October 26, 2010

'Would have been great to walk out with Bradman' - Tendulkar

ESPNcricinfo staff
Sachin Tendulkar, Adam Gilchrist, Dennis Lillee and Wasim Akram react at being picked in ESPNcricinfo's all-time World XI
321

Sachin Tendulkar has described being voted into ESPNcricinfo's all-time World XI as "unreal", and the team as "extraordinary company to be in". Tendulkar is the only current player in the XI, the rest of whom are four Australians, three West Indians, two Englishmen and one Pakistani.

Tendulkar said he would have loved to play, talk about the game, and pick the brains of his batting partners in the XI - especially Don Bradman, who once said Tendulkar reminded him of himself.

"It would have been great to play in this dream team, to walk out with Bradman after lunch, or build a partnership with Viv Richards, and talk to Sobers about cricket," Tendulkar told ESPNcricinfo. "Just playing and having a conversation with them about cricket. I would liked to have asked Hobbs and Hutton what it was like to play on uncovered wickets, who were the best bowlers they had faced, and of course, the mental aspect of the game."

Tendulkar, whose international career is now in its 21st year, was particularly pleased with the fact that he had played with or watched live nearly 60% of the side.

"I played with Malcolm Marshall in county cricket, I played against Viv Richards in an exhibition game, and Lillee bowled to me at the nets at the MRF Pace Academy, when I was 15," he said. "It was such a thrill. I remember I called my brother and said to him that Dennis Lillee had bowled to me. So to now find myself in this company is unreal. I first met him when I was 12.

Wasim Akram, one of three fast bowlers in the XI, described being picked in the team as one of his biggest achievements. "I never thought I would play for Pakistan, let alone be picked for an all-time World XI like this. It is a very special thing, to be picked by these judges and even more of an honour to be in the same team as guys like Sir Don Bradman, Sir Viv Richards, Sir Garry Sobers, Sachin and the others."

Akram said he was happy to be named alongside his bowling hero, Malcolm Marshall. "A lot of people ask me who was the best bowler I ever saw. Imran was great, no doubt, very hardworking and shrewd. Dennis Lillee I never really saw, but people tell you obviously about how good he was. But when I rate a bowler, I look at how he did around the world, on different pitches in England, the subcontinent and Australia, and Malcolm Marshall, I feel, was the best of the lot.

Adam Gilchrist, who is one of three players to make the XI who retired in the last decade (the others were Shane Warne and Akram) said many other wicketkeepers could have been picked instead of him.

"To be one of only four Australian players to be chosen is an absolute honour, although I do think there were several other wicketkeepers, like Rod Marsh, Ian Healy, Mark Boucher or Alan Knott, who could have easily been picked ahead of me in this team," Gilchrist said. Knott came close to being picked: only eight points separated him and Gilchrist in the final reckoning.

Lillee, who led the fast-bowling list in the votes, said it was an honour to be picked by a jury that was made up of eight Test captains as well as respected historians and writers. "Looking at the composition of the team, it's hard to question any of those selected. Though some great players have missed out, it would be interesting to pick another world team from those remaining, and I'm sure even that team would push the one that's been selected to the limit," he said.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • CricFan24 on November 5, 2010, 3:53 GMT

    OH! One more final ,critical point. Tendulkar and Lara were contemporaries- they faced more or less the same conditions. So a run head to head is more accurate. In my opinion conditions in the 2000s have tipped way over in the batsman's favour, so again it would help to keep in mind that even in the much more difficult '90s only 3 batsmen averaged over 50 for the entire decade- Tendulkar 59, Steve-53, Lara 52...In the 2000s an average of 50 (once the benchmark for greatness) have been devalued.

  • CricFan24 on November 5, 2010, 3:45 GMT

    Meety,prashant...One last comment . The matter is actually quite simple and we complicated it due to certain biases. If another player turns up and averages say 70 vs good attacks and scores say 20000 runs in Tests...plus say 20000 runs in ODIs at 50- he would have to be considered better than Tendulkar. If we have a few players of more or less equal ability it is the achievements which finally add up. Bradman is considered way above the others because his stats were way above the others. Noone comes even close to 99.94. However if you have 2 more or less equally gifted batsman one tallies say a total of 32000 runs in int. cricket and the other 20000 runs AT THE SAME OR BETTER AVERAGE- who would any rational person consider greater?? By the same token- if someone comes along and averages 99 while scoring say 15000 runs over 20 yrs- who in his right mind would not rank him above Bradman on the greatness stakes. Like i said - Actually speaking it is quite simple.

  • Meety on November 5, 2010, 0:32 GMT

    @cricfan24 - BTW - I rate Agassi ahead of Sampras, mainly because Sampras's serve was the primary weopan, & I hate the way Tennis has become the battle of the serves. Tennis would be much better if they went back to little wooden rackets! Not likely!

  • Meety on November 5, 2010, 0:29 GMT

    @prashant1 - fair comments re: Woodcock, but had he have seen M Waughs debut century, or the way VVS batted in the 2nd inning @ Mohali what would he have said? For mine as stated previously the 2 innings that stand out to me is the 148 & 200+ @ the SCG for differing reasons. I think SRT will have to blitzkrieg alot more before he gets on the same shelf as The Don - but that is my opinion. What a big finish would do to his career is probably shift him ahead of Lara in my mind (currently equals). ODIs? Hard to argue against 17,000 runs - but I will - LOL! ODIs are harder to rate batsmen due to the 50 over constraints. In some ways its easier opening the innings to have an influence of a match - then say batting @ 5 or 6. A World Cup would be a crowning achievement (not the be all & end all for debating purposes). I am not one of those "One Eyed Fans" who bag a player to promote my favourite, I have mainly put fwd alternative points to ponder (Eg Richards 18,000 ODI runs below).

  • Meety on November 5, 2010, 0:18 GMT

    @cricfan24 - "..most fundamental requirement for sporting greatness is consistency over time.." You still haven't understood my point. There is no way that Raja can be classified as great as SRT, EXCEPT if using your definition above. There are many facets of greatness, consistancy is but one of them. Viv Richards was older then SRT is now when he retired from ODIs - yet you used the ridiculous analogy of Bjorg playing another 10 years - what you wanted Richards to bat on tilll he was nearly 50 years old to be compared to Viv - you say I am beggaring belief. IF you have read any of my comments you actually would realise that I have praised SRT numerous times, PRASHANT1 - names the WACA century of SRT, but to me the contrasting centuries @ the SCG will forever live on in my mind. His first century was a fair bit of "Dashin Sachin", the second was triumph of Mind Over Matter. Cricfan24 seem to have no ability to comprehend that people have different & valid views to yourself!

  • 114_in_final_Six_overs on November 5, 2010, 0:10 GMT

    Tendulkar, Bradman and the rest....easy.

  • 114_in_final_Six_overs on November 5, 2010, 0:00 GMT

    @meety, you started out with good reasoning but now just to prove your point you are making contradictory statements in your posts. By every measure Tendulkar is the greatest batsman except perhaps Bradman but he played in another era altogether. Rest is subconscious bias parading as reasoning.

  • prashant1 on November 4, 2010, 13:51 GMT

    @Meety,Cricfan24. I think SRT is widely regarded as the best because of a combination of things-the longevity is another facet of it. For eg He was the top ranked player as far back as 1994 and also several ppl like Woodcock who saw his Perth hundred in '92 swore that it was as good batting as they had ever seen- as good as Bradman. Something Woodcock as maintained about SRT. In 2002 , SRT was ranked the 2nd best batsman of all time in both Tests (behind Bradman) and ODIs (behind Richards). Right after that due to injuries SRT suffered his worst patch in his career for 3/4 yrs. However, if a similar ranking were done today it would be in Tests 1) Bradman and SRT at a much closer ranked 2 than before. ODIs 1)SRT and the Richards. Most ppl consider SRT as the best after Bradman. Woodcock considers SRT the Bradman of today. And Woodcock is just about the only person who has seen both.If SRT stays injury free for another 3/4 yrs he will probably be ranked alongside Bradman as the joint 1st

  • CricFan24 on November 4, 2010, 10:29 GMT

    COntd. But who in his right mind would place Safin as better than Sampras. Even though at his best Safin was quite possibly better as he showed in the straight set whipping in the us open final.Why is sampras considered far greater? simple- greatness over time. Safin did the same thing (perhaps at a higher level) for a while.....Sampras did it over a tennis generation....I don't think you quite fathom what tendulkar has achieved...Cricket is almost unrecognisable from '89. To continue to adapt, work around injuries etc , different attacks, endless scrutiny, conditions...etch for over 2 decades...and after literally thousands of international runs more than any batsman in history -STILL at the end of it to average the same or better than his peers is a feat which boggles the mind. If only the ordinary fan could truly appreciate it. But as Roebuck (seemingly rightly) said- cricket STILL doesnt understand how lucky it is to have a Tendular...maybe someday in the future you will appreciat

