens,I am sure 100,000 would have turned up even for the practice session.

  • Sammy on October 26, 2010, 16:07 GMT

    My XI (Test)to play against the all time XI already picked by Cricinfo would be: 1)S M Gavaskar, 2)A R Border, 3)B C Lara, 4)R T Ponting, 5)J Miandad, 6)J H Kallis 7)I Khan 8)M V Boucher 9)M Muralitharan, 10)G D McGrath,11)C E L Ambrose

  • sujeet on October 26, 2010, 15:50 GMT

    The problem is that i have not seen Bradman,Hutton,Hobbs etc. play.Perhaps those, who have seen them,have made their selection.Hence,i have to, but, rely upon the selectors and their fairness in this regard.At the same time, i would say that after 1970 the game started to evolve into a new dimension which is known as MODERN DAY CRICKET.It has certain attributes altogether different from CRICKET played during the era of Bradman, Hobbs and Hutton.To me the divide is so wide and prominent that the selection of an all time great list must immediately be followed by the selection of an all time great list of modern day players.

  • Matt Cooper on October 26, 2010, 15:49 GMT

    @Rehman, it is not fair to questions people's motive. Sachin is second only to Don Bradman and even with two slots in the middle order he will be in. On the other hand Imran's selection is a nonstarter as he was a ordinary fielder and an average batsman. Mind you this is all time eleven and unless you are the vry best you dont get a look in and I dont think anyone is better than Gary Sobers in that department. and to say that Hutton and Hobbs did not play quality swing and seam shows questionable cricketing acumen. Hutton and Hobbs played on uncovered pitches with a wood for willow and still scored plenty of runs; their average is 55+!

  • Achyut on October 26, 2010, 15:40 GMT

    I totally agree with the selection...cause it is hard to select with so many greats in the world...but looking at the team it has a perfect balance of attitude,batsmanship and bowling to back it up with good fielding...personally i think there cant be a world 11 without the likes of (Bradman,Richards,Tendulkar and Sobers), but yeah just to see this team in action, i would have preferred Lara in there also...but no debate with those four mentioned above..as for the bowlers mentioned..i don't think there can be any argument, yeah some people might prefer somebody over Lillee, maybe even an extra spinner in murali...but I agree with this selection..overall..a great team considering all the era's from bradman time to the current Sachin's time..

  • Vijay on October 26, 2010, 15:35 GMT

    Looks like all the world is free to discuss this form for which many of the cricter are already in grave

  • mathi on October 26, 2010, 15:33 GMT

    where is kapil?..

  • karthik on October 26, 2010, 15:30 GMT

    Alan Knott wins my vote for being the better wicketkeeper and because this team might not be so reliant on Gilchrist’s batting - that is very insightful. And great panel too, I must add. Thank you.

  • Fahad Khan on October 26, 2010, 15:16 GMT

    How in the world can you include fast bowlers who havent bowled well in the subcontinent ! That is the ultimate test of a fast bowler. Lillee was pathetic anywhere outside england, australia and newzealand. He took just 28 wickets outside of england and australia. He averaged 101 in Pakistan ! No thats not his batting average, that is the bowling average...even mohammad sami and praveen kumar would do better. Similar arguments for those who are calling for hadlee, he averaged 44 in pakistan. It is for this reason that marshall has to be best fast bowler ever. He averaged less than 23 in every country in the world !

  • suren sabaratnam on October 26, 2010, 15:09 GMT

    Knott should have been picked for his superior wicket keeping skills. You are picking a wicket keeper not wicked keeping allrounder. If you are picking allrounders, why not pick imran khan instead of Lillee. I don't know Hobbs or Hammond. I am happy with the rest of the team Suren

  • GD on October 26, 2010, 15:04 GMT

    @Shiven, you make some good points. And personally I wouldn't have been too outraged if Lara had been picked instead of Sachin...coz both are indisputably "SUPERBATS." However, you need to appreciate that though Sachin's average strike rate is ~55-60, he has scored numerous 100s at SR of between 60-70 in Test cricket (especially in the 1990s)...and he possesses the talent to score even faster, especially if he were put in a team of fellow greats. And remember that we are talking about a man who even after age 36 has the talent to pull off 200* in 147 balls (vs. RSA), 175 in 141 balls (vs. Oz) and 160* in ~130 balls (NZ last year). To paraphrase Ian Chappell...great players have the RARE ABILITY to adjust their game and scoring rate to the game setting provided (and hence can excel whether you give them 20 overs, 50 overs or 5 days.)

