The XI July 26, 2010

The Invincibles

When you count the number of greats who had to be omitted from this XI, you realise the wealth of talent West Indies possessed
  shares 143

To select an all-time XI after 82 years and 465 Test matches, from among 285 players, is no easy task, and especially so when the team under the microscope has produced some of the world's best players and was for a long time rated the best in the world.

In selecting this side, the selectors came up with only one player, the immortal George Headley, who was on the scene before 1950. As good as they were, there was no place for allrounder Learie Constantine or for fast bowler Manny Martindale.

The team is dominated by the great players who represented West Indies during their glory days - in the 1960s when they were arguably the best in the world, and from the late 1970s to the early 1990s, when they were the undisputed champions. And even so, some great names have been omitted.

Gordon Greenidge and Conrad Hunte have been selected as the opening batsmen, but it must have been tough leaving out the dashing left-hander Roy Fredericks, just as it must have been difficult to go for the specialist wicketkeeper Jackie Hendriks instead of Jeffrey Dujon - who was a batsman in his own right.

With Garry Sobers around, a man who could get into any Test team as a batsman, a left-arm fast bowler, an orthodox left-arm spin bowler, or a back-of-the-hand spin bowler, the allrounder's position was a cinch.

Not so, however, the selection of the spin bowler. Not when the decision was to select only one among Sonny Ramadhin, Alfred Valentine and Lance Gibbs. In the final analysis it was Gibbs, the tall, clever offspinner, the man who took 8 for 6 off 15.3 overs in an amazing spell during a Test against India.

From the beginning, great and exciting middle-order batting and hostile fast bowling have been the hallmark of West Indies cricket, and although to many the selection of Headley, Vivian Richards, Brian Lara, Malcolm Marshall, Michael Holding and Curtly Ambrose may have seemed easy, it probably was not.

It would be a heartless man who would not feel a tinge of regret leaving out batsmen the quality of Everton Weekes, Frank Worrell, Clyde Walcott, and Rohan Kanhai, an allrounder like Constantine, spin bowlers like Ramadhin and Valentine, and fast bowlers like Wes Hall, Andy Roberts, Joel Garner, and Courtney Walsh.

The XI

Gordon Greenidge
"If he was limping, watch out. And if he took a liking to a bowler, watch out some more. When he was in the mood, he could destroy a bowler almost at will, from the very first ball of an innings, if he took a shine to him." Desmond Haynes

Conrad Hunte
"Hunte's statistical record alone as an opener, and status alongside Sobers and Kanhai as successors to the legendary Three Ws, mark him as an exceptional talent in an all-conquering team. But his humanity, sense of fairness and contribution to the game - especially in South Africa - after his playing days elevate him to the ranks of the extraordinary." Fazeer Mohammed

George Headley
Between the wars, when the West Indies batting was often vulnerable and impulsive, Headley's scoring feats led to his being dubbed "the black Bradman". His devoted admirers responded by calling Bradman "the white Headley" - a pardonable exaggeration." Wisden Cricketers' Almanack

Vivian Richards
"Viv Richards, more than any other cricketer in the post-colonial world, represented the compelling philosophy that it was necessary to place at the centre of all political life the idea of social justice and mutual respect in human relations, and was prepared to be activist about it." Hilary Beckles

Brian Lara
"One of the best batsmen of my generation, if not the best ever." Sachin Tendulkar
"Lara is the greatest batsman I have ever bowled to." Glenn McGrath

Garry Sobers
"He is simply the greatest cricketing being ever to have walked the Earth…" Don Bradman
"The first complete Caribbean folk hero after George Headley." Michael Manley

Jackie Hendriks
"Jackie Hendriks only played in 20 Test matches between 1962 and 1969. But his is a case of quality over quantity. Technically outstanding, he was what all bowlers want, a consistent keeper; one who has the distinction of not conceding a bye in three innings that crossed 500 runs. Adept to the pace of Wes Hall and Charlie Griffith and the spin of Lance Gibbs, and a capable batsman, there has probably not been a better all-round wicketkeeper for West Indies." Garth Wattley


Malcolm Marshall
"He was my fast-bowling idol. He picked the mistakes of batsmen straight away and spotted their weaknesses. He was a nice fellow off the field, but a fierce competitor on it." Wasim Akram

Michael Holding
"Michael Holding was the fastest I ever faced. I don't think anyone can bowl as fast as he did. I cannot imagine a human being with such a smooth action and with so little effort being able to bowl 95mph-plus, ball after ball." Sadiq Mohammad


Curtly Ambrose
"All I will say about Ambrose is that he could have bowled in any era and been admired. He is quick, he knows what he wants to do with the ball and he is pinpoint accurate. One of the best." Fred Trueman

Lance Gibbs
Lance Gibbs used his great height, lean, athletic build and long, supple fingers to become not only the greatest West Indian spin bowler (309 Test wickets) - but one of the most combative of all West Indian cricketers. Frank Birbalsingh


Former sports editor of the Jamaica Gleaner and the Daily News, Tony Becca has covered West Indies cricket for 30 years

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY Metman on | July 30, 2010, 0:37 GMT

    Hey! anybody can skipper the Jury"s team.The team will still win!I dont understand why people are so caught with that!Someone said that Gayle av.is about 40,the min.av. for an opener,and what ,may I asked is the min.av.for the middle order?@Eddy 501,Lara was the most selfish record breaker,not the most talented,big man!wrong choice of words.I dont understand your LOGIC" playing along side a man for several years,and choosing someone who you have not seen",and relying solely on rep/av.!Yet you used STATS to highlight the most self centred cricketer the WI have ever produced!another RECORD!This record,I am sure will not be broken!but all the others will eventually be broken ONE by ONE,and some of them YOU will not SEE in your lifetime!By the way EVERTON WEEKES at the height of his career was av.a whopping 136,and at that time tests were few and far between.Walcott at the height of his, scored a then record breaking series total of 827,but had to wait 2 YEARS,for another test.

  • POSTED BY prashant1 on | July 29, 2010, 10:29 GMT

    @waspsting. Heck dont get me wrong. I love Lara. Just thinking of the best possible combination. Lara was King against spin and handled the medium pacers like Mcgrath etc too very well. His only weakness, relatively speaking ofcourse, was against raw pace. Away vs. some serious pace the ideal WI team would probably be better with Kanhai, Fredericks etc...

  • POSTED BY BRNUGGET on | July 29, 2010, 5:38 GMT

    The perfect team, except for the fact Clyde Walcott should have been there for Hendricks and Andy Roberts for Curtley Ambrose. Amby is very good, but Andy was better, he bowled in an era when there were superb batsmen and lively wickets. From Gavaskar to Ian & Greg Chappell, Majid, Gower, Barry Richards, Asif Iqbal…all rated him the best. He had it all, pace, swing, cut, bouncers and slower deliveries, could extract life from any pitch. Imagine no place for Weekes, Lloyd, Kallicharan, Garner, Kanhai…very difficult to leave this players out. Glad that Sir Viv got all 10 jury votes and 90% of people's votes, he was the best, complete destroyer who massacred bowling attacks like no one could. He had style and was the king on the field. Surprised that Late Macko Marshall got 9 jury votes, wonder who was that who voted against. He is the best quick of all times. Missed the Windies glory of 1960s to mid 1990s.

  • POSTED BY on | July 28, 2010, 23:35 GMT

    Fredericks, Richards, Kanhai, Headley (Captain), Weeks, Sobers, Dujon, Gilchrist, Roberts, Garner, Gibbs, Collie Smith (12th man) I know it is absurd to choose players because they simply amassed great numbers especially during long and extended careers. The main point is to make an analysis of their performance against outstanding quality of the competition they encountered. The first victim would be Gordon Greenidge. Just look at his numbers for that test series. One has only to recall his abysmal performance against Lillee and Thompson and the other bowlers on the 1975-76 West Indies tour of Australia. Greenidge was the only recognized batsman who failed to record a century against the Australian in test cricket on that tour. He was badly exposed as a fraud. He did not make a score higher than 8 in the four innings he completed. In fact, he amassed the handsome total of 11 runs in four innings an average of 2.75. He was dismissed on several occasions without scoring.

  • POSTED BY waspsting on | July 28, 2010, 22:49 GMT

    @prashant1 - check Weekes and Walcott's records against England and Australia in England and Australia. Not extraordinary.

  • POSTED BY bbpp on | July 28, 2010, 19:21 GMT

    For those who are wondering why Lara only got 6 votes, it had to be due to his off the field antics. On the field however, he was peerless. Whenever he was batting, love him or hate him, the cricket was compelling and the game revolved around his wicket. Among the modern greats, Tendulkar is closest to him but sometimes he was just a spectator at the other end to Azhar, Dravid, Laxman or Viru as they controlled proceedings. Never with Lara. A century from Lara was often not enough...in Antigua he was once blamed for WI losing a match because (get this!), he scored a hundred against Mcgrath and Co in 1998 TOO QUICKLY! He had reduced them to schoolboys (the great Warne wasn't even picked having suffered in the previous 2 tests) but when he was 3rd or 4th out it was almost game over. Lara came into a team where thegreats Viv, Greenidge, Dujon, Marshall and later Haynes were discarded like used tampons by the WI and with no man in the house he took adv.to act out- and hurt his legacy also

  • POSTED BY Venkatb on | July 28, 2010, 17:56 GMT

    Interesting selection - however, a parallel XI may beat this team, perhaps even handily. That would be Haynes, Walcott (wk), Kanhai, Weekes, Lloyd, Worrell (c), Constantine, Hall, Roberts, Garner, Ramadhin. Toothpick Gibbs had two great feats, the 8 wkt haul against India (completely battered by then) and the tied series (tail-enders), Ramadhain had greater variety and better results against better teams. Dujon or Murray are better choices than Hendricks, the latter being first choice even during Hendricks' reign. The batting line-up was always a selection headache but leaving out the 3Ws is sacreligious - among fast bowlers, Hall, for his fearsome bowling action and stats, Roberts for his intelligent bowling, and Garner for his unplayable toe-crusher deliveries and delivery from nearly 9 ft down - add to that Constantine and Worrell - we can create a computer simulated model to see which WI XI would win!