  • CricFan24 on November 4, 2010, 10:24 GMT

    Meety- your reasoning has started beggaring belief. Let me just give you an eg. Rameez Raja may be considered the equivalent of say one grand slam every two yeasr.If he does that consistently for say 14 yrs and so accumulates 7 grand slams he surely becomes a top player. If another player shows a "higher" level of consistency and gets say 1 slam a year , he then ends up with say 10 slams in 10 yrs. If then you have a Federer averaging say 2 slams a year for 8 yrs = 16 slams .......who would you say is the best player? It is absolutely amazing that anyone can claim that the greater number of years you play for- a simple linear extrapolation works...Why wasn't Hussey considered equivalent to the Don after averaging 90+ 2 or 3 yrs after his debut....? Simple...you have got to do it for a prolonged period. Anyone, or lets say a lot of talented ppl can have good or great moments here and there. As mentioned one can easily argue that a Safin at his best would beat Sampras.CONTD.

  • CricFan24 on November 5, 2010, 3:53 GMT

    OH! One more final ,critical point. Tendulkar and Lara were contemporaries- they faced more or less the same conditions. So a run head to head is more accurate. In my opinion conditions in the 2000s have tipped way over in the batsman's favour, so again it would help to keep in mind that even in the much more difficult '90s only 3 batsmen averaged over 50 for the entire decade- Tendulkar 59, Steve-53, Lara 52...In the 2000s an average of 50 (once the benchmark for greatness) have been devalued.

  • CricFan24 on November 5, 2010, 3:45 GMT

    Meety,prashant...One last comment . The matter is actually quite simple and we complicated it due to certain biases. If another player turns up and averages say 70 vs good attacks and scores say 20000 runs in Tests...plus say 20000 runs in ODIs at 50- he would have to be considered better than Tendulkar. If we have a few players of more or less equal ability it is the achievements which finally add up. Bradman is considered way above the others because his stats were way above the others. Noone comes even close to 99.94. However if you have 2 more or less equally gifted batsman one tallies say a total of 32000 runs in int. cricket and the other 20000 runs AT THE SAME OR BETTER AVERAGE- who would any rational person consider greater?? By the same token- if someone comes along and averages 99 while scoring say 15000 runs over 20 yrs- who in his right mind would not rank him above Bradman on the greatness stakes. Like i said - Actually speaking it is quite simple.

  • Meety on November 5, 2010, 0:32 GMT

    @cricfan24 - BTW - I rate Agassi ahead of Sampras, mainly because Sampras's serve was the primary weopan, & I hate the way Tennis has become the battle of the serves. Tennis would be much better if they went back to little wooden rackets! Not likely!

  • Meety on November 5, 2010, 0:29 GMT

    @prashant1 - fair comments re: Woodcock, but had he have seen M Waughs debut century, or the way VVS batted in the 2nd inning @ Mohali what would he have said? For mine as stated previously the 2 innings that stand out to me is the 148 & 200+ @ the SCG for differing reasons. I think SRT will have to blitzkrieg alot more before he gets on the same shelf as The Don - but that is my opinion. What a big finish would do to his career is probably shift him ahead of Lara in my mind (currently equals). ODIs? Hard to argue against 17,000 runs - but I will - LOL! ODIs are harder to rate batsmen due to the 50 over constraints. In some ways its easier opening the innings to have an influence of a match - then say batting @ 5 or 6. A World Cup would be a crowning achievement (not the be all & end all for debating purposes). I am not one of those "One Eyed Fans" who bag a player to promote my favourite, I have mainly put fwd alternative points to ponder (Eg Richards 18,000 ODI runs below).

  • Meety on November 5, 2010, 0:18 GMT

    @cricfan24 - "..most fundamental requirement for sporting greatness is consistency over time.." You still haven't understood my point. There is no way that Raja can be classified as great as SRT, EXCEPT if using your definition above. There are many facets of greatness, consistancy is but one of them. Viv Richards was older then SRT is now when he retired from ODIs - yet you used the ridiculous analogy of Bjorg playing another 10 years - what you wanted Richards to bat on tilll he was nearly 50 years old to be compared to Viv - you say I am beggaring belief. IF you have read any of my comments you actually would realise that I have praised SRT numerous times, PRASHANT1 - names the WACA century of SRT, but to me the contrasting centuries @ the SCG will forever live on in my mind. His first century was a fair bit of "Dashin Sachin", the second was triumph of Mind Over Matter. Cricfan24 seem to have no ability to comprehend that people have different & valid views to yourself!

  • 114_in_final_Six_overs on November 5, 2010, 0:10 GMT

    Tendulkar, Bradman and the rest....easy.

  • 114_in_final_Six_overs on November 5, 2010, 0:00 GMT

    @meety, you started out with good reasoning but now just to prove your point you are making contradictory statements in your posts. By every measure Tendulkar is the greatest batsman except perhaps Bradman but he played in another era altogether. Rest is subconscious bias parading as reasoning.

  • prashant1 on November 4, 2010, 13:51 GMT

    @Meety,Cricfan24. I think SRT is widely regarded as the best because of a combination of things-the longevity is another facet of it. For eg He was the top ranked player as far back as 1994 and also several ppl like Woodcock who saw his Perth hundred in '92 swore that it was as good batting as they had ever seen- as good as Bradman. Something Woodcock as maintained about SRT. In 2002 , SRT was ranked the 2nd best batsman of all time in both Tests (behind Bradman) and ODIs (behind Richards). Right after that due to injuries SRT suffered his worst patch in his career for 3/4 yrs. However, if a similar ranking were done today it would be in Tests 1) Bradman and SRT at a much closer ranked 2 than before. ODIs 1)SRT and the Richards. Most ppl consider SRT as the best after Bradman. Woodcock considers SRT the Bradman of today. And Woodcock is just about the only person who has seen both.If SRT stays injury free for another 3/4 yrs he will probably be ranked alongside Bradman as the joint 1st

  • CricFan24 on November 4, 2010, 10:29 GMT

    COntd. But who in his right mind would place Safin as better than Sampras. Even though at his best Safin was quite possibly better as he showed in the straight set whipping in the us open final.Why is sampras considered far greater? simple- greatness over time. Safin did the same thing (perhaps at a higher level) for a while.....Sampras did it over a tennis generation....I don't think you quite fathom what tendulkar has achieved...Cricket is almost unrecognisable from '89. To continue to adapt, work around injuries etc , different attacks, endless scrutiny, conditions...etch for over 2 decades...and after literally thousands of international runs more than any batsman in history -STILL at the end of it to average the same or better than his peers is a feat which boggles the mind. If only the ordinary fan could truly appreciate it. But as Roebuck (seemingly rightly) said- cricket STILL doesnt understand how lucky it is to have a Tendular...maybe someday in the future you will appreciat

  • CricFan24 on November 4, 2010, 10:24 GMT

    Meety- your reasoning has started beggaring belief. Let me just give you an eg. Rameez Raja may be considered the equivalent of say one grand slam every two yeasr.If he does that consistently for say 14 yrs and so accumulates 7 grand slams he surely becomes a top player. If another player shows a "higher" level of consistency and gets say 1 slam a year , he then ends up with say 10 slams in 10 yrs. If then you have a Federer averaging say 2 slams a year for 8 yrs = 16 slams .......who would you say is the best player? It is absolutely amazing that anyone can claim that the greater number of years you play for- a simple linear extrapolation works...Why wasn't Hussey considered equivalent to the Don after averaging 90+ 2 or 3 yrs after his debut....? Simple...you have got to do it for a prolonged period. Anyone, or lets say a lot of talented ppl can have good or great moments here and there. As mentioned one can easily argue that a Safin at his best would beat Sampras.CONTD.

  • cricketlovee on November 4, 2010, 5:17 GMT

    @Meety....u r correct mate...i agree with you....its not right to call sachin best odi player....there r many others...infact there r always questions whenever u say """BEST""...and its useless to fight for someone just to make him call as """BEST""".........@all Indians and sachin lover...please dont fight for sachin ...he is no doubt a great one day player.....we all love and hold respect for that Man.....