  • Anonymous on October 26, 2010, 14:57 GMT

    DK Lillee / Test matches Grouping Span Mat Inns Balls Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 in Asia 1980-1983 4 6 792 410 6 3/114 3/107 68.33 3.10 132.0 0 0

    Does he deserve to be there in this list? Compare him with Michael Holding who was as fast, as tall and definitely more graceful in bowling and behavior. He played exactly the same test matches in Asia and took 30 wickets. I don't know how many times Aussies visited Asia at that time but it would be interesting to have a look and Lillee's "injuries".I would personally preferred to have Ambrose in my side to have a Tall, Dark, Fearsome lad like Ambrose who would have added variety in the attack by his bounce. Marshall was fast and skiddy, Akram swung like no one perhaps and we always have Warne. Sambit...have a thought.On the other hand I totally agree that my wicketkeeper need not bother about runs after the top six have graced the pitch. And how about a Short,Fair and handsome man opening with cap on.

  • rehman on October 26, 2010, 14:52 GMT

    Dear Sir,

    First of all the selection creteria seems to be based on pre-planned pressures. Why room was left for exactly 3 middle order batsmen when Gary Sobers was in all rounder category. Why not just selection 11 players whatever you wish. Secondly, why four journalist instead of 8 more cricketers from every country.

    Honestly speaking there is no room for Tendulkar in this team. being the best XI it should have at least five full-fledged bowlers to out the other team twice. You know if you only replace Marshal with someone other, the Second XI would be stronger.

    The natural selection becomes in this order

    Gavaskar, Barry, Bradman, Viv, Gary Sobers, Imran, Alont Knot, Marshal, Shane Warne, Murli, Magrah.

    Hutton & Hobbs did not play quality fast bowling. Sobers is not a good bowler. Magrah was most consistent with good average on good batting wickets wheres Lillee was not successful outside Australia & England.

  • Heramb Gude on October 26, 2010, 14:45 GMT

    My all-time One-Day World XI Tendulkar, Gilchrist,Ponting,Richards, Miandad, Bevan, Imran Khan,Wasim Akram,Ambrose, Muralitharan and McGrath

    Would like comments on this from fellow readers.No Englishman therein.England does not play enough one-day cricket and have a fixation for the Ashes, which they used to often lose heavily till recently.

    Can somebody suggest changes therein with justification, if possible.Ponting's in there for being part of three World Cup triumphs (two as captain) for Australia but my captain would be Imran Khan.Also Murali has been the more successful one-day bowler than Warne.

  • Amit on October 26, 2010, 14:41 GMT

    I think there should be 2 changes in the team S Barnes comes in for Dennis Lillie and Viv Richards makes way for G Headley. The reason is a left handed needed at no 5 and Barnes have got a best strike rate in the history of test cricket.

  • Khochal on October 26, 2010, 14:38 GMT

    His royal highness Ijaz Butt should have been there as well. He could've won any match with his brilliant leadershit (the typo is intentional) qualities.

  • Waspsting on October 26, 2010, 14:35 GMT

    It sounds like we would have had very similar teams! I would have had Gavaskar, Imran, Hadlee and Murali - in place of Hobbs, Wasim, Lillee and Viv Richards. I would retain Gilchrist because with Richards making way for a second spinner, we would need the keepers batting a bit more (further batting strenght provided by Imran and Hadlee as well as Warne and Marshall to compensate for having 5 bats). Imagine Murali and Warne bowling in tandem on a fourth day pitch. keep in mind that they're two of the rare spinners who don't actually need a fourth day pitch to be penetrative. Marshall, Hadlee and Imran are all of the highest calibre, too. both pace and spin is backed up by Gary Sobers.

  • rajesh rai on October 26, 2010, 14:28 GMT

    never easy to select a world eleven,people have their own choice,its all depend on the generation and debate will never end.no one is talking about the great KAPIL DEV.doesn't he deserve a mention.where is the great indian wall.the famous indian spin quartret and no MURALI.SEHWAG with two tripple hundred and one 290 plus has all the calibre to make it to world eleven.