  • POSTED BY Silverstar on | July 28, 2010, 17:47 GMT

    WI best x1 vs Aussie best 11.... WI 9-1 ( the one is if we use the current squad)

  • POSTED BY kirksland on | July 28, 2010, 16:53 GMT

    Great team selection, only real complaints would be that Dujon has to be in the team, and the argument that he never really was tested againts spin bears no merrit here as Garner should have been selected as the 4th bowler instead of Gibbs, though no disrespect intended to him. It would have been nice to have seen Walcott, but he kept too few games to truely qualify as a full time keeper. This team would only be possibly tested by the Australian 11 and they am quite sure they would fall as well.

    Finally why wasnt Tony Cozier included as a juror, him Reds and Faz are the 3 most respected observers of this great game in the c'bean.

  • POSTED BY Mahesh_Nathan on | July 28, 2010, 16:47 GMT

    Its tough to pick an all time eleven given the number of great players. However, if I were to compare this team with the all conquering 80's team (probably the best ever) there are two things that fall short. The 80's team had a fearsome pace attack that attacked in packs (4 fast bowlers) and an effective captain. Lloyd was the best captain they had for his steady influence and was responsible for forming and mentoring the 80's team - remember Richards who took over was no half as effective. I would add Garner/Roberts as the fourth pace bowler instead of Gibbs and fit Lloyd in as captain in place of Headley- the team would truly be unbeatable.

  • POSTED BY Metman on | July 30, 2010, 0:37 GMT

    Hey! anybody can skipper the Jury"s team.The team will still win!I dont understand why people are so caught with that!Someone said that Gayle av.is about 40,the min.av. for an opener,and what ,may I asked is the min.av.for the middle order?@Eddy 501,Lara was the most selfish record breaker,not the most talented,big man!wrong choice of words.I dont understand your LOGIC" playing along side a man for several years,and choosing someone who you have not seen",and relying solely on rep/av.!Yet you used STATS to highlight the most self centred cricketer the WI have ever produced!another RECORD!This record,I am sure will not be broken!but all the others will eventually be broken ONE by ONE,and some of them YOU will not SEE in your lifetime!By the way EVERTON WEEKES at the height of his career was av.a whopping 136,and at that time tests were few and far between.Walcott at the height of his, scored a then record breaking series total of 827,but had to wait 2 YEARS,for another test.

  • POSTED BY prashant1 on | July 29, 2010, 10:29 GMT

    @waspsting. Heck dont get me wrong. I love Lara. Just thinking of the best possible combination. Lara was King against spin and handled the medium pacers like Mcgrath etc too very well. His only weakness, relatively speaking ofcourse, was against raw pace. Away vs. some serious pace the ideal WI team would probably be better with Kanhai, Fredericks etc...

  • POSTED BY BRNUGGET on | July 29, 2010, 5:38 GMT

    The perfect team, except for the fact Clyde Walcott should have been there for Hendricks and Andy Roberts for Curtley Ambrose. Amby is very good, but Andy was better, he bowled in an era when there were superb batsmen and lively wickets. From Gavaskar to Ian & Greg Chappell, Majid, Gower, Barry Richards, Asif Iqbal…all rated him the best. He had it all, pace, swing, cut, bouncers and slower deliveries, could extract life from any pitch. Imagine no place for Weekes, Lloyd, Kallicharan, Garner, Kanhai…very difficult to leave this players out. Glad that Sir Viv got all 10 jury votes and 90% of people's votes, he was the best, complete destroyer who massacred bowling attacks like no one could. He had style and was the king on the field. Surprised that Late Macko Marshall got 9 jury votes, wonder who was that who voted against. He is the best quick of all times. Missed the Windies glory of 1960s to mid 1990s.

  • POSTED BY on | July 28, 2010, 23:35 GMT

    Fredericks, Richards, Kanhai, Headley (Captain), Weeks, Sobers, Dujon, Gilchrist, Roberts, Garner, Gibbs, Collie Smith (12th man) I know it is absurd to choose players because they simply amassed great numbers especially during long and extended careers. The main point is to make an analysis of their performance against outstanding quality of the competition they encountered. The first victim would be Gordon Greenidge. Just look at his numbers for that test series. One has only to recall his abysmal performance against Lillee and Thompson and the other bowlers on the 1975-76 West Indies tour of Australia. Greenidge was the only recognized batsman who failed to record a century against the Australian in test cricket on that tour. He was badly exposed as a fraud. He did not make a score higher than 8 in the four innings he completed. In fact, he amassed the handsome total of 11 runs in four innings an average of 2.75. He was dismissed on several occasions without scoring.

  • POSTED BY waspsting on | July 28, 2010, 22:49 GMT

    @prashant1 - check Weekes and Walcott's records against England and Australia in England and Australia. Not extraordinary.

  • POSTED BY bbpp on | July 28, 2010, 19:21 GMT

    For those who are wondering why Lara only got 6 votes, it had to be due to his off the field antics. On the field however, he was peerless. Whenever he was batting, love him or hate him, the cricket was compelling and the game revolved around his wicket. Among the modern greats, Tendulkar is closest to him but sometimes he was just a spectator at the other end to Azhar, Dravid, Laxman or Viru as they controlled proceedings. Never with Lara. A century from Lara was often not enough...in Antigua he was once blamed for WI losing a match because (get this!), he scored a hundred against Mcgrath and Co in 1998 TOO QUICKLY! He had reduced them to schoolboys (the great Warne wasn't even picked having suffered in the previous 2 tests) but when he was 3rd or 4th out it was almost game over. Lara came into a team where thegreats Viv, Greenidge, Dujon, Marshall and later Haynes were discarded like used tampons by the WI and with no man in the house he took adv.to act out- and hurt his legacy also

  • POSTED BY Venkatb on | July 28, 2010, 17:56 GMT

    Interesting selection - however, a parallel XI may beat this team, perhaps even handily. That would be Haynes, Walcott (wk), Kanhai, Weekes, Lloyd, Worrell (c), Constantine, Hall, Roberts, Garner, Ramadhin. Toothpick Gibbs had two great feats, the 8 wkt haul against India (completely battered by then) and the tied series (tail-enders), Ramadhain had greater variety and better results against better teams. Dujon or Murray are better choices than Hendricks, the latter being first choice even during Hendricks' reign. The batting line-up was always a selection headache but leaving out the 3Ws is sacreligious - among fast bowlers, Hall, for his fearsome bowling action and stats, Roberts for his intelligent bowling, and Garner for his unplayable toe-crusher deliveries and delivery from nearly 9 ft down - add to that Constantine and Worrell - we can create a computer simulated model to see which WI XI would win!

  • POSTED BY Silverstar on | July 28, 2010, 17:47 GMT

    WI best x1 vs Aussie best 11.... WI 9-1 ( the one is if we use the current squad)

  • POSTED BY kirksland on | July 28, 2010, 16:53 GMT

    Great team selection, only real complaints would be that Dujon has to be in the team, and the argument that he never really was tested againts spin bears no merrit here as Garner should have been selected as the 4th bowler instead of Gibbs, though no disrespect intended to him. It would have been nice to have seen Walcott, but he kept too few games to truely qualify as a full time keeper. This team would only be possibly tested by the Australian 11 and they am quite sure they would fall as well.

    Finally why wasnt Tony Cozier included as a juror, him Reds and Faz are the 3 most respected observers of this great game in the c'bean.

  • POSTED BY Mahesh_Nathan on | July 28, 2010, 16:47 GMT

    Its tough to pick an all time eleven given the number of great players. However, if I were to compare this team with the all conquering 80's team (probably the best ever) there are two things that fall short. The 80's team had a fearsome pace attack that attacked in packs (4 fast bowlers) and an effective captain. Lloyd was the best captain they had for his steady influence and was responsible for forming and mentoring the 80's team - remember Richards who took over was no half as effective. I would add Garner/Roberts as the fourth pace bowler instead of Gibbs and fit Lloyd in as captain in place of Headley- the team would truly be unbeatable.

  • POSTED BY Mollox on | July 28, 2010, 13:17 GMT

    I can accept the team even without the 3Ws, I think it is well balanced; my question is: who's captain? Sobers or Richards (sorry, but I never thought Brian had "captaining" in him)? Did the Jury suggest who might captain such a formidable team.

    Now I would like to ask Steven: statistically, how would this team match up against teh other All-time XIs picked so far?

  • POSTED BY unleashedtrojan1 on | July 28, 2010, 9:53 GMT

    this team is sooo strong but Pak 11 is stronger. no offence

  • POSTED BY on | July 28, 2010, 9:33 GMT

    @ suvo1987 - I don't think Walsh was as good a bowler as Ambrose or the pace quartet of 1980's. He was a workhorse but his wicket cost more than others in terms of number of runs as well as deliveries. Also, the three batsmen that have been picked in the middle order are a notch above Worrel.

  • POSTED BY on | July 28, 2010, 9:29 GMT

    I suppose Desmond Haynes should be there!

  • POSTED BY prashant1 on | July 28, 2010, 7:44 GMT

    eddy501,drice,jonesy12 etc. Lara should only be kept in for the home matches. Certainly not vs. the Best away. One look at Lara vs.Aus in Aus will tell you that. So,keep Lara only for the home matches or otherwise for the flat pitches away where spin will be prominent. Otherwise get in someone else for Lara- either one of the Three Ws, Kanhai, Fredericks etc.