  • Meety on November 4, 2010, 1:51 GMT

    @cricfan24 - "..most fundamental requirement for sporting greatness is consistency over time.." - is extremely limiting definition that is designed to back your arguement. By your arguement Javed Miandad would be greater than SRT, because his average never dipped below 50 after his 2nd innings! Cosistancy is one componant of the equation to greatness. Other factors are context & achievements against other comparable participants. The most consistant Test batsmen ever was Rameez Raja. So take the blinkers off and learn to encompass a more total understanding of things - even if it is not what you want to hear.

  • Meety on November 4, 2010, 1:39 GMT

    @CricFan24 - in terms of bias, you have shown yours buddy. I have all along said that SRT is a Great of the game. You quite in a quite bias manner ridiculed Vivs achievement by using an accumulation of runs over 400 games to say he was better than Viv. Most runs DO NOT = Best batsmen. That would mean Gooch was at one point in time the 2nd greatest batsmen that ever lived. My extrapolation (very simple I admit), was to put context to your dumb remark about SRT. For the record I haven't got a firm position on who is the Greatest ODI player of all time as their are more variables then mere runs scored, 100s, & averages - like s/rates & context & position in the batting order. I mentioned Bevan previously because he would have some claims to being the Greatest. It is not a given that SRT is the greatest ODI player. I could throw D Jones, M Hussey, Kevin Pietersen, Gilly, Kallis & (in time maybe Amla too).

  • Meety on November 4, 2010, 1:29 GMT

    @cricfan24- By that incredible reasoning if Borg had played for 10 years more he would have had 80 grand slams. What a load of crap. The fact is Sir Viv, played for 15+ years and played less than half the matches SRT did over 20years. FACT - ODIs weree not played much in the 70s. Sir Viv played about 30 games in about 8 years, which some modern players could easily play in one year. I was merely saying that statistically the comment about scoring 10,000 ODI runs more then Viv is a childish arguement as Viv "potentially" could of scored the same amount & more if ODIs were played as regularly. My arguement had NOTHING to do with extending his career "10 years". Also why did you not quote strike rates in your comparison with Viv - forget to reply hey?

  • cricketlovee on November 3, 2010, 9:44 GMT

    @aussiefan4waugh.....Shubhankar Chaudhuri you r same as aussiefan4augh...cricinfo has blocked ur account for rubbish you r posting ...good...but hey u r australian...i thought u r from india( by ur name).why r we fighting than....be happy ..................@SatyajitM......i have never said don was not great....but it is a Non-realistic record....no one can average 99 at present for 52 matches (considering the amount of cricket played...quality...etc)....a record is realistic when it can be broken...i would still say it is a Fictitious record...and no one is correct to say don as best......although he is great no doubt...his average would have been same like one of the great of present generation..so please dont hype 99.4..it makes me laugh...sorry...everyone has their opinion.....................

  • CricFan24 on November 3, 2010, 9:09 GMT

    @Meety- By that incredible reasoning if Borg had played for 10 years more he would have had 80 grand slams. Do you really think it works as simply as a linear extrapolation? The most fundamental requirement for sporting greatness is consistency over time. Does it matter if a Safin at his best can best can take out at a Sampras? Do you think that all that is required in international cricket is to walk out to the middle and the bat "automatically" starts ticking off the runs vs. international bowlers? Viv averaged in the 30s in his last 3 or so years....I suggest you take a good hard look at your peculiar biases and prejudices before seemingly so easily attempting to trash greatness.

  • SatyajitM on November 3, 2010, 4:55 GMT

    @cricketlovee, yes the word "Best" is subjective. While in my opinion these two gentlemen (Don and Sachin) were and are best in their generation, you may have a different opinion and I am fine with that. People can argue that Victor Trumper was a better bat than Don as he was more beautiful to watch. But, 'beauty' is a somewhat hazardous criteria for measuring greatness though we can't deny it completely. But you can't say Bradman was unreal just bcoz he had 99 avg. Because he actually got those runs! Unlike the speculation Meety did on how much Viv would have scored "If" he played same no of completed ODI innings as Sachin (you object to that and I agree). Even if I consider in Bradman's time scoring may have been easier due to uneven opponent bowling, bad fielding, lack of technology available to opposition (there were challenges as well for batmen) what we can't forget is Brabman remained way ahead of other batters of his time.

  • cricketlovee on November 3, 2010, 4:15 GMT

    @Meety...@SatyajitM....Neither bradman nor sachin can be called as best...infact the word ""BEST""...is a most difficult word to use for any cricketer ( whether batsman or bowler )...there r always strong points against him...so we use a Fictitious character and Non-realistic record of bradman to fill this number 1 spot.....it makes me laugh when here in australia too,,,some guys keep dreaming of him ...looks childish and Fictitious dreaming...this is a bitter truth which we wont except...i think real battle is b/w Punter/tendulkar...punter will score 110 international centuries (60 in test and 50 in ODI)...if u call this fiction..just wait and see ...how this comes true ...pl dont start battle b/w punter/tendulkar now......but even after that neither can be called as ""BEST""..............

  • cricketlovee on November 3, 2010, 3:58 GMT

    @meety........ it is not easy to last that long and play with same aggression...sachin has to change his game..his injuries....so ur word ""IF "" is wrong

  • cricketlovee on November 3, 2010, 3:55 GMT

    @Meety...@SatyajitM....Neither bradman nor sachin can be called as best...infact the word ""BEST""...is a most difficult word to use for any cricketer ( whether batsman or bowler )...there r always strong points against him...so we use a Fictitious character and Non-realistic record of bradman to fill this number 1 spot.....it makes me laugh when here in australia too,,,some guys keep dreaming of him ...looks childish and Fictitious dreaming...this is a bitter truth which we wont except...i think real battle is b/w Punter/tendulkar...punter will score 110 international centuries (60 in test and 50 in ODI)...if u call this fiction..just wait and see ...how this comes true ...pl dont start battle b/w punter/tendulkar now......but even after that neither can be called as ""BEST""..............

  • Meety on November 3, 2010, 2:36 GMT

    @cricfan24 - also on the amount of runs SRT has scored - if Viv played as many completed innings as SRT, he would have 18,329 runs!

  • SatyajitM on November 2, 2010, 18:47 GMT

    For me in test there is Don, then Sachin and then the rest. In ODI it's mighty close between Sachin and Viv. Overall Sachin is the best in the modern era and I am fine with that. Don would have surely done well in both versions if he played in the modern era. Could it be something like 99 avg, very likely not; but would be pretty good nevertheless. @Meety I disagree that Ponting is a better ODI batsman for big matches. This is a myth created by his one century in 03 wc final. Sure it was a fantastic innings and took the game completely away from India. But it was one of three WC finals Ponting's team reached and he clicked in this one. Quite likely for a good batsman. On the other hand it was the only final Sachin got and batting second chasing 360 against world's no 1 team! If you take that away, Sachin has 6 hundreds in tourney finals to Ponting's 2 (including this one) with avg 55 vs 38. I reckon Ponting a better test batsman (just behind Lara and ahead of Dravid).

  • harshthakor on November 2, 2010, 11:30 GMT

    My teams are World 1st 11-Gavaskar,Hobbs,Bradman,Richards,Tendulkar,Sobers,Gilchrist,Hadlee,Marshall,Warne,Lillee.

    2nd11-Hutton,Barry Richards,,Ponting,Lara, Pollock,Walcott,Botham,Imran, Akram,Mcgrath,muriltharan

    3rd 11-Morris,Sutcliffe,Headley,Hammond,Greg Chappell,Kallis,Miller,Knott,Trueman,Ambrose,Barnes,Bill O'Reilly

    Hadlee is statistically the greatest fast bowler and the best bowler amongst allrounders and a useful batsman and thus ideal to accompany Sobers in the 1st 11.Viv Richards ability to change the complexion of a game clinches him a place.I have combined batting with bowling allrounders in the teams.Tendulakr 's consistency wins him the vote above Lara.

  • SatyajitM on November 2, 2010, 9:09 GMT

    Bevan was undoutably one of the best "Finisher" of the ODI game. But that is the keyword. He could finish well set games by his team mates. Could he take the burden of the whole on his shoulders? That's a question we may not get a clear answer. He wasn't the typical dominating ODI batsman (stike rate of 74 indicates that). Also his limited success in test cricket (avg of 30) does dent his claim on best ODI batsman (though avg wise he is really there with the footnote that he remained not out for about one third of the innings he played, being the finisher). But, he can't be comapared to a dominant opening bat like Sachin or a devastating player like Viv who may not have finished as many ODI games but overall had more impact on the shorter format of the game.