  • Fuddian Sujawa on October 26, 2010, 14:28 GMT

    To all of you who say there cant be a world eleven without player x and y, I have news for you--there can be a great team without your favorite player in it as we have problem of plenty not scarcity, so stop saying that. Coming back to popular demand for Imran..he was not a very good batsman in his early career and an atrocious fielder throughout his career.

  • krishna darooka on October 26, 2010, 14:22 GMT

    well all will never agree to whatever selection you may make for the best world 11. But to me the team is indeed the best with all considerations like personal likings and own country preferances politics etc.

    Another fact remains that you can make another one or two teams with the other players left out and still each team will be as good to win as the original team

    It will be interesting to select the second team as well and then work out the innings total for both teams one with highest score of each player and one with lowest score of each team and work out who is the winner.

    In fact a game could be developed with bowlers and wicketkeeper actually performing to duplicate their roll in getting the batsmen out with some genuity and see how the teams come out

  • Anonymous on October 26, 2010, 14:21 GMT

    Grouping Span Mat Inns Balls Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10

    in Asia 1980-1983 4 6 792 410 6 3/114 3/107 68.33 3.10 132.0 0 0

  • Chinmay on October 26, 2010, 14:19 GMT

    I think Lilee should be replaced with Ambrose. Lilee didn't play much in sub-continent or against Pakistan, India and West Indies. His bulk of wickets were against England. On the other hand Ambrose has taken wickets every where and against everyone. He was the force to reckon with. Fearsome, aggressive, talented and without injuries. Why would I pick Lilee if I know he is going to break-down every other series?

    And the next choice will be Holding instead of McGrath.

    Regarding Gilchrist - why would you need your wicketkeeper to score runs when you have Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Hobbs and Sobers batting at the top? Because if Gilchrist ended up scoring runs then that means batsman above him didn't score enough and if they didn't score enough then they shouldn't be in all time greats!

  • Akhlaq on October 26, 2010, 14:19 GMT

    It is a hard job but I dont understand why Barry Richards ( 2nd XI) who has only played 4 test matches ( No matter how great he was in 1st class or back yard) The players should have selected from Test cricket based on ability and statistics as well. Imran Khan should qualify as a bowler. If preveious batsmen are given priority because they played on uncovered pitches than Waqar should have got extra points over Lillee for bowling on placid wickets.

  • Heramb Gude on October 26, 2010, 14:15 GMT

    A truly enjoyable and welcome exercise from Cricinfo.But the selection appears slightly lopsided.Not to have Gavaskar as an opener in an all time World XI is criminal injustice to him.His record against the fearsome pace quartet(Marshall, Holding, Garner and Roberts) from the West Indies, against Botham,Willis and Snow from England, Lillee and Thomson from Australia, Imran, Sarfaraz and Akram from Pakistan and Hadlee from Newzealand speaks for itself. Even factoring in batting on uncovered wickets, I, personally would opt for Gavaskar in place of Len Hutton.Lillee whose record in the subcontinent is pathetic largely due to missing tours does not deserve to be in an all time World XI no matter how strongly Ian Chappell defends his selection. I would pick either of Imran or Ambrose in his place.Even Tendulkar found Ambrose difficult to contend with.The rest of the team and slots allotted to them are just perfect.

  • Mohit on October 26, 2010, 14:15 GMT

    Players from different eras can't be compared. I've my own XI from 1990-2010.Sehwag,Hayden,Lara,Tendulkar,Ponting,S.Waugh(Captain),Gilchrist(wk), Akram,Warne,Donald,Mcgrath & Murali(12th man).I think cricinfo should have carried this exercise for greatest XI from eras such as pre-world war-I,between wars,70's-80's,etc.

  • Nadeem on October 26, 2010, 14:10 GMT

    Cric info did a great job. Its a near perfect team. with every body great and match winner only. Gavasker can be boaring some times thats why he was not selected. Lara never won a worldcup or made his team number 1 in test thats why he was not selected over Richards. Sobers is best all round crickter ever where as Imran was great Captain but you dont need any captain to lead this team. Every one is legend and professional. Therefore Sobers is better choice to make sure this team scores above 600 in first innings.

    very very good selection, good job.