  • POSTED BY BillyCC on | July 28, 2010, 5:49 GMT

    avinash11may, appreciate your comments. Your point about the Australian tail is important. The Windies tail looks a lot more solid. And yes, Gibbs was a great spinner. It's just that I think Warne and O'Reilly are a tad better which is a crucial point. They are more likely to take the number of wickets required on a turning deck than the Windies. I do disagree with the point about Headley vs Bradman. Headley is quite far behind, over 35 runs an innings behind. Also, whilst I agree that Holding and Marshall are a better combo than Lillee and McGrath, they aren't miles ahead. So maybe in a 10 match series played every five years, it can be 8-2 Windies sometimes, but only with pitch assistance (fast bowler paradise). I can easily see 8-2 Aussies sometimes as well again with pitch assistance (big turner and dustbowl). For the tight series, I think Australia have an edge because there are more fighters in the side.

  • POSTED BY prashant1 on | July 28, 2010, 5:35 GMT

    Lara was generally a hometown bully.Quite poor away esp. in the 90s in tougher batting conditions. His is indeed inconsistent and relied on big fill your boots scores to boost his avg. His record vs Aus in Aus shows his true batting skills.

  • POSTED BY BillyCC on | July 28, 2010, 5:31 GMT

    RoshanF, where did you come up with the 9-1 scoreline, let alone a 6-4 scoreline to the Second XI? At the very least, you should offer an explanation. Unfortunately, people like you don't appreciate true cricket history and the challenges of Test cricket. You forget that Test matches are not scripted. You live in a fantasy world where all the Windies players are playing at their peak, with Lara scoring 400 every innings, Sobers scoring plenty of runs and taking wickets, Viv Richards striking a run a ball, the openers forming a century partnership and every ball bowled is a fast leg cutter on middle stump. Also in your world, Bradman's last innings is the only innings that you bother to take into account, Warne and O'Reilly are completely ineffective for God knows why, Border has forgotten how to score runs against the Windies which he did regularly, and Lillee and McGrath are reduced to club cricketers. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You need to show respect where it is due.

  • POSTED BY on | July 28, 2010, 3:21 GMT

    "........represented the compelling philosophy that it was necessary to place at the centre of all political life the idea of social justice and mutual respect in human relations,..."- Surprising!! And it is quoted here. More surprising!!!

  • POSTED BY Lacabeza on | July 27, 2010, 20:55 GMT

    This is a great all time Eleven. Three in this Eleven would not make my eleven.

    1. Conrad Hunte I would choose Des Haynes

    2. Jackie Hendrick - I would have choose Jeff Dujon, in his profile it was noted that he was not tested with spin, because at that time there was no need for it. I am sure he would be great with spin bowling.

    3. I would not include Lance Gibbs- I would have chosen Joel Garner instead.

  • POSTED BY Fairplay-caba-gee on | July 27, 2010, 19:43 GMT

    Firstly,I am just curious as to why Tony Cozier was NOT one of the jurors ,given his vast experience .Secondly ,I am quite aware of the enormity of the task that faced the Jury in determining am All Time Windies xi and certainly does not envy them.

    Having said that it's important to note that Richards ,Headley and Sobers were the only players to appear on ALL jurors lists[ I ,myself thought that Marshall & Lara fit this bill also]. It just goes to demonstrate the different perspectives that were brought to the process and drives home the fact that there was some degree of subjectivity in the process and irrespective to who the panelists were there will always be differences of opinion.

    For the most part ,I am in agreement with the xi but would have found a place for Roberts.

    Finally ,the number of top class players who were inevitably not selected shows the depth and strength of West Indies cricket .This xi is certainly the STRONGEST of all Test playing Nations.

  • POSTED BY Jelanichem on | July 27, 2010, 18:19 GMT

    @ eddy501 , I don't think there is any question as to the batting genius of Lara. He is undoubtedly in the top 3 best batsmen of all times. I think the question sign has to do with the perception that he is not a team player. Players who has played with him referred to him as a most selfish person, who cared about personal records more than the team doing well. I have no reason to disagree with that perception, because it played out quite well when he made the 400 runs, where instead of trying for a victory, he went for breaking the latest record and setting a new one. I cannot think of any other great batsmen who became captains who would have ever done that. Certainly not Viv Richards, Mark Taylor, Ricky Ponting, or Sachin Tendulkar... On the merit of his batting, he certainly deserves his place in this best ever West Indies team. But in reality, if one have so much great players to pick from, most captains would go for the guy who is the team player.

  • POSTED BY drice on | July 27, 2010, 17:48 GMT

    to jonesy2, Correction Mcgrath didi not get Lara at will. With McGrath in Australia's X1, Lara averaged just short of 50 and over 50 if you take the 1st series in Australia where he scored 77 runs in three matche would be over 50. Also the greatest innings I've ever seen 153* was made with said McGrath in bowling attack. I will admit McGrath overall got the better of him at times n Australia but Lara owned him in the WI. Otherwise good team selection. My only non selection was Jackie Hendricks who I have never seen keep wicket so i reserve any comment on that issue. But if I had to select a real team of these to actually play , i'd have to consider "gasp" leaving Lara or Richards off this taeam because i'm not sure they could co-exist on the same side and replace one of them with either Lloyd or Worrel as blasphemous as thtat sounds, because ateam(whole) is more than the sum of individual parts.

  • POSTED BY cnksnk on | July 27, 2010, 17:38 GMT

    wHAT A TEAM. WILL BE HARD TO BETTER. HOWEVER HERE IS ANOTHER TEAM FROM THOSE NOT SELECTED

    HAYNES, FREDRIKS, WORREL, WEEKS, WALCOT, KANHAI, CONSTANTINE, HALL, ROBERTS, GARNER, VALENTINE.

    AM SURE THAT THIS TEAM MAY EVEN GET AROUND TO BEATING THE FIRST ELEVEN

    ps - : WOULD HAVE LOVED TO INCLUDE DUJON BUT WALCOT SHOULD DO TE JOB.

  • POSTED BY RoshanF on | July 27, 2010, 17:01 GMT

    BillyCC and all the other 'Aussie' promoters - the Windies 2nd XI would have beaten the Aussies 6 - 4. Er, remember the 2nd eleven most likely would include Haynes, Fredericks,Weekes, Kanhai, Kallicharan, Worrell, Murray, Ramadhin, Garner, Roberts, Hall (could slot in Walsh on faster pitches).

    It would have been 9 -1 to the First XI (the 1 loss coming due to the Windies being complacent or just bored - they often did that)

  • POSTED BY on | July 27, 2010, 14:49 GMT

    I guess 'selectors' deliberately chose Hunte & Hendriks just to show they don't follow popular (& correct) choices! I mean Greenidge & Haynes are like, *the* numero uno pair in post-war cricket. And no Dujon? Awful!! And yes, whos this Ms. (or Mr.?) Beckles who wrote about Viv as if it was a Nobel prize citation? I mean what the ? Everyone remembers him as a batter & an absolute great one at that. "...social justice and mutual respect in human relations"...Viv would chuckle at that...all he knew was to devour gum & bowling. Whatever!!

  • POSTED BY Bobby_Talyarkhan on | July 27, 2010, 14:26 GMT

    hear hear @Bollo- how right you are and how true you speak! The West Indies until the eighties represented a hope for the whole post-colonial world - the hope of unifying however great your differences, the hope of fighting and beating your oppressors, the hope of transcending all that divides human from human! Alas by the late eighties that dream was dead and all we have now are some glorious and unforgettable parchments of that noble story. It was great while it lasted and it will be rekindled again (though not, I fear, in the West Indies itself - perhaps in Africa). Take a bow the carefree batsmen, the devilishly quick bowlers, the natural grace and charm - is it a coincidence that the Carribean produced not only the greatest cricket players but also the greatest cricket writer, the immortal CLR James? Those memories will live within the consciousness of all cricket lovers and will one day give birth to a new renaissance of cricket - in some distant land.........

  • POSTED BY suvo1987 on | July 27, 2010, 14:18 GMT

    I m very very sad after seeing this team. But dnt want to insult the jury . I know that they are always right.But everyone know that no worrel no team.selection of ambrose quite ok.But walsh is far better than him.I know that he has fearsome reputation .but Michael Holding is already in team.Without Desmond Haynes , Greenidge is incomplete.thats why they r da greatest opener in the world.My main q is the selection of Jackie Hendriks.where is dujon or walkot.Conrad Hunte is great but where is Sir everton.

  • POSTED BY S.K.Chowdhury on | July 27, 2010, 12:35 GMT

    How come this invincible team possible without three Ws??

  • POSTED BY eddy501 on | July 27, 2010, 12:10 GMT

    isnt it funny that Jimmy 'Paddams' chose Weekes instead of someone he played along side with for several years. Jimmy is my age and has no chance of seeing Weekes play in the flesh so he is strictly going by rep and avgs, yet he played with the most talented record breaker! Very, very strange......... The less said about Frank Birbalsingh the better, NO MM????????????????????

  • POSTED BY AncientAstronaut on | July 27, 2010, 8:22 GMT

    I agree with everyone who says that the team shouldn't have a spinner. It's ridiculous to leave out Joel Garner, or even Courtney Walsh, for Lance Gibbs. And Hendriks does feel like a misfit, considering that he played only 20 tests. Dujon would've been the better choice. So, ideall, the team should've been Greenidge, Hunte, Headley, Richards, Lara, Sobers, Dujon, Marshall, Holding, Ambrose, and Garner.