  • aussiefan4waugh on November 2, 2010, 7:58 GMT

    Tendulkar is the best(solid performaer) after Bradman-- agreed... in batting.....but IMO Lara, Richards and MAY BE MAY BE MAY BE Sobers is GREATER(more awe inspiring) than Sachin

  • Meety on November 2, 2010, 7:42 GMT

    @SatyajitM - anyways I am somewhat surprised that you have gone onto say that the Don was the best batsmen as the general tone of your earlier entries appeared quite dismissive. I agree that it is very hard to compare players of different eras. It is even hard to compare players of different countries (Lara v SRT). I was always in awe of Sir Viv, but the fact is he never had to face his teammates in the Test arena - so I always rated Gavaskar, Miandad & Border slightly higher because they did. I don't quite agree that the 1980s was at the pinnacle of cricket because the Windies were so damm dominant. Apart from Pakistan & the odd Test at the SCG, the Windies were basically unbeatable. I rate the 1970s more competitive, because Lloyd was forming his WI Empire, England were the best, & Oz had the Chappells + Lillee + Thompson. There were 3 top sides. The 1990s were very good with the re-introduction of the Saffers, but pre Murali SL weren't that good & Zim only got good at the end.

  • Meety on November 2, 2010, 7:26 GMT

    @Rohan1 - I read plenty of articles by S Waugh, & he never said what you just stated, were you para-phrasing? What I do know is that Waugh was severely humiliated by Lara in the Carribean on his first Test tour as captain, he nearly lost a series that the World thought was unlosable. Point being alot of "quotes" are classic examples of Chinese whispers where a comment about a player is taken as absolute 100% endorsement of one player over another with no regard to contest. @SatyajitM - what I was saying regarding pinnacle of cricket was that at the time - Bradman was playing in the best cricket there was available. Opposition bowlers have in recent blogs been derided as basically hacks to boost the SRT bandwagon. Comments such as Bangladesh now are better than India was in the 1930s is just completely untrue. Also Sth Africa was not a minnow, they had been playing Test cricket for 30 years by the time the Don started playing Tests.

  • Meety on November 2, 2010, 7:15 GMT

    @BillyCC - correct, & I understand that it is hard to say Bevan is the greatest ODI batsmen ever given he was so poor @ Tests. SRT is easily the most prolific ODI batsmen, I tend to think Punter has had greater impact then SRT, & then there is Sir Vivian, he had a presence, the way he would saunter to the crease like he was far too cool to even bother with a helmet. My plugging Bevan was more to argue against some comments that naturally assume SRT is the best because he scored the most runs & in some cases because his ave. is very good. I wouldn't classify Bevan as purely a finisher, he paced games pretty well even when their was plenty of wickets in hand.

  • BillyCC on November 2, 2010, 6:43 GMT

    Meety, I have to agree. Bevan is clearly the best ever finisher in ODIs. One only has to look at the winning percentage when he was involved. However, it doesn't necessarily mean that he is the best batsman ever in the form of the game. Other people like to judge this based on other criteria which is where Viv Richards gets a notable mention. For Cricfan24, Tendulkar is one of the greats of the ODI game, but whereas in Tests, he can easily be considered in the Top 5 of all time by all accounts, he would struggle to get this accolade in the ODI form of the game. His one big blemish is that he has failed in crunch games in the World Cup. In ODIs, this is important, because like soccer, there is really only one ultimate tournament every 4 years.

  • Rohan1 on November 2, 2010, 4:47 GMT

    Meety : Steve Waugh- 1) Take out the Don and Sachin is next up 2) Tendulkar is the best after Bradman. Which world do you ppl live in?

  • SatyajitM on November 2, 2010, 4:44 GMT

    @Meety, about Don what I said is that ranking system wasn't effective as 70% of intl cricket played by Eng/Aus were with each other and rest three were minnows. You cann't argue with an avg of 99. Bradman had the capacity to create two eras (or three if you wish) one untill him and the other post Bradman. But it was a completely different era and while I do reckon him the best batsman, I don't think that was pinnacle of cricket. I reckon eighties and nineties as best in terms of quality of players (more specifically fast bowlers, while batsmen were equally good as other ages). Finally, I didn't get your "hissy fit" comment ;-)

  • prashant1 on November 2, 2010, 4:37 GMT

    @cricfan24- absolutely brilliant, true and nail on the head. pity that it is beyond the logic of some people.

  • aussiefan4waugh on November 2, 2010, 4:08 GMT

    please read before you post... I never said Viv is 2nd greatest in history of test, I said Viv IMO is a better batsman than Sachin, Viv vs Sachin in ODIs, Viv was both better and greater; in tests Viv was greater but Sachin probably fared a lil better(lil considering tracks were easier, bowlers detoriated, Viv seldom needed to score huge to win a test)... now why is better and greater different to me; a more awe inspiring batsman in peak appears greater but a batsman with more solid technique and temperment is better on any day...in my team I already have Botham and Gilchrist following the never failing Don and the freakish Sobers; I really dont need an ocassional one man army; I really need a batsman who can deliver something to support them on a consistent basis... land btw I dont buy the tale of Sachin too injured in aus series 2004, he played and scored as usual against SAF(mediocre) and Bangladesh(mammoth) within a month

  • aussiefan4waugh on November 2, 2010, 2:31 GMT

    sorry for one small mistake, he didnt play the very next match against Bangladesh after aus series in 2004, but he played two more tests in a single month; and after that (even lesser rest, of two weeks ) he became as fit as a cab horse to bat for 10 hours.....I dont think India desperately needed his batting against the nightmare Bangladesh...........and following series he batted 202 balls for his 95 and also played a 52, so neither was he BEATEN BY EVERYBODY, nor he was INJURED TO SCORE, he was in his limits-- but was consistent and reliable... in 2005 end-2006 he was out of action and it was evident from a speech he made to his friend Kambli..which sums up his career, a never ending hunger for runs: thats why I put him as a apt buffer in my team between the unnatural Bradman and the freakish Sobers and the hitters Beefy and Gilly

  • aussiefan4waugh on November 2, 2010, 2:05 GMT

    * your memory is very short.----- in every test since 2007 someone is scoring a massive or a masterful score in every tests, so you cannot blame my memory,but if someone defeats the world's greatest bowling attack all alone...I will remember....if someone toys with the same attack and scores 200, I have to remember....if someone scores 28 runs in an over in TEST MATCH, I remember,and much more I listed before---- o I also remember 155* and 136 and 114 of Sachin..the reason why I say he is GREAT, BOTH are GREATS, Lara brighter in attack, Sachin tighter in solidity --- *Lara was dead rubber king---- hmmm, and Sachin killed a rubber with a horribly slow batting in Sydney 2003, if India had 1 hr more, aussies would have lost their first series in home to India----

    *Lara could not dream of scoring 98 vs a dying Wasim, Waqar in a uselss match in world cup(India were already through) --he could only send SAF home in a do or die knockout match (QF 1996) :D

  • Meety on November 2, 2010, 1:08 GMT

    @Rohan1 - "Lara is one of the most overrated players in history as the panel of experts has shown with just 28 points" - its a shame that you have to use what is actually an achievement (28 votes), to use it against a great like Lara. Steve Waugh actually use to say Lara was the best, & Waugh should know as he was torched more times by Lara then SRT. I think you are using a bit of fiction to bolster your arguement.

  • Meety on November 2, 2010, 1:01 GMT

    @CricFan24 - mate there are plenty of cricketers that could be regarded as better than SRT at ODI level. I believe that SRT is better then Punter in Tests - but I believe the reverse is true in ODI's. I also believe that lower order batters have a far tougher task than openers, so for mine M Hussey, M Bevan, V Richards, Inzi, & Dhoni have many arguements going for them. For mine it is Bevan first, its easy to look at his average & say wow he MUST be the best, there will be the counter-arguement that his ave was boosted by Not Outs, however, the way he guided OZ through the 1990s in run chases has never been matched. His highlights reel of matches won from NEAR IMPOSSIBLE positions has not been bettered by anyone. If a batsmen does it once (Razzaq v Sth Africa), it could be labelled a fluke, but Bevan did it dozens of time, he had BALLS of STEEL. Bevan great assets was his patience, running between wickets, finding the boundary when needed, & inspiring the tail to hang with him.

  • Meety on November 2, 2010, 0:52 GMT

    Quick correction - last sentence of my last post - his 200+ was NOT pretty but it profoundly moved me.