  • Damon on October 26, 2010, 13:56 GMT

    Did u say drop Viv Richards? Lets here why.

  • Amit on October 26, 2010, 13:56 GMT

    A great exercise, can we have a similar expersise for One Day Internationals as well. I am sure it will bring some very unteresting results

  • david harris on October 26, 2010, 13:48 GMT

    I have seen all the great fast bowlers since 1975 and I am of the opinion that none is better than Richard Hadlee. Richard Hadlee should be in the all time first XI. Hadlee was feared by all batsmen, no one dominated him, he was a master of seam and swing even on flat pitches. Hadlee was the spearhead for New Zealand for more than 10 years and he didn't have a fearsome strike partner to work with at the other end.

  • Sameer on October 26, 2010, 13:47 GMT

    yes i agree with the selection committee...........defiantly sachin is great........i believe i/we cannot give such comments on these players.....its upto the committee only.

  • Nilesh.T on October 26, 2010, 13:23 GMT

    Wholeheartedly agree to comments from Anshu Changkakoti and Rameshmenon - Gavaskar has to be in for his sheer courage, skill flawless technique and determination to succeed in the middle of most hostile oppositions,without helmet cover amidst some of the best fast bowlers the world has seen in their prime on a wide variety of pitches. For years the entire Indian batting line up beagan and ended with how he performed. "Gavaskar out or still in"? used to be default cliche question amongst cricket fans querying each other on the Indian score and its answer determined national pride and hope versus sinking despair, such was the aura he carried around him. Also missing Richard Hadlee, Holding and the great royal Imran - all true legends in their own right from the list. Agree making an all time list like a World XI not the easiest of tasks as one cannot do justice to some of the greatest talents the cricketing world has seen.

  • Vivek on October 26, 2010, 13:19 GMT

    Gilchrist is anyday better than Knott. And McGrath had to be in the team.

  • Ashish_24 on October 26, 2010, 13:05 GMT

    Hutton played on uncovered wickets but Gavaskar dint, Thats the reason jury cited after leaving Gavaskar. For me Gavaskar played and exelled against the BEST BOWLING ATTACK the world has seen. Gavaskar played his cricket against the likes of Marshall,Garner,Holding, Roberts, Thompson and still doesnt find a place in the World Test XI.. That is ridiculous. No doubt Gilly was the best wicketkeeper Batsman but he wasnt better than Alan Knotts when it comes to Keeping skills. You dont Gilly's batting when you have Bradman and Sachin in the middle order. For sheer technical brilliance Knott should have been picked.

  • chetan on October 26, 2010, 13:00 GMT

    In terms of pure results against top class oppositions - though not a personal favorite, Laxman would come into the slot. Anyone who wants to argue should meet up with Steve Waugh / Ricky Ponting.

    Mr. Praveen, you are insulting Cricket when you have Ponting leading a side - His behaviour during Sydney 2008 has shown that he has no honesty. His comments after Sydney have indicated explicitly that he does not understand the word "integrity". He has blatantly abused the trust Anil Kumble placed in him, just to get his name in the record books !

    Only thing I am wondering even 2 years later is - how much bribe he has paid Cricket Australia & ICC management to ensure that his boorishness & hooliganism at Sydney was not formally penalised.

    Cricinfo of course can show their servitude to Australia & ICC by suppressing my comment, something they do every time I try to remind the world of how much Aussie cheating ICC supports.

  • lcg on October 26, 2010, 12:55 GMT

    Warne could not be selected over Murali on any objective grounds. However who can argue over a unanimous decision? After all Sri Lanka's own Duleep Mendis must have picked Warne over Murali: otherwise Warne's selection would not have been unanimous.

  • Prashant Geetam on October 26, 2010, 12:54 GMT

    Very nice article, Like Sambit said I also consider myself a selector and can debate for exclusion of some players who were there in my world XI but after looking at the jury I can say that they are the persons with whom you can not question. Great work.

    Every one is free to give his opinion.