  • POSTED BY avinash11may on | July 27, 2010, 8:08 GMT

    Hey.. how can someone give advantage to Australian XI over this side? nonsense... their tail is not too long either. Ambrose at no 10 is a bonus. Remember he has scored around 1500 test runs and quite a few match saving innings for WI (mostly against India). Gibbs as a spinner is as good as anyone else in the business. Australia have an advantage only in spin department. Greenidge and Hunte were gifted openers. Australian middle order looks formidable only bacause of Don, but Headley was not far behind. And Chappel, Border and Gilchrist are no where near Richards, Lara and Sobers. Miller was a better bat than Marshal, but a much inferior bowler. Ambrose and Holding are more lethal than Mcgrath and Lille. In a 10 test series, WI has 8-2 advantage over Australia any day.

  • POSTED BY RSG476 on | July 27, 2010, 7:25 GMT

    Let us do a 2nd XI : Roy Fredericks, Desmond Haynes, Everton Weekes, Clyde Walcott, Rohan Kanhai, Frank Worrell (captain), Jeffrey Dujon, Andy Roberts, Joel Garner, Courtney Walsh, Wesley Hall

    Which leaves us with a 3rd XI (with one person promoted up for opening slot). Many left handers though : Chris Gayle, Richie Richardson, Alvin Kallicharan, Clive Llyod (captain), Shivnarine Chanderpaul, Learie Constantine, Derryck Murray, Colin Croft, Charlie Griffith, Sonny Ramadhin, Alf Valentine

    The 3rd XI may actually have a more balanced attack than the 2nd XI :-)

  • POSTED BY SolFish on | July 27, 2010, 6:58 GMT

    Imagine a Barbados Test 11, Greenidge, Haynes/Hunt, Seymour Nurse, Weekes, Walcott, Worrell, Sobers, Hall, Griffith, Marshall and Garner, watch out world this little Island of Barbados are World beaters against any team in the World, Hail the Bajan Invincibles.

  • POSTED BY Shams on | July 27, 2010, 6:24 GMT

    Can't really complain apart from the selection of the spinner given Sobers and Richards could handle the spin department if required. I would have picked Roberts/Garner/Croft in place of Gibbs.

  • POSTED BY CricFan24 on | July 27, 2010, 5:10 GMT

    @Treve etc. I agree fully about Roy Fredericks. Lara was basically a Fredericks clone and copied his style in total. So, the original gets left out and the copy gets included!

  • POSTED BY crv08 on | July 27, 2010, 4:52 GMT

    Good effort however three changes required.Jeffrey Dujon was without doubt the best WI wicketkeeper and his record can attest to this - never played in a losing series, 272 dismissals in 81 tests and certainly the most athletic and acrobatic w/k the game has ever seen not to mention his 5 test centuries. Garner was a far more deserving of a selection than Gibbs-- 259 wickets in 59 tests at 20.97 vs 309 wickets in 79 tests at 29.09 and strike rate of 50.8 vs 87.7. No need for a spinner in that team. Richards and Sobers could do the slow bowling.

    Finally Desmond Haynes acheived far more than Conrad Hunte over a much longer career, set many records with Greenidge which still stand and was an excellent fielder. Fact is the mid 70s to early 90s team was the dominant one so no need to apologize about giving them the bulk of the spaces on the team. Facts are facts, not emotional attachment.

  • POSTED BY nlambda on | July 27, 2010, 4:51 GMT

    farazzubair 's XI is the correct one - and stronger than the CricInfo XI. One change I would make to that is to pick Ambrose instead of Roberts, but that is an infinitesimal difference. My first thought on seeing the candidates was indeed why not have Lara open and pick Walcott? And of course you have to have 4 fast bowlers.

  • POSTED BY on | July 27, 2010, 3:28 GMT

    Where is Courtney Walsh????????? Chanderpaul surely deserves a place in there.

  • POSTED BY Sydney66 on | July 27, 2010, 2:14 GMT

    Not much to grumble about, although Jackie Hendricks was a surprise.Also, Conrad Hunte seems to have got the nod over Haynes or Fredericks because he was a nice bloke and a team man. What a shame a place couldn't be found for Clive Lloyd. But I suppose it would be too difficult to leave out George Headley despite the fact that he never faced the likes of Lillee and Thomo at their peak on Aussie soil.

  • POSTED BY on | July 27, 2010, 1:38 GMT

    they can easily have two separate all time XIs and still be the best among all the XIs from other countries. What a rich history !!

  • POSTED BY Sportsscientist on | July 27, 2010, 1:09 GMT

    Munish sharma - you need to go on to you tube and look at some of these players. even though you may not find everything, but considering the 70's and 80's periods then you may want to re-consider. but i can understand your reasoning. compared to today then you probably cannot conceive that the fast bowlers of the 70's and 80's could be that good. To judge them do not look at the amount of wickets they took. check the strike rate and average. that will give you a better indication of their ability. also the conditions they played in. they demolished all the test sides AWAY from home - IN THEIR OPPONENTS conditions. e.g. '76 & '84 vs Eng. '83 vs Ind,. '85 vs Aust. these are just examples. look up the stats for the matches, check the averages and stats for all players and look at the bowling. and you will see, like holding's 14-149 in '76, and marshalls figures against Ind in '83. compare these & you will see why they left Walsh out....and believe me.....I Love Walsh !!!

  • POSTED BY on | July 27, 2010, 0:42 GMT

    the west indies all time xi is a very poor selection i think the openers should have been fredricks instead of hunte because gordon and roy's partnership's and records demolish the rest they've batted together and holds numerous records....number 3 is fine number 4 is the right spot....number 5 should have been chanderpaul because of his stability in the middle order and he would be a man to count on if the middle order would crumble...number...6 perfect alrounder....the wicket-keeper should have been murrey....bowlers are the right choices but other than those 3 changes that is an exceptional....

  • POSTED BY Danube on | July 27, 2010, 0:33 GMT

    I think we have the winner of all time World Cup right here once we clone all these guys! Almost think Cric Info need to do the all time Barbados, Jamaica, T & T and Guyana elevens to make it fair on the rest of the world. Still thought you could not omit Everton Weekes from the team, even bat him out of position as opener just to shoehorne him in. Heres a thought for the 2nd 11 then. Fredericks, Haynes, Kanhai, Weekes, Walcott, Dujon, Constantine, Roberts, Garner, Walsh, Ramadhin. Probably beat most 1st elevens as well!

  • POSTED BY monteath on | July 26, 2010, 23:39 GMT

    WITH THIS ALL TIME GREAT TEAM IN PLACE! 'WI" IT WILL BE GREAT IF OTHER 7 TEST PLAYING COUNTRIES COULD PUT A PAST STRONG TEAM INDIVIDUALLY AND HAVE A MINI 20/20 OR A ONE OFF 50/50 EXHIBITION GAME TO TOGETHER! SA OR UK OR INDIA COULD BE A GOOD VENUE. MY VIEWS! FROM THE WI ALL TIME GREAT HOW COME THERE IS ONE MORE GREAT THAT HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION! IAN THE MICROPHONE BISCHOP! WE NEED TO SEE HIM FILL IN A SLOT TOO! CHEERS KEVIN-CANADA

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2010, 23:36 GMT

    "Viv Richards, more than any other cricketer in the post-colonial world, represented the compelling philosophy that it was necessary to place at the centre of all political life the idea of social justice and mutual respect in human relations, and was prepared to be activist about it." Hilary Beckles

    HUH???? What's with the political mumbo-jumbo?? He was The DUDE, Mr COOL and the swashbuckling batsman in history. Leave it at that. Respect!!

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2010, 23:16 GMT

    Why not pick an all-time squad of 12 or 13 rather than a team of 11? While I think this team would be great anywhere why not pick an extra quick? Surely on a pitch like Perth you would play four quicks but on the subcontinent you would play three plus a spinner. My team would be as above but with Joel Garner as the fourth quick on fast, bouncy pitches.

  • POSTED BY kirksland on | July 26, 2010, 22:41 GMT

    Ok after India I assume we are going with the All-Time Team so lets get it started. Rules, 2 Openers, 3 Middle Order, 1 Batting All Rounder, Wicket Keeper, Bowling All Rounder, 2 Fast Bowlers, 1 Spinner. 4th Team Arthur Morris, Gordon Greenidge, Greame Pollock, Everton Weekes, Ken Barrington, Frank Walcott, Keith Miller, Michael Holding, Bill O'Riley, Waqar Younis, Joel Garner. 3rd Team Herbert Sutcliffe, Matthew Hayden, George Headley, Greg Chappel, Rahul Dravid, Javid Miandad, Ian Healy, Wasim Akram, Anil Kumble, Denid Lilee, Alan Donald. 2nd Team Len Hutton, Virender Sehwag, Ricky Ponting, Vivian Richards, Wally Hammond, Jacques Kallis, Alan Knot, Richard Hadlee, Fred Trueman, Curtly Ambrose, Muttiah Muralitharan. 1st Team Jack Hobbs, Sunil Gavaskar, Donald Bradman, Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Lara, Garfield Sobers, Adam Gilchrist, Imran Khan, Shane Warne, Malcolm Marshall, Glen Mcgrath.

    To me the best of the best, let me know what you guys think,

  • POSTED BY Shilly77 on | July 26, 2010, 22:05 GMT

    Quality XI players. Would beat any world all time XI. Bowlers have pace, the ability to swing the ball and also quality spin from Lance Gibbs. The batsmen, only a few words to say, truly WORLD CLASS!!!!

  • POSTED BY BillyCC on | July 26, 2010, 22:03 GMT

    Treve, I am comparing like for like players in the side. Gilchrist is still worth at least 20 runs more than the Windies keeper (30 if you look at averages). 20 runs is decisive in such a contest. I hope you're not suggesting he will score ducks almost every time he plays against this lineup and average the same as someone like Gibbs and McGrath who both averaged about six runs. I agree that the Windies lower order is better than the Aussies. The Windies middle order is as dominant over the Aussies middle order as the Aussies top order is over the Windies top order. And as I said in the previous post, the Windies fast bowling ranks are much better than the Aussies just as the Aussie spinners are much better than the Windies spinners. All in all, a close contest. Results could well be decided by the weather and the toss.