  • Meety on November 2, 2010, 0:52 GMT

    @Truecricketbuff - regardless of your comments picking @ Effective Averages - it is merely a different way of analysing the cricinfo database & as I have said is not the be al & end all of analysis. It just so happened to enhance comments from Lara fans that in THEIR opinion Lara played more crucial innings, which of course is & will be open to much debate by FANATICS either side of the arguement. I do AGREE with your comments against aussiefan4waugh, SRT has played many memorable innings, I was transfixed by his 148 @ the SCG (his first on Oz soil), Shastri scored more runs but didn't have an ounce over SRTs gem. Then over 10 years later is 200+ at the SCG was a great contrast, he had been bettered by McGrath & co outside off stump, SRT simply (for him it was simple - everybody else except Boycott maybe impossible), he chose to not play the cover drive for MORE THAN A DAY! It was pretty but it profoundly moved me.

  • Meety on November 2, 2010, 0:22 GMT

    @SatyajitM (Continued). Lara never bowed to the test of time (except right at the end of his career the 200+ in Adelaide started very un-Lara like). SRT adapted his game - the "Dashing Sachin" dissappeared around the year 2000, and was replaced by a more methodical (arguably more complete), run machine. Lara stubbonly refused to bow, SRT chose to bend & ultimately profited for it. Nothing I have said is a detraction from either players true greatness, & nothing I have said will change stubborn people who have their blinkers on. Lara = Tendulkar. As for your comment re: the Don; it frankly doesn't matter whether he played International cricket on ground or 100, the fact was he was more dominant than any other cricketer has ever been, people who try & dismiss the "quality" of bowler or opposition do not do their cause any favours. The fact is be that the Don played his Tests against it was the pinnacle of cricket. What modern cricketer can say that 75% of their matches were best quality

  • Meety on November 2, 2010, 0:13 GMT

    @SatyajitM - one of my posts didn't get shown, but it put my comments in context. The fact is I said from my first mention of "Effective Ave" that it was not definitive, & only focussed on the 21st Century. I acknowledge that Lara, Ponting & SRT actually played in the 1990s as well. You clearly got into a hissy fit because there was a ranking system that did not place SRT @ the top. All I was merely saying is that the weight of statistics tend to back SRT as the greatest of the modern era, yet Lara fans tend to point more towards Lara's highlights. One of the fundamental differences between Lara & SRT, is that Lara lived life large outside of cricket. after scoring 400* in a test and then 500* in County cricket, it looked like Lara wanted to give the game away. He was more content chasing Page 3 Girls then weilding the willow. This could never really be said of SRT, who is a run machine to his very DNA. TBC

  • cricketlovee on November 1, 2010, 20:43 GMT

    @Truecricketbuff....@Rohan1....guys please comment..."Shubhankar Chaudhury" rate Viv Richards as 2nd greatest batsman in history of test Cricket and doesnot play him in All time 11....and calls Sachin mediocre against the very best....still he rates Sachin as 3rd greatest batsman in History of test Cricket.....praises lara and calls sachin mediocre, still puts sachin ahead of him....i cannot stop my laughter...Sorry :"Shubhankar Chaudhury"....u r sounding biased and clueless and much more...please think before you comment...u r funny...nice battle of u with sachin....u r very intelligent ..ICC should appoint you...well done...lol

  • Rohan1 on November 1, 2010, 14:13 GMT

    Now its Sachin 51 points to Lara's 28. By the time Sachin is through it will be Sachin 70 points. The lara fans will still keep harping about a few innings here and there. But just like Bradman buried everyone , so will Sachin. Cricket history will record Sachin and Bradman in one bracket. You can keep arguing about the others.

  • Rohan1 on November 1, 2010, 14:01 GMT

    Also most bowlers consider Tendulkar the best. Mcgrath stated in 2003 that Tendulkar was clearly better than Lara. This was before Tendulkars seemingly terminal decline. Murali has ALWAYS had problems with the top lefties. And ALL top batsmen have ALWAYS clearly said Tendulkar is the best- these Top batsmen include Lara himself, Ponting, Steve Waugh, Mark Waugh, Inzy, Jaya, Dravid.etc etc etc...you name it. You gents are simply going on about a few good innings where Lara filled his boots. The 153 though great also had two dropped catches, several Lbws which should have been given , great tail support etc.So, i suggest you ppl get over it - Yes Lara was a brilliant batsman in spurts but comparing him to Tendulkar is senseless....51 points to 28, Ha!

  • Rohan1 on November 1, 2010, 13:56 GMT

    Lara is one of the most overrated players in history as the panel of experts has shown with just 28 points to Tendulkars 51. Lara just made sure that when he was in and the conditions suited him he milked it for what it was worth since he knew he wasn't consistently good enough to keep getting the runs. Basically ,as others have mentioned SEHWAG is better on all the parameters the lara fans keep harping on. He too dominates, scores much faster than lara and makes sure to make it count when the goings good coz he too knows he is not consistently good enough. No wonder both Lara and Sehwag consider Tendulkar the best.

  • CricFan24 on November 1, 2010, 13:49 GMT

    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 November 1, 2010, 13:48 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.

  • Truecricketbuff on November 1, 2010, 13:46 GMT

    Re "effective averages" that is hogwash. as per that chanderpaul is the 2nd best batsman. gayle just out of the top 10. it is surprise that inspite of having the 2 'best batsmen " then and one just out of the top 10 the west indies lost a single match. since they have had decent bowlers, if not absolute top drawer and have always been an athletic side- and with such a strong batting lineup they should have been unbeatable.

  • Truecricketbuff on November 1, 2010, 13:44 GMT

    aussie etc. if you can make a statement like tendulkar didnt play any innings worth remembering your memory is very short. as mentioned there was a patch between 03-06 where tendulkar was outdone by just about everybody. check the stats till 06. and then from 07/08 onwards. tendulkar outshines all his contemporaries- lara, dravid,ponting, kallis etc.and pls dont mention laras so called "world record" 400 etc. it was the single most selfish incident in the history of cricket where lara knowingly destroyed all chances of a win by insisting on playing for the record.and pls dont come back with tendulakr too plays for records- there is huge diff. between playing endlessly for hours knowing full well you are destroying any chance of a team win.the ODI double of tendulkar by the way, was vs. the then best bowling attack in the world.and as mentioned, sure lara has had a few good knocks-but what about the endless flops and the FACT that like all other batsmen he only outshone SRT from 03-06

  • prashant1 on November 1, 2010, 13:35 GMT

    Shubhankar Chaudhuri- utter nonsense like the rest of your rants. lara avg 42 in Aus vs. tendulkars 59. and pls dont even get into ODI cricket. for the eg you give the inn. tendulkar played vs pak in the wc lara couldnt even dream about it vs wasim,waqar, shoaib and co.and like the other lara trumpeters you conveniently forget the flop shows before the adelaide double hundred. typical. a string of flops and when in a dead rubber, on adelaide the best wicket in aus. he gets a double you go rah,rah.when he inevitablly flops most of the time it is conveniently consigned to the dustbin of your memory- how nice.lara is basically a dead rubber king and hometown bully. sure he played a few good knocks here and there- but chech his avg in england and aus- the 2 most difficult places for a visiting bat...and as mentioned on ALL the parameters u mention Sehwag is much BETTER! Ha- so as per your own logic sehwag is better than lara. Basically tendulakr/bradman- daylight- rest

  • SatyajitM on November 1, 2010, 13:23 GMT

    "Lara made cricket WATCHABLE......if you WATCHED CRICKET"--- That's a very subjective comment. You can have your own hero, watching whom you feel like in heaven, but that's about your personal preference. Lara was good to watch, so are many lefties like Ganguly, Anwar, Hooper, Yuvraj. But I may like to watch Laxman, Sehwag, Ponting or Sachin. Bradman wasn't known as the most stylish player (that's a subjective comment I am making based of people perception!) but he is consdidered the best batsman nevertheless. Going by the kind of crowd cheering Sachin gets (in India and outside) I don't think Sachin is doing too badly in the "Watchability Index".

  • SatyajitM on November 1, 2010, 10:05 GMT

    To add further on my comment, Viv Richards had an average of 50.23. Given the strength of the WI team througout his playing days, "effective averages" would bring it down to about 40 or 41 (going by Ponting numbering). How is that? Gavaskar has been given 51+ in that analysis. While I reckon Gavaskar a better test batsman, but he is not so much better than Viv even in test cricket. My main objection with the analysis is that if you help your team becoming a dominant/ strong force you are penalized. Ponting/Hayden/Sachin/Laxman/Sehwag all suffered due to their excellent contribution to the team. There is probably some scope for adjusting the averages but the author of the analysis misjudged to the extent to which it should be done. Remember it's not done by one of the seasoned statisticians like Anantha or Rajesh.