  • Imran Ali on October 26, 2010, 12:50 GMT

    Gilchrist vs Knott...my "yes" is for Knott...He is by far better keeper than gilchrist..if u have likes of Bradman, Richards, Sachin, Hutton and Hobbs, i dnt think u then need a keeper who can be a good batsman as well..u just then need a best keeper and knott is the best...well for openers, i dnt think that u need sehwag..wat u should have in ur world X1 is the "balance"..and when u have someone like bradman, richards and sachin (who can play agressive) as well then u have to have openers who just give u a solid start..so openers are all perfect..for pace attack, i think there is only one mistake..mcgrath should be there instead of lillie...coz mcgrath did well everywhere..whr as lillie's record in subcontinent is not good..and for all rounder..i really fell pity for imran khan as he has compition with sobers (the finest cricketer ever)..otherwise imran could have easily made it in to world X1...

  • sb on October 26, 2010, 12:46 GMT

    If Ian Chappell's dictum of you can only be judged by the opposition quality is being followed for batsmen then we should have seen Gavaskar in the team. Also if the same guideline is followed for bowlers then Warne should not have made the team (given his performance against the best players of spin bowling--the Indians). I cannot understand the unanimous choice of Warne at all.

    while, Murali's record in India is not so strong, he has a decent record against the Indians in Sri Lanka.

  • Manish Pole on October 26, 2010, 12:36 GMT

    My team was exactly as per the Final selected with the only exception being that I chose Gavaskar instead of Hutton! Having two English openers lends a certain vulnerability in the subcontinent, especially considering that the No. 3 batsman too didn't play here. (That he would have succeeded is of course common sense!) Of course, Hobbs was chosen purely on recorded facts and figures - I have no way of having seen him in action. Murali would have been my 12th man and Lilee would have to make way for him on the subcontinent.

  • Paul on October 26, 2010, 12:13 GMT

    What a nice measured article - it's a pleasure to read something reflective & explanatory, after the feeding frenzy of the past couple of days. And it has been tremendous fun, seeing the opinions & cherished players that so many punters have been pushing the barrows of.

    Regarding your team - I agree wholeheartedly with your point about Gilchrist. Any team with batsmen of that calibre won't need someone coming in at 7 to save them.

    And with Gavaskar - why drop Hobbs or Hutton? I'd drop Viv Richards personally.

  • Rameshmenon on October 26, 2010, 11:59 GMT

    Gavaskar is coming from sub-condinant and conguered world over bowling conditions.He deserves more greatness than two englishmen.Mr.Gavaskar face more great fastbowlers than other counterparts,what i heard.So i suggest GAVASKAR V/S HOBBS.And in wicketkeeper Alanknott sure because Better wicketkeeper.No other changes till but in future Sehwag will take one opening slot.

  • Anshu Changkakoti on October 26, 2010, 11:57 GMT

    I would agree with Sambit here.. Gavaskar is by far the best opener in test cricket. Its a surprise that his name was missing from this list. He faced the greatest fast bowlers of all time - which other era can boast of the bowlers of the caliber of Marshal, Holding, Garner,Roberts,Garner, Lillee, Thompson, Hadlee, Bob Willis, Botham and come out on top... 13 centuries against the fearsome Windies attack and without a helmet is a huge achievement...

  • hamid on October 26, 2010, 11:54 GMT

    I am yet to meet a cricket fan who doesn’t fancy himself as a selector. This of course makes the job of professional selectors among the most hazardous in the business. Everyone thinks they could have done a better job than you and, no matter what team you pick, there would be a billion people disagreeing.

    This is so true, instead of people realising the difficulty of the job they just criticise..... maybe there is a reason that the selector is a selector and the fan is just a fan....

  • ut4me87 on October 26, 2010, 11:53 GMT

    Totally agree with Gavaskar opening the batting, may be with Hobbs. And Knott the finest wicketkeeper I have seen since I have been watching cricket since early 1970's. I have seen Richard's at his best, but I think Sehwhag is a better batsman - although he is more humble and a simple man.

  • Mark on October 26, 2010, 11:36 GMT

    Some of the selections are rather dubious and smack of typical favoritism which is often displayed by some of the members of this jury in their interviews, articles and television commentary.

    Anyway as it is the all time World XI it is only apt that players from only the great cricketing nations are picked. Players from countries like New Zealand and Sri Lanka don't really deserve a look in coz they are small and insignificant.