  • POSTED BY kirksland on | July 26, 2010, 21:15 GMT

    For sure Garner/Roberts instead of Gibbs and must find a way to get at least on of the three W's in the team, probably Walcott instead of Hendricks or Hunte. So Walcott to open and keep, Gibbs stays in for balance and add Garner to the line up.

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2010, 21:04 GMT

    Frankly, this team scares me. Arguably the best fast bowler (Marshall), the best all-rounder (Sobers), and 3 of the top 10 batsmen of all time (Headley, Richards, Lara), all in one fearsome squadron. And I haven't even mentioned Holding and Ambrose, who are the most likely to strike terror into their opponents' hearts.

    I would back this team to beat all the other All-Time Test XIs, with the closest call being Aus. (And this coming from a South African... I think my father just disowned me...)

  • POSTED BY waspsting on | July 26, 2010, 21:02 GMT

    would change the batting order though. after the two right handed openers, I'd go with right-left combos - Lara, Headley, Sobers, Richards. make it harder for the bowlers to keep a rhythm. Sobers liked coming in late, but I think Richards' extra aggresiveness makes him a better man to bat with the tail.

  • POSTED BY waspsting on | July 26, 2010, 20:59 GMT

    Lance Gibbs has a strike rate of 87 in tests, and even his first class record is poor compared to Bedi, Chandra, Underwood etc. IMO, its absurd not to have the extra fast man in the slot. that being the case, stick Dujon in place of Hendricks too (whose claim to the spot seems to be he kept well to spin - I don't know much about Hendricks, but Dujon was a 1st class keeper to pace at least). Haynes and Hunte.... flip of the coin, no arguments. Agree with the 4 middle order players Agree with Holding over Roberts, though i anicipated the selectors going with Roberts. I'd prefer Garner to Ambrose, if i had to choose just one, but the best 11 would have both of them and no Gibbs.

    Mind-boggling to think of Viv Richards and Gary Sobers batting together - though curiously the retirement of one and the debut of the other was only a gap of a couple of years. They represent the destructive greatness in batting of two different generations. Wow!

  • POSTED BY Murtaza. on | July 26, 2010, 20:29 GMT

    All most best XI except WICKET KEEPER, Dujon was much better choice. we were not picking 3 innings best keeper, but all time best and it was Dujon. and haynes should has been in that XI. otherwicw it is great team.

  • POSTED BY power_of_one on | July 26, 2010, 20:02 GMT

    I think this is a fair side. It must have been very difficult to leave out names such as Kanhai, Lloyd, Kallicharan, Fredricks, Hall, Weekes, Dujon, Derrick Murray, Walsh, Roberts and Walcott and so on. What a shame West-Indies cricket has sunk to the depths it has. It is a sporting, political and social tragedy for the West-Indies as a nation of independent States. I think Kanhai and Lloyd were the most exciting and explosive batsmen ever to play for the West-Indies. Richards would be third but I think Richards peaked too early in his career and 1976 was a wonderful year for him. After that, it was a slight incline downwards. The most exciting partnerships I remember were Kanhai and Sobers and Richards and Lloyd. Sobers was not a great captain. I understand his love for the game but his declarations were irresponsible on more than one occasion and in one case lost to England in 1968. It would be fun generating the greatest teams from England and Australia also.

  • POSTED BY thebrownie on | July 26, 2010, 20:02 GMT

    I have never watched any of the XI except for Ambrose, but looking at his strike rate of 80+ I can't see how Lance Gibbs gets into this team.

  • POSTED BY currie_I_G on | July 26, 2010, 19:58 GMT

    great to see ambrose in the list. one of my fav bowlers

  • POSTED BY BlorScouser on | July 26, 2010, 19:27 GMT

    This is one of the best all-time XI's, but i'm disappointed that not even one of the three W's was selected. Sir Frank Worrell should have been included atleast for the immense contribution he made towards changing cricket in the West Indies. Nevertheless, i'm confident that this XI can beat the best that the rest of the world can offer.

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2010, 19:20 GMT

    I see some people are upset Walsh didnt make the team. While it is an exceptional achievement for a fast bowler to take 515 Test wickets, and no one had the heart of Walshy..I agree with his exclusion on the basis that in terms of penetration and the ability to strike fear in the batsman, there are even a couple more who didnt make the team I'll pick in front of him- Andy Roberts comes to mind first up.

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2010, 19:13 GMT

    Great job by the selectors. My only difference in their team is I would have included Walcott as my wicketkeeper, because of his exceptional batsmanship, even though as we know, he didnt keep for a long time when he was on the team. But..its not a problem when you look at the other men in the squad. This team can beat any team that has ever been assembled in the history of cricket, any other country or world XI you can think of. Cheers..

  • POSTED BY Raghav_Bihani on | July 26, 2010, 19:07 GMT

    With players like these you need 2 teams. It is gross injustice to choose only 11 from this list when you look some of the XIs from other countries. It reminds me of a few years when Australia pitched an A team as well in the annual ODI tournament down under. The finals was between both the Aussie teams themselves. The same wil be the case with the all time Windies XIs. Here are my 2 teams based on timeline rather than A and B teams.

    1st XI: Hunte, Fredericks, Headley, Weekes, Walcott, Worrell, Hendriks, Hall, Roberts, Holding, Gibbs Captain will be Worrell and bowl when needed. Also Hendriks is WK as Gibbs is the spinner and he was good against spin. Alternately Walcott can be WK and Kanhai be included as batsman.

    2nd XI: Haynes, Greenidge, Richards, Lara, LLyod, Sobers, Dujon, Marshall, Ambrose, Garner, Walsh Since Sobers is there as Allrounder no need of a spinner in this team. Also Llyod is the choice of captain.

    Can we simulate a test series between the 2 teams.

  • POSTED BY ustad12 on | July 26, 2010, 19:00 GMT

    It would be interesting to see the make-up of a West Indies second XI in the 80s. I may struggle with naming all the batsmen but the bowlers would make the team strong enough to beat any other team, more often than not, apart from of course the WI first eleven,... I think!

    And, I am a Pakistan supporter.

  • POSTED BY trucricket on | July 26, 2010, 18:44 GMT

    Great selection of the best west indies all time X1 ,even thought I tought Andy Roberts should be there for Micheal Holding I conseeded that they are all very great cricketers.

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2010, 18:30 GMT

    I ADMIRE the integrity of the selectors; Can you imagine a WI ALL TIME 11 without without the Great Everton DeCoursey WEEKES? Hats off to the selectors for including Curtley Ambrose---Was he better than Garnern, Roberts or the other legendary cricketers? No-- but he could bowl out any team in the world--this is greatness.Lets see the 2nd eleven, then the third? Will there be a place for for the great Rohan Kanhi? My THANKS.

  • POSTED BY XX-warrior-XX on | July 26, 2010, 18:02 GMT

    Great great players! My 11 would be : Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, Headly, Lara, Sobers, Dujon, Marshall, Holding, Ambrose, Walsh ...how can i leave out walshy?

    Someone mentioned that most of the 11 chosen had struggled in NZ. I don't agree. First of all, it was only 1-0 NZ in '79, and they had a very good team that included Hadlee, All i can say about that series is that the levels of cheating by the NZ umpires is something i have only ever witnessed in the 2002 football world cup. Of the 3 games, the 2 draws were fairly even, despite the "bad" decisions. The game that NZ won, they won by 1 wicket, when chasing only 104 to win. That innings in particular had more horrible calls than the whole series added up, the last wicket partnership that eventually won the match should rightly have been ended twice before. And lets not forget, Viv did'nt play in that series.

    I think they eventually did well considering the unfamiliarity of the pitches, the controversy, and no Viv.

  • POSTED BY Silverstar on | July 26, 2010, 18:01 GMT

    @billyCC ... our middle, lower oder and bowling dept. is far superior to ure aussie 11.... u think gilly would even want to stand b4 marshall or holding... dont even mention Lille and thompson... cause i got 2 words for them, Roy Fredericks!

  • POSTED BY realredbaron on | July 26, 2010, 17:58 GMT

    I refuse to accept this as the West Indies all time test XI. No way Gibbs can come in front of those fast bowlers who have been overlooked. Garner should come in for Gibbs. Dujon could have been the wicket keeper instead of Hendriks. Rohan Kanhai deserved a place. Kanhai was the most talented batsman in West Indies' cricket history. Not sure about selecting Hunte as the opener though this is not as big of a deal as the previous ones.

  • POSTED BY Bollo on | July 26, 2010, 17:21 GMT

    What a team, what a history. Even as an Aussie, growing up in the 70s and 80s, these were the players you dreamt of being. If I was given an hour to go out and bat like anyone who`s ever played the game, I`d still want to be Viv, or with ball in hand, Whispering Death. Hats off to the greatest story in Test Cricket - the mighty Windies. How we bloody miss them!

  • POSTED BY deepakjm on | July 26, 2010, 17:09 GMT

    The best all time 11 so far.

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2010, 16:16 GMT

    I didn't born in the era of 70's and hardly know anything about 80's. But simply I can point out where is Courtney Walsh?? 515 wickets in test cricket that too for a fast bowler is not an easy task. He deserved to be in this line up. Anyways great picks and certainly the best line up against any side.

  • POSTED BY P.N.Sudarshan on | July 26, 2010, 16:01 GMT

    I see no reason why Gibbs should have been selected when there were pace bowlers such as Roberts, Garner, Croft, etc. The argument that the team requires a spinner wouldnt wash, as Windies did quite well without one for 20 years and in any case Sobers can qualify purely as a spinner.