  • prashant1 on November 1, 2010, 9:49 GMT

    @Shubhankar Chaudhuri . As per practically all the parameters you hold so dearly Sehwag is far better than Lara. Sorry to prick your little bubble, but SRT has still more years remaining. So, get ready for some more serious PAIN. By the time SRT is through, Lara will be just a footnote in the SRT era. And as so many ppl have mentioned, it is already Tendulkar/Bradman................................The Rest.

  • SatyajitM on November 1, 2010, 8:43 GMT

    @Meety, probably you didn't read my second post on "Effective averages". The analysis is flawed not bcoz SRT is low it's bcoz people like Ponting, Laxman and Sehwag are even lower! Ponting's contribution on Noughties was exceptional with avg of 57+ (he had a rather mediocre nineties of avg 44) and he contributed for many wins. He was adjudged by a CricInfo jury as the cricketer of the decade (In my opinion he was second best behind Kallis). They are not entirely dumb people. Similarly Laxman, Sehwag and Hayden too did really well and they are shown really behind in that analysis. Shiv Chanderpaul comes second in that list! So, you want to say WI had the two most effective batsman of the last decade and still didn't have much to show in terms of results? I am sorry but I would rather term it as "ineffective averages". On Don's data one thing you seem to miss is that there were fewer countries and Don played 37 out of 52 against Eng.The ranking system wasn't meaningful in that context.

  • aussiefan4waugh on November 1, 2010, 8:40 GMT

    @truecricketbuff: dont use a statistical filter, but see the innings of Sachin against attacks I listed where more than one quality bowlers( or a freak like Murali post 2000), he still showed his class in scoring one or two100s.. he didnt play any huge innings or any match winning innings worth remembering..Sachin needed to stay long to score big which is harder when you have more than one spell to survive and little bad bowling--like it was harder to score against the WI (80s) or Aus (70s) no matter who took the wicket, for NZ or India batters had to survive one spell.. Lara dominated the very best, so in his day he lasted as long as Sachin and scored much more agianst strong attacks, 226,277,221,100(84),153,176(224),96(135) vs 2Ws,123@perth n few more.. mediocre attacks were crushed :216(260), 375,400,179(230)...

    Sachin didnt score near as big or quick when he had quality bowlers but he ALWAYS made bad day of a good attack or any weakness of a weak attack count - NONE IS LESS

  • on November 1, 2010, 7:25 GMT

    FYI, when it comes to WATCHING CRICKET, I dont think anyone will love to watch anything after WATCHING Lara's 277, 226 against aussies or a 179 vs England or a 200 vs Pak or 200 vs SAF......he had the style to dominate the best and I mean the best :D

    Sachin adds more value to the line up with his consistency....if you WATCHED SCORECARDS, Lara made cricket WATCHABLE......if you WATCHED CRICKET

  • on November 1, 2010, 6:54 GMT

    CONTD *Lara could seize a world record as a captain against mediocre bowling *Lara could score a ODI style 200 against a mediocre bowling *Lara could single handedly win a test match against AN ATTACK of Warne, McGrath , Gillespie scoring 153 *Lara could score a 250+ against Warne in his den *Lara could crush Murali with mammoth scores in his peak *Lara could get damn close to scoring a 100 against AN ATTACK OF 2 Ws (96) *Lara could also score 200 against AN ATTACK of Pollock, Ntini *Lara could score 28 runs in a single over against mediocre bowling *Lara could score a 226 in away match vs an ATTACK of Warne, McGrath, Lee *Lara could score a winning 100 in Perth with Glenn McGrath bowling

    in a nutshell, IN HIS DAY, Lara didnt require an average bowler to loosen the pressure and he could score in style NO MATTER HOW THE BOWLING WAS FYI he scored way faster when he scored big

  • Truecricketbuff on November 1, 2010, 6:52 GMT

    Oh, and there is no question of belittling anyone, never mind one of the great batsmen of the generation like lara. The central issue here is clear- Tendulkar is the best. No question about it. Others may rival him in patches. Noone is ever going to sustain this leve of excellence in all formats for so long. Noone....So, the central issue is Tendulkar is the best....and as the panel has voted Tendulkar with 51 points( lara hardly in the picture with 28)....Now, unless, most of these guys consisting experts including ex captains with 60 yrs of hard core, hands on cricket experience are completely off their rocker- that means that you need to reexamine your definitions of best.

  • on November 1, 2010, 6:43 GMT

    (cricinfo didnt publish a few stuff or got lost in page refresh MAY BE REPOST) here are some parting thoughts for people who actually understand cricket: 1)many of us may not have watched Holding Marshall,Garner play together, but it is the combined attack that made WI a nightmare. 2) a single Kapil, Botham,Imran or Hadlee could never make their team a consistent bowling force 3)Wasim Akram peaked in 90-97 because it was a hunting pair of 2 Ws that maintained pressure on batsmen 4) Gillespie was a headache for India when McGrath and Warne preluded and backed him up, but when he led the bowling he was just ordinary

    For Lara in his day it didnt matter whether it was a BOWLING ATTACK or 1 GOOD BOWLER, and in off color he was mediocre

    For Sachin EVEN IN HIS BEST he could not play great knocks against COMBOS, he was often choked by great bowlers and lost his wicket to lesser ones like Gillespie, Saqlin, Razzak, Cronje

    CONTD

  • on November 1, 2010, 5:17 GMT

    and again to emphasize, the stock portfolio analogy is flawed in cricket as scoring against McGrath Warne is like getting the profit of x amounts in dollars, where as scoring against Hauritz, McGill , Merve Huge is the profit of x amount in rupees; and scoring against BOTH Warne and Mcgrath is more than scoring against one; as it is MUCH TOUGHER on batsmen

    but the career aggregate shows x + x without any scaling :D

    so dont take individual bowlers, rather take individual innings and calculate the value of the innings putting *pitch *style in which it was scored for entertainment value *bowling attack strength(and not one individual bowler) *contribution of notable others *impact on result

  • on November 1, 2010, 5:07 GMT

    what happens when you actually watch cricket (such as tendulkar take on donald and then watch lara struggle) is that things become clearer. Which is why most cricket experts (such as this panel of experts) pick tendulkar

    ***how about watching Lara take on Warne/Mcgrath/Lee to score 226 and Tendulkar just toil to a 100?

    ***how about watching Lara crush Murali in his prime to score two 200s and watch Tendulkar surrender in a full series failing to score 100 in a series?

    ***how about watching Lara score a 200 in 230 balls against some new Pakistani bowlers against whom Tendulkar as usual toils to score 80-100?

    ***how about watching Lara defeat a full strength aussie team with Walsh besides him, batting--- and Tendulkar surrendering a home series to Warne and McGrath on grassy Nagpur?

    LIKE I SAID, YOU CANNOT BELITTLE ANY--- SACHIN WAS MORE SOLID, LARA WAS MORE FLASHY

  • on November 1, 2010, 4:59 GMT

    for the record,

    *****Sachin PROBABLY owes his mediocre average in australia in presence of a FULL STRENGTH ATTACK(with McGrath to lead it) to for one or two bad decisions.....(he followed it up with a horrible ODI series so probably he wasnt doing everything right either)

    ******Sachin also owes his only ODI 100 in australian soil for a bad decision......and that fills in an important gap in say 35 ODIs he played there

    so let us keep external factors out

  • on November 1, 2010, 4:53 GMT

    On sachin being a better batsman than lara, i agree with donald and warne.....although mcgrath, murali had different opinions ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Lara was unbeatable in his day(a GREATER batsman), sachin was reliable everyday(a BETTER batsman), none can be belittled in comparison....

  • Truecricketbuff on November 1, 2010, 4:48 GMT

    And as an afterthought. this is for ppl who have actually watched cricket for a while...the only period in which any bowler really ever got the better of tendulkar was from 03-06 ,due to several serious injuries. a period at the end of which his career was almost over.check the records till 03.it is only from 03-06 that other contemporaries have outdone tendulkar. the basic formula is simple .tendulkar injured- others better. tendulkar fit= simply the best.

  • Truecricketbuff on November 1, 2010, 3:06 GMT

    7) so,only relative amateurs use stats as an entire base for their arguments. For mos knowledgeable sports experts stats (though a good indicator_ are actually merely that - an indicator and when used over a long period of time, when making subjective allowances for visual memory, injuries etc……….I hope to have cleared some of your misconceptions.