    I'm surprised that they let a Pakistani (Akram) in there.

    At the end of the day "No one is impartial. Everyone has their favourites, even the so called greats of the past which includes your jury."

  • praveen on October 26, 2010, 11:35 GMT

    I guess only one place is debatable.Why the jury picked wasim akram instead of ambrose or mcgrath? Is it for left arm bowling variety?Atleast one of them has to be in the team even if it is at the cost of Lille.

    I picked a team from cricketers who played after 1996 and couldn't make to any 2 teams selected

    1. Sehwag 2. Hayden 3. Ponting(cap) 4. Dravid 5. AB Devilliers 6. Sangakkara(wk)7. Flintoff 8. Kumble 9. Ambrose 10. Waqar Younis 11. McGrath ..... I Deliberately excluded Kallis . I Don't think we need kallis when we have Dravid

  • Kunal Talgeri on October 26, 2010, 11:34 GMT

    Sambit, congratulations to the Cricinfo editorial for bringing to bear such a user-driven and participative format (alongside your thoughtful and well-represented jury) of assembling a World XI. Selecting such a fantasty team acquires a whole new face on the Internet. Well executed, and long may such exercises and debates live!

  • Ashish on October 26, 2010, 11:31 GMT

    Sums up the purpose of the whole exercise brilliantly. Each of us will have a different World XI and every one of those teams would still be capable of winning at the end of the day!

  • Kiran Sundar Balantrapu on October 26, 2010, 11:08 GMT

    I was about to say that - there can not be an All time World XI, without Sunil Gavaskar as the opener. I mean, isn't he the best ever opening batsman in test cricket history? Numbers or technique, or attitude, Gavaskar is the obvious choice.

  • Girjesh Singh on October 26, 2010, 11:02 GMT

    defintly...it gives an opportunity to know abt entire cricket genration...

  • Shiven on October 26, 2010, 10:48 GMT

    Good article. I always hated Ian chappel's comments but this time, after listening to his views, I would say he has some points. Yes ALan Knott is a definite yes. And Sehwag deserves better and so as gavaskar (when sobers says Gavaskar is the best). On Tendulkar, I would say he is the Bradman of criket in ODIs. He is a FEAR in it but in test criket, I doubt he has dominated the opposition (not in number of runs but in shear presence as he does so so often in ODIs and lately in 20-20). Yes, he has crossed 100 5 times with a six but striking at 54 runs /100 balls is something that doesnt intimidate. You see, sehwag. Whatever Murali says over his own retirement, it is a fact that sehwag's scourge in Mumbai was THE REASON. So did bradman, richards and Lara. It's not the number of runs that matter but how much entertainment you bring is what makes you a great. YES Sachin is a definite one in ODIs better than Bradman for sure. But Lara is a yes for Test cricket.

  • Mirza on October 26, 2010, 10:45 GMT

    The whole thing seems fine but having Lillee in their over likes of Imran, Holding,Mcgrath is pity indigestable. Lillee, Botham and headley dont compare with Imran, Mcgrath, Holding because they always avoided subcontinent and placid pitches to protect their records. On the other hand the other three have performed across the globe and always took on tough challenges rather than hiding from them. If you look at their records its pity clear. Lillee only played three tests in Pakistan, one in India and failed miserably everwhere outside ENG/AUS/NZ. I am disappointed in Chappel considering the lengths he has gone to defend Lillees selection and those captains dream bowler stories.

  • Azhar on October 26, 2010, 10:39 GMT

    I believe Imran khan should have been there..If u are considering opposition against which he played,i dont think any other captain and side ever came close to windies in 80's as pakistani side captained by Imran Khan..Sobers may be the best cricketer ever but if u are looking for balance and with a middle order like that u need a bowling all rounder and not a superb batsman who can bowl..not to mention that Imran averages near 40 with bat too..

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Azhar on October 26, 2010, 10:39 GMT

    I believe Imran khan should have been there..If u are considering opposition against which he played,i dont think any other captain and side ever came close to windies in 80's as pakistani side captained by Imran Khan..Sobers may be the best cricketer ever but if u are looking for balance and with a middle order like that u need a bowling all rounder and not a superb batsman who can bowl..not to mention that Imran averages near 40 with bat too..