  • POSTED BY balaparameshwar on | July 26, 2010, 15:43 GMT

    My invincible 11 are D.Ganga,Barath,Kanhai,Kallicharan,Sarwan,Chaderpaul,S.Ganga,D Ramdhin,Rampaul,Deonarine,S.Ramadhin.You don't think so??Well I like it because I'm an indian.Weak in the bowling department?? yes but better than our [indian]present bowling attack. balaparameshwar

  • POSTED BY wibbly on | July 26, 2010, 15:33 GMT

    I argued that Dujon should not be the keeper because he was not proficient keeping to spin. I am not opposed to Hendricks but I feel Murray had the longer career and the better record and was probably the second best pure keeper ever produced by the windies after Hendricks. It is good to see that the panel recognized Dujon's limitations as a keeper(he was a batsman who became a keeper).This windies team would sweep all before them. Somebody mentioned that some of them struggled in New Zealand, yes but only with the umpires. Another mentioned that Australia would have an advantage on slow wickets with their spin bowlers, obviously they have never heard about the exploits of Marshall, Holding and Ambrose on purposely prepared spinners' wickets. Also Warne never troubled Lara and Lara dominated McGrath for long periods. Just imagine what Viv,Gary and Gordon would have inflicted upon Australia's finest, I think only Lillee would have had a chance bowling to this windies line up

  • POSTED BY uvellani on | July 26, 2010, 15:20 GMT

    I wonder what a second XI would look like!!

  • POSTED BY Divinetouch on | July 26, 2010, 15:00 GMT

    incomprehensible to leave Rohan Kanhai out.

  • POSTED BY kenjai on | July 26, 2010, 14:52 GMT

    I am delighted to see that the Final XI I selected coincides exactly with that chosen by the panel.Far too many of the current comments being posted seem to come from individuals who have no sense of the West Indian legacy prior to the 1970's.Jackie Hendriks was by far the most accomplished WI keeper to date.Gary Sobers adds both an extra paceman and spinner to your attack.Lance Gibbs is essential when conditions don't favour the pacemen.Brian Lara is being discredited only by those unable to recognise genius.This XI would take on and probably defeat all comers;so too would the Second XI.

  • POSTED BY A_HTIMAN on | July 26, 2010, 14:14 GMT

    The Selection of keeper was the best as the indication was clear. Why pick a batting keeper when you have so many batting legends. Possibly the two best all time teams would be this and Aussies

  • POSTED BY a.mueed on | July 26, 2010, 14:08 GMT

    Although a Pakistani, I was still extremely interested in the all time West Indies XI, and that was all because of 1 man THE Curtly Ambrose. I still cant forget the memories of the genius. In an era of great Pakistani pacers (Wasim and Waqar), i always admired Ambrose as much as i admired the other two. I really wanted to see him in all time West Indies XI, and if I am ever to choose my all time XI, he will be one of the first to get picked. There was never a like of him and there will never be a like of him..

  • POSTED BY svsingh on | July 26, 2010, 13:54 GMT

    I really cant see how hendricks made the team infront of jeff dujon or even deryck murray. i would really like to know what was the criteria for selection. totally unfair selection here.

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2010, 13:53 GMT

    I think the 11 shows the experts have gotten used to the mediocre WI displays of recent times and forgotten about the 80s. Why on earth, if that is not the case, would they pick a spinner leaving out the likes of Hall, griffith, roberts, croft, garner, walsh. the argument of conditions just dont hold water as most of them have been as successful as gibbs in the sub continent. with all due respect to gibbs and his achievements, i dont think he deserves a place in this 11

  • POSTED BY Gopes_On_Dopes on | July 26, 2010, 13:53 GMT

    Wow, what an XI!! Has to be the strongest one among all teams, I dont know much about Conrad Hunte and Jackie Hendricks, will surely read their profiles now. :)

  • POSTED BY BillyCC on | July 26, 2010, 13:28 GMT

    zohebchampion, I think a match up between the All Time Australian and West Indies would definitely not be so one-sided as you make out. In a 10-test series, I would say it would end up even or Australia edges it 6-4. The Windies have the edge in the fast bowling department which is worth one test matches, Australia have a significant edge in the spin bowling department which is also worth two tests. Gilchrist gives the side an edge in the batting depth and he can win a test. Bradman gives the side an edge in overall batting, worth two tests. However, the Windies have the depth if injuries occur. An Australian lineup with Lillee, McGrath and Miller injured has less options than a Windies side with Ambrose, Holding and Marshall injured. This is worth two tests. Sobers will also win a test off his own back. So really, it's very even. No injuries, Australia will probably win. Injuries, and Windies will win or draw a close series.

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2010, 13:08 GMT

    @zohebchampion - Not so sure about Lara playing Mcgrath with ease. In one series, Mcgrath got Lara 5 times in 3 tests. I think there's was an even contest.

  • POSTED BY HSPatel on | July 26, 2010, 13:06 GMT

    Where is Courtney Walsh?

  • POSTED BY kentjones on | July 26, 2010, 13:03 GMT

    It is amazing the kind of players WI has produced over the years of test cricket, that there can be so much controversy and quarrel over the final eleven. I agree with the people who say that even the WI second eleven best ever is better than most countries first eleven best ever. I feel sorry for the panellists who had to make the final decision and even feel worst for those great players who had to be omitted. I prefer to see it this way: to have such extraordinarily great players omitted is a tribute to the West Indies, a scattered bunch of small islands, with an aggregate population of about 10 million,that have produced some of the greatest cricketers that ever walked the earth. So instead of adding my voice to the qubbling, I want to raise it instead to the islands of the West Indies,we all should be proud of these outstanding gentlemen, who have graced the cricket fields the wordk over and left stunning performances and everlasting memories. Thanks to all the players.

  • POSTED BY itisme on | July 26, 2010, 12:58 GMT

    It is a fantastic eleven. The only selection I disagree with is the choice of the wicketkeeper. Jacki Hendrichs was a great wicketkeeper/batsman, but I think Jeffry Dujon deserves a place in the XI ahead of him. You will see very few batsmen as acomplished and as stylish as Dujon. And his wicket-keeping is well-known.

  • POSTED BY peterhrt on | July 26, 2010, 12:58 GMT

    This turned out to be the easiest team to predict, apart from the wicket-keeper. Choosing the best keeper was admirable, although there is a long tail. The 3 Ws' record in Australia goes against them, and the same applies to Haynes on the sub-continent. As a unit, batsmen 3 to 6 will be unmatched by any other country. Garner is the unluckiest bowler to miss out, but a specialist spinner was essential. Dust bowls and slow turners will abound when the West Indies are in town and Sobers' quicker style was generally more effective than his spin. The principal perceived threat will be Australia, whose formidable wrist-spinners equip them better for all conditions. But the real danger may lie elsewhere. Most of this West Indian eleven struggled in New Zealand.

  • POSTED BY Cric_123 on | July 26, 2010, 12:53 GMT

    Look at the names who have missed out..Make an XI out the players who have missed out and it will be able to beat any team in the world other than this one! Wow, I wish WI start producing players of this calibre again. It would be great for International Cricket.

  • POSTED BY CricketingStargazer on | July 26, 2010, 12:53 GMT

    It says something when neither Joel Garner nor Wes Hall can get into the side. Personally I would have picked Garner ahead of Ambrose and Hall ahead of Marshall, but you could pick a full XI of fast bowlers and still leave out some greats.

  • POSTED BY bencythomas on | July 26, 2010, 12:21 GMT

    did the selectors miss courtney walsh..he should have it into the team

  • POSTED BY george204 on | July 26, 2010, 12:07 GMT

    Here's a thought - great as this line-up is, the 2nd XI isn't bad: Fredericks, Haynes, Worrell, Weekes, Walcott, Dujon, Constantine, Garner, Roberts, Hall, Ramadin

    & think of the players left over for a 3rd XI: Lloyd, Kanhai, Richardson, Murray, Walsh (!), Croft, Martindale, Griffith, Valentine...

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2010, 11:55 GMT

    Andy Roberts should be included. Sunil Gavaskar rated him the best fast bowler he ever faced.

  • POSTED BY KiwiRocker- on | July 26, 2010, 11:47 GMT

    No matter who picks the XI and what XI is it.....King Viv Richards will always be in any XI. Cricket has never been the same since King retired. Players like Sehwag and Tendulkar are just over hyped scoring on easy flat pitches against no quality bowlers( remember Tendulkar saved himself against Wasim and Waqar in 90's)...Reality is that King was the greatest! Even Brian Lara can not rival the King....I wish I could turn back the time and see King batting once again with his swagger and massive sixes over mid wicket against one of the fastest bowlers of world has ever seen.! Personally I would have also liked to see Andy Robets.! He probably was the most lethal out of the bunch but bit underrated and bit unlucky with final figures!

  • POSTED BY eddy501 on | July 26, 2010, 11:35 GMT

    Can someone please explain to me why Weekes or Lloyd would be picked before Lara????????? This inconsistant tag Lara has been labelled with really gets on my nerves. If you finish a career with a 53 avg with only 6 not outs that is NOT inconsistant! People are always, always taking about the pressure SRT plays under yet he has Sehwag, Dravid, Ganguly etc.....Chanderpaul apart Lara held the batting line up together for about 10 years, now thats pressure. Remember Viv had GG, or Lloyd etc, 3 W's had each other and Sobers. Lara produced some of the finest and greatest knocks ever in the greatest fashion with the upmost skill and entertainment I cant believe and people would actually swap him for Lloyd. God help us all!

  • POSTED BY RWood on | July 26, 2010, 11:30 GMT

    Given the wealth of talent there was to choose from, I suggest this would be more challenging and interesting: pick 3 top WI teams, as closely matched as possible in strength, for an imaginary 3-way tournament (tests, ODIs, whatever).