  • Truecricketbuff on November 1, 2010, 3:06 GMT

    4)Another eg. of how matches "including" say Donald warp the issue. Donald has often stated that tendulkar is the best. However in matches "including" donald , tendulkar got out to Cronje an equal number of times! So, Donald gets the credit for cronjes doing!....5)what happens when you actually watch cricket (such as tendulkar take on donald and then watch lara struggle) is that things become clearer. Which is why most cricket experts (such as this panel of experts) pick tendulkar……6)Stats are best used when wholesome, i.e over a long career ( even though these too don't make allowances for injuries etc)…the moment you start filtering out, you have to apply stringent conditions for every filter, all of which are unclear…..

  • Truecricketbuff on November 1, 2010, 3:06 GMT

    Even in the 9 matches in consideration there were some 4 plain wrong or highly debatable decisions (depending on how you look at it), one chase of 50 odd where tendulkar just came out swinging and so got out to mcgrath, 2 matches in 2004 where after india got thrashed in the first 2 tendulkar was literally forced to come back inspite of taking time out for his tennis elbow etc. essentially about half the inn. were not real contests. In the remaining tendulkar has handled mcgrath as well as anyone has….3)so, to continue the stock portfolio analogy- when you club players together if say lara has played more matches with mcgrath and done better as time goes by- then this "stock" becomes overweight. So a good performance in this one stock impacts the whole porftolio positively EVEN if the other stocks(bowlers) may have performed relatively poorly. So ,we need to take it separately bowler by bowler. ….

  • Truecricketbuff on November 1, 2010, 3:05 GMT

    Just a few more random points to clear your misconceptions once and for all ;… 1) For eg. in the 2000s lara "averages" 50 in matches "including" Flintoff. But his head-to-head vs. Flintoff in the 2000s is 20. Of course, we need entire career stats before judging ,but this is just an eg.The difference as you can see is a whopping 60%. The real problem is that at any point we don't know the quantum of difference involved,or even whether it is positive or negative…2)When you "club" bowlers together it is like making a stock portfolio.For eg. Tendulkar played 9 matches in games "including" mcgrath. In lara's first 9 matches the stats are equal. Lara ,even though he played the same way throughout his career then steadily improved his numbers. In my opinion, given tendulkars technical dexterity he would have improved his numbers even more.

  • Meety on November 1, 2010, 0:10 GMT

    @harshthakor - I applaud your inclusion of Grace. Have a look at another Pom of that era, (I am biased here), - AE Stoddart. His averages do not jump off the page, but in context he was probably one of the 5 best cricters of the 1800s. I am biased though because he is a Great, Great, Great Uncle of mine (4 generations before me). He captained England in cricket & rugby, before a tragic end. @bappcric - understand your point re: practise matches but you fail to add how much technology advancements have helped batsmen, + law changes re: bouncers per over etc. Despite all this - it is very difficult to rate players against other players from different era's. Something as simple as 4,6 & 8 ball overs, have a profound effect on how a match could unfold. I imagine I would rather be facing Murali in a 4 ball over on a turner than 8 balls, the same goes for facing J Thompson @ the Wacca with no helmet & no bouncer restrictions.

  • Meety on October 31, 2010, 23:55 GMT

    @BillyCC - correct re: Effective average. I never said it was the be al & end all of analysis, but was interesting. @SatyajitM - can I address a flaw in your analysis of a flaw. If it is a flaw to produce a low average for SRT, why is The Don's so high against "poor" opposition, & a member of a stong batting side? Please don't take it personally we all can sit around pulling statistics to verify anything. I don't believe Lara was better than SRT, just that his highlights were better, but SRTs whole package (far less low points), equalled Lara. I believe Ponting's 5 year burst was greater than any 5 year period of either player, but in the end he is slightly behind those 2 greats, & just a shade ahead of Dravid & Kallis.

  • on October 31, 2010, 23:10 GMT

    examples * Sachin scored a 136 against 2Ws, Lara was unlucky to face them only 90 and 97, in their peak *Sachin scored a 169 against Donald which Lara never could *sachin could peak after 20 years of his career where as Lara cudnt last 16 years *you can always rely on Sachin for a 40-50 unlike Lara BUT, *Lara could TOY WITH Warne,McGrath,Lee and score 226 off team 405 in australia *Lara could win a match with an epic 153 against Warne and McGrath *Lara could score a 277 against Warne in his AWAY match *Lara could score two 200s against Murali after 2000 in AWAY match *Lara cud score a 200 vs Pollock and Ntini when others summed that *Lara cud bitter the taste of 4-0 winners with a 400 AS CAPTAIN *Lara cud expose a weak Pakistan attack with a fast 200 in AWAY match *you can hope for unbelievable from Lara unlike Sachin

    -IF I WATCH CRICINFO, WHO FITS MY XI FOR AVERAGE DAYS? SACHIN.. -IF I WATCH CRICKET,WHO GIVES MORE VALUE FOR TIME ON HIS DAY? LARA.. -TELL ME AGAIN,WHAT SHUD I WATCH?

  • on October 31, 2010, 22:42 GMT

    again, if you scan through my posts, I think you get some respite even after dedicating your life to watching tendulkar's 100 :D you will see I have mentioned >Sachin is my choice in my all time XI as he is reliable than Lara

    ...to make things clearer to you(others were smart enough), Lara in his day could score a mammoth knock against proven greats which Sachin cudnt ever... but Sachin had scored a 100 against every bowling attack he faced which Lara cudnt- and I prefer reliability for no 4 batsman

    so Lara is like an equity which can make you millionare even in recession, Sachin is a savings account which guarantees you 500$ per year, you cannot degrade the other in comparison...DEPENDING ON YOUR PRIORITY FOR THE POSITION YOU SELECT....:D

    here is my free advise, dont only watch cricket, try to understand the impact of cricketers in the match and not on blind fans :D

  • on October 31, 2010, 22:30 GMT

    @TrueCricketBuff..... thanks for sharing your pearls of wisdom, perhaps you dont understand that a quality bowler also creates pressure on the batsmen from one end and others can get him out..... *that is why Kapil Dev who was the only quality bowler cud never make India a strong bowling attack *that is why Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis were much deadlier when they bowled together *that is why Jason Gillespie as the companion to Warne and McGrath could sweep Indian batting lineup in world cup but he as the lone warrior failed in adailade test

    Tendulkar have scored a lot when there was one quality bowler without support .... but when there was a quality bowling attack from both ends - Donald/ Pollock - Warne/McGrath(or McGrath/Lee) - Wasim/Waqar - Murali post 2000-2008(he with even a mediocre bowler cud choke a batsman in that period) he has been mediocre in average, and never posted a mammoth score...except against WALSH/AMBROSE and NOT UNDER PRESSURE

    I HOPE YOU GET YOUR CLUE NOW :D

  • Truecricketbuff on October 31, 2010, 15:30 GMT

    @Shubhankar Chaudhuri ...since, incredibly you seriously dont seem understand what the stats bases are telling you...here's a hint 1)"Averages" when playing a particular bowler are only when the bowler in question actually gets the batsman out. So,if for eg, a batsman has 5 100s vs. a bowler but in 3 other inn. the bowler has got him for say 30 ,3 times the 'average" will show up as 30. ...2)On the other hand in matches "including" a bowler , if even another bowler has got the batsman in question..credit goes to all bowlers. So, for eg. ,in the 98 pak series akram did not get tendulkar out once...but he still gets credit in matched "including" akram...understand?...so the point is that your are absolutely clueless as to what the stat bases are actually telling you and then you claim to use stats to back your so called argument! ..ridiculous .

  • Truecricketbuff on October 31, 2010, 13:45 GMT

    @Shubhankar Chaudhuri...also it doesn't seem to strike you that tendulkar has got hundreds against practically any bowling attack including any bowler of note in over a period of 20 yrs. whereas lara doesnt have a hundred to his name vs waqar, wasim, saq, donald etc.....like i said , this kind of tunnel/extremely filtered use of stats and reasoning is almost epidemic in your ilk. somehow a double for every dozed or so flops vs. particular bowlers of your chosing seems to be better...tell u what? if you actually watched some cricket over the past 2 decades instead of filtereing stats of your chosing on statsguru( inspite of the fact that you dont know what the statsbases are actually telling you)...it may have been better for your cricket knowledge.