  • Mirza on October 26, 2010, 10:45 GMT

    The whole thing seems fine but having Lillee in their over likes of Imran, Holding,Mcgrath is pity indigestable. Lillee, Botham and headley dont compare with Imran, Mcgrath, Holding because they always avoided subcontinent and placid pitches to protect their records. On the other hand the other three have performed across the globe and always took on tough challenges rather than hiding from them. If you look at their records its pity clear. Lillee only played three tests in Pakistan, one in India and failed miserably everwhere outside ENG/AUS/NZ. I am disappointed in Chappel considering the lengths he has gone to defend Lillees selection and those captains dream bowler stories.

  • Shiven on October 26, 2010, 10:48 GMT

    Good article. I always hated Ian chappel's comments but this time, after listening to his views, I would say he has some points. Yes ALan Knott is a definite yes. And Sehwag deserves better and so as gavaskar (when sobers says Gavaskar is the best). On Tendulkar, I would say he is the Bradman of criket in ODIs. He is a FEAR in it but in test criket, I doubt he has dominated the opposition (not in number of runs but in shear presence as he does so so often in ODIs and lately in 20-20). Yes, he has crossed 100 5 times with a six but striking at 54 runs /100 balls is something that doesnt intimidate. You see, sehwag. Whatever Murali says over his own retirement, it is a fact that sehwag's scourge in Mumbai was THE REASON. So did bradman, richards and Lara. It's not the number of runs that matter but how much entertainment you bring is what makes you a great. YES Sachin is a definite one in ODIs better than Bradman for sure. But Lara is a yes for Test cricket.

  • Girjesh Singh on October 26, 2010, 11:02 GMT

    defintly...it gives an opportunity to know abt entire cricket genration...

  • Kiran Sundar Balantrapu on October 26, 2010, 11:08 GMT

    I was about to say that - there can not be an All time World XI, without Sunil Gavaskar as the opener. I mean, isn't he the best ever opening batsman in test cricket history? Numbers or technique, or attitude, Gavaskar is the obvious choice.

  • Ashish on October 26, 2010, 11:31 GMT

    Sums up the purpose of the whole exercise brilliantly. Each of us will have a different World XI and every one of those teams would still be capable of winning at the end of the day!

  • Kunal Talgeri on October 26, 2010, 11:34 GMT

    Sambit, congratulations to the Cricinfo editorial for bringing to bear such a user-driven and participative format (alongside your thoughtful and well-represented jury) of assembling a World XI. Selecting such a fantasty team acquires a whole new face on the Internet. Well executed, and long may such exercises and debates live!

  • praveen on October 26, 2010, 11:35 GMT

    I guess only one place is debatable.Why the jury picked wasim akram instead of ambrose or mcgrath? Is it for left arm bowling variety?Atleast one of them has to be in the team even if it is at the cost of Lille.

    I picked a team from cricketers who played after 1996 and couldn't make to any 2 teams selected

    1. Sehwag 2. Hayden 3. Ponting(cap) 4. Dravid 5. AB Devilliers 6. Sangakkara(wk)7. Flintoff 8. Kumble 9. Ambrose 10. Waqar Younis 11. McGrath ..... I Deliberately excluded Kallis . I Don't think we need kallis when we have Dravid

  • Mark on October 26, 2010, 11:36 GMT

    Some of the selections are rather dubious and smack of typical favoritism which is often displayed by some of the members of this jury in their interviews, articles and television commentary.

    Anyway as it is the all time World XI it is only apt that players from only the great cricketing nations are picked. Players from countries like New Zealand and Sri Lanka don't really deserve a look in coz they are small and insignificant.

    I'm surprised that they let a Pakistani (Akram) in there.

    At the end of the day "No one is impartial. Everyone has their favourites, even the so called greats of the past which includes your jury."

  • ut4me87 on October 26, 2010, 11:53 GMT

    Totally agree with Gavaskar opening the batting, may be with Hobbs. And Knott the finest wicketkeeper I have seen since I have been watching cricket since early 1970's. I have seen Richard's at his best, but I think Sehwhag is a better batsman - although he is more humble and a simple man.