  • POSTED BY Mike_C on | July 26, 2010, 10:50 GMT

    An incredibly tough choice, especially in the bowling department. You could pick 3 world class bowling lineups, if you consider the fast bowlers down the years! I too would open with Haynes and have Dujon as my keeper, the only possible change, is on low scoring pitches, where a more battling bastman would be useful, such as Chanderpaul. The great W Indies team of the 80s had Larry Gomes, a solid dependable player, as a counterpart to the mayhem going on around him!

  • POSTED BY george204 on | July 26, 2010, 10:41 GMT

    Broadly speaking, they've got it right with the batting line-up: Greenidge, Headley, Richards, Lara & Sobers were "must" picks & statistically there wasn't a million miles between Haynes/Fredericks/Hunte for the other opener slot.

    I still disagree with the decision to include a specialist spinner over a 4th quick, but I think the three quicks they did choose were the best 3, it would have been between Hall & Garner for the 4th.

    Perhaps Dujon's omission was a mistake, but I suppose they were trying to include people from all eras. It's still a very string side though...

  • POSTED BY RogerC on | July 26, 2010, 10:11 GMT

    Sobers and Richards can bowl spin, so Garner or Hall in place of Gibbs would have been great. Another interesting fact is that Jimmy Adams, the only one who played with Lara didn't choose Lara in his team.

  • POSTED BY farazzubair on | July 26, 2010, 10:04 GMT

    This team is by no means a chewing gum, but I have to say when we talk of a team we look at what best could be picked, why confine parameters into waste less arguments of true spinners and genuine openers when the best team can still be picked without them. Walcott, Richards and Lara have good enough records as openers. Why sacrifice some of the greats in 3 W's to make way for a genuine opener when that role can be filled by any of these three plus Walcott could kep, that would give you an extra player and you could push in Weekes. Similarly, when West Indies dominated the world with the pace quartet, why unnecessarily look at a spinner.Case in hand 1975-76 WI thrashed by Australia 5-1 with Gibbs in the side and only two quicks Roberts and Holding (who made a debut in the series) and the series thay later tharashed Australia in 1982-83 with the pace quartet. My team 1. Greenidge 2. Lara 3. Headley. 4. Richards. 5.Weekes 6. Sobers 7. Walcott 8. Marshall 9.Holding 10.Roberts. 11.Garner

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2010, 9:43 GMT

    Any West Indian side with the Captaincy of Clive Lloyd is gonna be directionless and a ship without Captain.

  • POSTED BY zohebchampion on | July 26, 2010, 9:36 GMT

    Just imagine a test match is being played between the All Time Australian Xl and All Time West Indies Xl. Brian Lara played Mcgrath and Warne with much ease than any other contemporary batsmen or rather i should say he reserved his best gainst them.Viv Richard played Lillee with such ease and i don't think any other batsmen treated Lillee with such disdain.It is a question how Bill O'Reily would have fared against the stong WI batting line up.If we look at the West Indies bowling attack , it looks lethal and fearsome. I wonder how Sir Don would have negotiated the fearsome fast bowling of Marshal , Ambrose and Holding.I have doubts.This West Indies side is much much stronger than the other All Time Xl like Australia, England , SA or Pakistan.

  • POSTED BY Sehwagology on | July 26, 2010, 9:25 GMT

    I can't believe there are those who are quibbling over the selection of Lara. He is the greatest attacking batsman of his generation and one of only three batsmen over the last 50 years who can be described as a genuine batting genius. The other two are also in this team - Garfield Sobers and Viv Richards! And I know that George Headley has a wonderful record at number 3. However in my mind there can only ever be one batsman to bat at one drop and that is Viv Richard. If the role of the number three batsman is to counter attack and batter the opposition fast bowlers into submission then no one has done that better in the history of the game than Viv Richards - Bradman included. Bradman was obviously the greater batsman but Viv Richards has been the most destructive batsman in the history of the game and therefore would be an automatic selection at number 3 in any World XI. He would simply be wasted at 4 or 5.

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2010, 9:18 GMT

    With such a wealth of talent, I find it impossible to pick an 11. I'd rather pick a squad of 16 players. My squad would be: Lloyd (captain), Greenidge, Hunte and Haynes (openers), Headley, Richards, Lara, Weekes and Sobers (middle order), Dujon and Murray (wicketkeepers), Marshall, Holding, Ambrose, Garner, and Gibbs (bowlers). Even so, the omission of Fredericks, Worrell, Walcott, Kanhai, Roberts, Hall, Ramadhin and Valentine is painful. I would prefer to pick Constantine in my one-day squad.

    However, I am certain of the best WI team that played together. This team played in Australia in 1979-80: Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, Rowe, Kallicharran, Lloyd (captain), Murray, Roberts, Holding, Garner and Croft.

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2010, 9:14 GMT

    Amazing to see that the West Indies could put out a Great 11 without the 3 Ws. Would love to imagine a test series between the Aus All Time X1 and this team. Irresistable Force vs Irresistable Force.

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2010, 8:54 GMT

    I have seen a lot of Lara and Viv Richards. Both were inconsistent, match winners. I think Clyde walcott/Everton Weekes is a better choice than Lara. Viv would just be able to make into my WI team.

  • POSTED BY Gizza on | July 26, 2010, 8:52 GMT

    I think the Windies XI and the WI Second XI as some people are talking about can probably beat any other all-time XI easily. The only other team that might compete is Australia but they would rely heavily on Bradman and Warne to make up for their pace bowlers who are not as brutal, weaker middle order and not as good all-rounder. They seem to be equal when it comes to openers.

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2010, 8:38 GMT

    I have to say, why the hell do the Windies need a spinner? They were the best in the world with a pace quartet, their best ever side should be the same.

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2010, 8:29 GMT

    Why is Garner so often an understudy to other fast bowlers of his time? His stats are to die for. Even when you break up by opposition, you find he has done well all teams. I will pick him instead of Michael Holding.

  • POSTED BY avinash11may on | July 26, 2010, 8:05 GMT

    The final XI is more or less on expected lines. May be Dujon should have been preferred over Hendricks or Walcott should have been picked up as an opening batsman cum wicketkeeper. That might have given the option of picking up Constantine or Garner in the playing XI. Otherwise, I don't have any problems with this lineup.

  • POSTED BY postsituationist on | July 26, 2010, 7:54 GMT

    No Garner???? Such a shame.

  • POSTED BY ZEUS00 on | July 26, 2010, 7:39 GMT

    Dujon in place of Hendriks, Garner or Roberts instead of Gibbs, would make the team more formidable. Sobers/Richards will more than adequately look after any spin requirements. Even though Clive Lloyd doesn't feature in the mix, his inspirational leadership made many a West Indian victory possible. He could be made the 12th man (no sarcasm there!) to assist with planning, strategy etc

  • POSTED BY New_Wind on | July 26, 2010, 7:38 GMT

    Invincible they are even in random picks. But I am glad 9 of m nominees have made it to the list. From the word Go till toda my view remains the same. Combine Hunte and Hendricks into Walcott the wicketkeeper and opener. Add one more pace bowler - Garner or Roberts in the empty place. Thats WI for you with 4 pronged pace attack.

  • POSTED BY its.rachit on | July 26, 2010, 7:32 GMT

    An XI can be made of those who did not get selected :

    Haynes, Fredricks, Kanhai, Weeks, Walcott(W), Worell, Lloyd(C), Roberts, Garner, Hall, Walsh

    Pitch this team against the selected XI ... Can any1 bet the winner with surety ... I dont think so ... Batting looks evenly matched ... infact this one might just be slightly better with 7 of them ... the only weakness being lack of a spinner .. but honestly, who cares for a spinner ...none of the 4 pacers were depended on the pitch for success ... which sadly is not the case with spinners ... This probably is a baometer of how good WI were .. and how bad they are now ...

  • POSTED BY ToMegaTherion1986 on | July 26, 2010, 7:30 GMT

    Not a bad selection, while predominately I would say a spinner is essential, in the case of the West Indies, there have simply not been and spinner as proliffic as many of the West Indian Fast Bowlers who have missed out on selection here. Just think of a second and half a dozen names come to mind including Walsh and Garner among others.

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2010, 7:30 GMT

    would be interesting to pick an all star second XI for each country too...i would have the feeling that the Windies second XI would be better than any other countries - Haynes, Fredricks, Weekes, Walcott, Worrell, Kanhai/Constantine, Dujon, Garner, Hall, Roberts/Walsh, Ramadhin.

  • POSTED BY zohebchampion on | July 26, 2010, 7:29 GMT

    What about West Indies "Best of the Rest" ? Fredricks , Haynes , Worrel, Weeks, Walcott,Constantin , Dujon , Roberts , Garner , Hall, Ramahdin - still formidable !

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2010, 7:24 GMT

    I agree with Milind. Bring in Garner!

  • POSTED BY Ammar72 on | July 26, 2010, 7:00 GMT

    Well well well....how surprising that no body so far...talked abt Clive Lloyd's absence....perhaps the skipper in that golden era of WI cricket....i wonder who would be the captain of this all time XI?? moreover i think Chanderpaul should also b "atleast" considered for his consistent amazing feats in test cricket....ammar

  • POSTED BY Sehwagology on | July 26, 2010, 6:53 GMT

    Still don't agree with the selection of Gibbs ahead of Roberts or Garner. Nor indeed of Hendricks ahead of Walcott. Nonetheless I would back this team to beat any other all-time XI, including the Australian one which was the strongest up until now.

  • POSTED BY jonesy2 on | July 26, 2010, 6:32 GMT

    "Lara is the greatest batsman I have ever bowled to." Glenn McGrath. hahaha nice one glenn even though you used to get his wicket at will and on que. no courtney walsh? windies greatest wicket taker doesnt get in the team? work that one out..

  • POSTED BY agniaus on | July 26, 2010, 6:30 GMT

    I reckon Roberts was their lynch pin in the 70s- and the most intelligent bowler. Should be there instead of Holding

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2010, 6:28 GMT

    Not really happy with this team. I would have preferred Garner, Haynes and Dujon in the side.

    Or maybe, you should think of having a WI- A team. They would be world beaters anyways.. just imagine..

    Haynes, Fredricks, Weekes, Wallcott, Chanderpaul, Kanhai, Dujon, Garner, Hall, Roberts & Valentine!!

  • POSTED BY S.h.a.d.a.b on | July 26, 2010, 6:27 GMT

    it is extremely difficult to find best 11 in west Indies. they had played exceptional cricket since 50s to 90s. there could be made 2 or 3 best teams. This team is good too.

  • POSTED BY VIAR on | July 26, 2010, 6:23 GMT

    Who will lead this team?

  • POSTED BY Vivek.Bhandari on | July 26, 2010, 5:55 GMT

    Although most of the guys pick themselves but still the quality of the guys who're left from this squad shows the caliber, skill, and the aura of the Windies' dominance in the past...

  • POSTED BY KarmatBaig on | July 26, 2010, 5:40 GMT

    Sad to see Garner missing from the team, anyway West Indies can be proud that they can produce a second best All-time XI with palyers who have missed out on the selection, even that team would be hard to beat. Such huge has been their talent from the begining uptill the Lara, Ambrose and Walsh era.

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2010, 5:40 GMT

    What is Lance Gibbs doing in a all star WI team? Replace Gibbs with Garner or Roberts.

  • POSTED BY Sach.S on | July 26, 2010, 5:27 GMT

    It is unbelievable the wealth the Windies posses. I do believe this team is a fair selection, but when you see that the likes of Lloyd, Kanhai, the three Ws, Roberts, Garner etc cannot find a place in this team, it is unimaginable. They can literally walk into any team in this era. I think we can form another team of world beaters out of those who were eliminated, and that says a lot.

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2010, 5:27 GMT

    where Jeffrey Dujon wicketkeeper

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2010, 5:20 GMT

    No such rule of having one spinner rite? they can go with Roberts or Garner.

  • POSTED BY BillyCC on | July 26, 2010, 5:04 GMT

    It's important to remember that if you take a hypothetical situation of these All-Time teams playing each other, going into a game without a spinner puts you at a disadvantage against subcontinental teams. For example, if I was the opposing captain and knew that the opposition had no spinner, I would order the pitch curator to make it spit and turn and offer no pace or green from day one. In this case, even Ambrose, Marshall, Garner and Holding would be no match and would be less effective than players like Murali, Warne, Laker, Kumble etc. Therefore, keep Gibbs in for balance.

  • POSTED BY crikkfan on | July 26, 2010, 4:59 GMT

    Here is the "2nd string" all-time West Indies A team:

    Roy Fredericks, Desmond Haynes, Alvin Kallicharan, Rohan Kanhai, Everton Weekes, Frank Worrell, Jeff Dujon, Joel Garner, Courtney Walsh, Andy Roberts, Wesley Hall.

    A great lineup to challenge other all-time teams or what ?! Boy - there is still room for a world class B team!!

  • POSTED BY ManFromTX on | July 26, 2010, 4:56 GMT

    I think Jeff Dujon was the best wicket keeper WI had. I would take him as WK.

  • POSTED BY gmoturu1 on | July 26, 2010, 4:54 GMT

    ahhh.....as i expected in the bowling department. only flaw to me is the wicket keeper jackie hendricks.....i preferred jeff dujon

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2010, 4:48 GMT

    on a second though i will pick Clive Lloyd over Brian Lara any day, Clive to captain the team, a match winner and instead of Gibbs pick Garner. With Sobers around you dont need a spinner and with with Marshal, Garner et al who needs a spinner any ways.... maybe Hall instead of Ambrose.....

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2010, 4:45 GMT

    Why you want gibbs in team when you have sobers in the team. Add Roberts and you have traditional WI all pace attack.

  • POSTED BY sriram_c24 on | July 26, 2010, 4:44 GMT

    The title of the page, "The Invincibles" perfectly suits that sort of a team, with full of powers, strategies, techniques, style, etc., This team in particular can thrash any team, even the T20 teams today...! The bowling line-up, in which every team has a vast concern, is very strong like the Pyramids. They can dismantle even the hard hitting T20 batsmen of the day. One of the best bowling performances ever seen from Curtly Ambrose against Australia at WACA, Perth, in the early 90's, i.e 7 for 1, is one of the finest examples of West Indian bowling attack. Also, the batsmen like Lara, Richards, etc., shall take a bow for their blistering on-field attack. On my view, this team wud have been the no. 1 team....!!! But the thing is, I really miss Courtney Walsh in such a great line-up of the GREATS....!!!

  • POSTED BY RSG476 on | July 26, 2010, 4:43 GMT

    If there is one criticism one can make of such an outstanding side, it is that they do not have a great candidate for captaincy. Neither Sobers nor Richards nor Lara were outstanding captains, and for a team like West Indies, that has always been critical. That is where I would put my faith in Sobers as a multi purpose spin bowler and bring in Worrell in place of Lance Gibbs. While Worrell has opened the batting and bowling a couple of times, he was an outstanding cricketer who was also perhaps the best captain West Indies ever had (even keeping Llyod in mind). I would certainly have him in the side, given his record, which would have made him eligible any how and specially for the value add he would bring in as a captain.

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2010, 4:38 GMT

    man you leave out monsters like Garner, Hall, Croft and you till expect to win, you leave out Clive Lloyd, thats blasphemous!!!! you out of your minds.............. er not exactly, amazing the above dont get picked and still it is probably one of the greatest all time teams... wow!!! Windies rulzzz!!! (er not eaxclty)

  • POSTED BY Woody111 on | July 26, 2010, 4:36 GMT

    Just imagine facing Holding and Marshall, seeing them off (which you probably wouldn't) only to have Ambrose and Sobers come on. Then when you've got the ball, after getting Greenidge out Headley comes in, then Lara, then Sir Viv! Of the current crop only Gayle has a chance of being in any sort of ideal 11. Says alot for where WI cricket is at.

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2010, 4:15 GMT

    As many expected, 3W's are missing. Sad, But in any case, you could randomly pick 11 from the nominees and it would still make a great team.

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2010, 4:13 GMT

    Drop Gibbs - bring in Garner. See them quake!

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2010, 4:13 GMT

    Drop Gibbs - bring in Garner. See them quake!

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2010, 4:15 GMT

    As many expected, 3W's are missing. Sad, But in any case, you could randomly pick 11 from the nominees and it would still make a great team.

  • POSTED BY Woody111 on | July 26, 2010, 4:36 GMT

    Just imagine facing Holding and Marshall, seeing them off (which you probably wouldn't) only to have Ambrose and Sobers come on. Then when you've got the ball, after getting Greenidge out Headley comes in, then Lara, then Sir Viv! Of the current crop only Gayle has a chance of being in any sort of ideal 11. Says alot for where WI cricket is at.

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2010, 4:38 GMT

    man you leave out monsters like Garner, Hall, Croft and you till expect to win, you leave out Clive Lloyd, thats blasphemous!!!! you out of your minds.............. er not exactly, amazing the above dont get picked and still it is probably one of the greatest all time teams... wow!!! Windies rulzzz!!! (er not eaxclty)

  • POSTED BY RSG476 on | July 26, 2010, 4:43 GMT

    If there is one criticism one can make of such an outstanding side, it is that they do not have a great candidate for captaincy. Neither Sobers nor Richards nor Lara were outstanding captains, and for a team like West Indies, that has always been critical. That is where I would put my faith in Sobers as a multi purpose spin bowler and bring in Worrell in place of Lance Gibbs. While Worrell has opened the batting and bowling a couple of times, he was an outstanding cricketer who was also perhaps the best captain West Indies ever had (even keeping Llyod in mind). I would certainly have him in the side, given his record, which would have made him eligible any how and specially for the value add he would bring in as a captain.

  • POSTED BY sriram_c24 on | July 26, 2010, 4:44 GMT

    The title of the page, "The Invincibles" perfectly suits that sort of a team, with full of powers, strategies, techniques, style, etc., This team in particular can thrash any team, even the T20 teams today...! The bowling line-up, in which every team has a vast concern, is very strong like the Pyramids. They can dismantle even the hard hitting T20 batsmen of the day. One of the best bowling performances ever seen from Curtly Ambrose against Australia at WACA, Perth, in the early 90's, i.e 7 for 1, is one of the finest examples of West Indian bowling attack. Also, the batsmen like Lara, Richards, etc., shall take a bow for their blistering on-field attack. On my view, this team wud have been the no. 1 team....!!! But the thing is, I really miss Courtney Walsh in such a great line-up of the GREATS....!!!

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2010, 4:45 GMT

    Why you want gibbs in team when you have sobers in the team. Add Roberts and you have traditional WI all pace attack.

  • POSTED BY on | July 26, 2010, 4:48 GMT

    on a second though i will pick Clive Lloyd over Brian Lara any day, Clive to captain the team, a match winner and instead of Gibbs pick Garner. With Sobers around you dont need a spinner and with with Marshal, Garner et al who needs a spinner any ways.... maybe Hall instead of Ambrose.....

  • POSTED BY gmoturu1 on | July 26, 2010, 4:54 GMT

    ahhh.....as i expected in the bowling department. only flaw to me is the wicket keeper jackie hendricks.....i preferred jeff dujon

  • POSTED BY ManFromTX on | July 26, 2010, 4:56 GMT

    I think Jeff Dujon was the best wicket keeper WI had. I would take him as WK.