  • harshthakor on October 31, 2010, 9:54 GMT

    My best cricketers in order are 1.Gary Sobers2.Don Bradman 3.W.G.Grace 4.Jack Hobbs 5.Imran Khan6.Sachin Tendukar7.Viv Richards 8.Brian Lara 9.Malcolm Marshall 10.Ian Botham

    In his era Grace was an outstanding champion with bat and ball aggregating over 1000 runs and 100 wickets in 8 English seasons.

    Best pace bowlers in order are Marshall,Lillee,Hadlee,Mcgrath,Imran khan,Ambrose,Akram,Lindwall,Trueman and Andy Roberts.

    Best batsman in order are Bradman,Hobbs,Sobers,Tendulkar,Viv Richards,Brian Lara,Ricky Ponting,Walter Hammond,Sunil Gavaskar,Len Hutton,Greg Chappell amd Graeme Pollock.

    Figures never did justice to Andy Roberts who was the closest ever to Dennis Lillee with his versatality.Wasim Akram was the most talented and versatile fast bowler of all,but lacked Lillee,Marshall and Imran's match-winning consistency and Mcgrath and Hadlee's accuracy and control.Michael Holding was consistently the fastest of all bowlers with the greatest action.

  • on October 31, 2010, 9:51 GMT

    averages r not always correct to rate the greatness...please also mention the number of innings he played against such great bowlers and failed

    -----he has played a helluva lot innings vs mcgrath,donald,pollock,wasim,waqar, and post 2000 murali....(at least 30 tests) .....he has shown his class ocassionally 136/127/169/111/109/155 and if I remember, I have never doubted his class ...but averages DO SHOW consistency provided there are no mammoth scores(like Lara) ...and Sachin never scored more than two 150+ against the bowlers I mentioned

    ****THIS DOESNT DIMINISH HIS GREATNESS, BUT DOES SHOW HE WASNT INVINCIBLE, THERE WERE PEOPLE WHO TOOK HIS MEASURE, AND HE TOOK THEIRS*****

  • on October 31, 2010, 9:41 GMT

    to answer one question, why isnt viv in my team instead of sachin if I rate viv above sachin? simple, I want stability in my openers(1-2), reliability in my middle order(3-5), flash in my lower middle order(6-8)..... Sachin represents the reliability.....like Gavaskar represents the stability against any variety of bowling.....Hobbs edges past Sutcliffe as his success in first class matches and test for a prolonged period make his iconic... I see Sachin as the reincarnation of Hobbs

  • on October 31, 2010, 9:35 GMT

    @cricketlovee --obviously the best is DON, your certificate of cleverness doesnt count much to me, I will rank 1)DON,2)VIV,3)SACHIN, Viv could play with Sachin's stamina and Sachin could play with Viv's aura; aura wins by a hairlong

    --viv isnt included as I dont need 7 batsman with gilchrist coming at no 7, but 5 mainline bowlers if we are playing in summer in the sort of tracks played on today: 250 runs in an innings can win a test but 19 wickets wont; I wont count on Sobers as 5th bowler, he is mainly my 5th day bowler when we have a spin trio

    --agree,Lara is great despite no 100 against wasim , waqar, donald and kallis is great without a double century and ponting is great with poor performance in india and sachin is great without a few stuff I mentioned earlier, you cannot belittle ANY of them, they cannot be widely seperated and come close to each other in terms of being BEST CRICKETER OF THE ERA alongside Murali, - and I would rate WARNE as greatest,then sachin,kallis,murali

  • cricketlovee on October 31, 2010, 8:02 GMT

    @Shubhankar Chaudhuri ...... a score of 100 reveals a person class...he wins over the bowling team....kallis doesnot has a single double,he is still great and one of the best...please sachin was very young when facing waqar and wasim...every player struggles initially...murali has troubled everybody...ponting averages very low in india ..still he is one of the best...lara averages low in 4 th innings..he still remains great.....averages r not always correct to rate the greatness...please also mention the number of innings he played against such great bowlers and failed..also tell me which player u rate as best..please dont say don...or i call u fool...ur 11 doesnot include .Viv Richards .....shock

  • cricketlovee on October 31, 2010, 6:38 GMT

    @ harshthakor: please stop rating this Non-realistic and Non-Fiction character of Bradman in Real and Quality Cricket...it looks good on paper...just be true to yourself...stop dreaming of his batting or his non.realistic Fictitious record Infact stop rating any batsman of 1930s..get real...he is great ...this is fine have u seen his one innings.....still calling him best...looks childish and Fictitious Dreaming

  • on October 31, 2010, 5:50 GMT

    contd: my previous post is no means a disrespect to Sachin...Sachin like few coveted greats have great achievements, many will be ever lasting, Sachin like those special men had his own share of limits...I pointed few statistically; there is no shame in it --------------------------------------------------------- ....but he will play in my all time XI just following Bradman........which will be (IN BATTING ORDER) Gavaskar,Hobbs, Bradman(c), Sachin, Sobers, Botham, Gilchrist, Hadlee, Warne(vc), Lillee, Murali.... [3 fast bowlers, 3 spinners, 7 batsmen and batting till 9: eat my dust cricinfo jury] -------------------------------------------------------------- BUT calling him a GOD, and people disrespecting other greatswho have done almost(Lara/Ponting/Gilchrist), same(Kallis) or more(Murali/Warne) than Sachin in his own era is not like any sports fan

  • on October 31, 2010, 5:34 GMT

    @truecricketbuff : if u puff some weed, or if you are a sachin fanatic, I dont expect logic from your species :D .... ELSE I AM LISTING ALL THE "STATS", POINT ME IF YOU GOT ONE MISTAKE(WITH LINK)

    -sachin did average less than 40 when any of McGrath, Wasim,Waqar,Pollock,Donald has played

    -sachin did average mediocre when murali has played post 2000(after doosra made him a champion)

    - sachin has played two great knocks in 4th innings, but till the biggies (wasim,waqar,mcgrath,warne,murali,walsh,ambrose,pollock,donald) were there, his 4th innings never won a match { he cudnt chase 120}

    -1995 to 2010 has seen 25 or more instances of 250+ scores(LEAVE ASIDE 300), Sachin doesnt feature in any

    -Lara has scored 200s against Warne,McGrath,Pollock,Murali,Ntini and Sachin has done that against Randiv,Hauritz, an injured Lee and some minnows :D

    he is super against mediocre bowling, and mediocre against the very best: Not once or twice: but till LAST OF THE GREATS RETIRED

  • raghu86 on October 31, 2010, 5:10 GMT

    Well i am 24 years old and have followed cricket only for last about 15 years. So i have not seen any of the great players who played before that. And here i would like to pick an all-time XI from the players i have actually seen play. So my team from 1995 onwards is : sehwag, hayden, ponting, tendulkar, lara, gilchrist, kallis, murali, akram, mcgrath and donald. And my second XI is : graeme smith, anwar, dravid, haq, steve waugh, sangakara, flintoff, pollock, warne, waqar younis and ambrose.

  • BillyCC on October 31, 2010, 1:29 GMT

    bappcric, agree with all your points. There are factors which make it difficult for modern players compared to pre-1960s eg. pitches, fielding quality etc. However, some factors which you didn't mention which make it difficult for the pre-1960s players are: having to adjust from a full-time work mentality to playing cricket, amateur or no training facilities, having to travel for months on ships before tours etc.

  • bappcric on October 30, 2010, 21:45 GMT

    SRT may not have a great 4 innings average, but it is better than Lara's( 38 vs 35). How about 3rd innings - better ( 47 vs 40 ). Anyway, as far as I know, in a test match, both innings are added. And both innnings' runs count equally. You like somebody who scores 10 in 1st inning and 100 in 2nd. I am perfectly OK with somebody who scores 100 in 1st and 10 in 2nd. It is the TOTAL of 2 innings that counts. Remember, even though batting against spinners become more difficult in 2nd innings, batting against FAST bowlers is much difficult in 1st innings.

  • bappcric on October 30, 2010, 21:15 GMT

    The quality of fielders today is much better. What would have been a four in those days would be a brilliant catch today. So my prefernce is today's batsmen. Also, Barry Richards should not be there based on just 4 matches. All time XI is not about COULD-HAVEs or SHOULD-HAVEs. About Gilly, he was THE destroyer. 5 down - bowlers salivating. Gilly turns all that SALIVA into TEARS. Nuff said. So my team, Sehwag instead of Hutton, Imran instead of Akram.

  • bappcric on October 30, 2010, 21:07 GMT

    Comparing yesterday's ( before 1960 ? ) batsmen to today's batsmen. 1) In those days, the pitches were uncovered. That was difficult. 2) But batsmen then also got to play 10-12 practice matches before the first test even began. Today, one is lucky if there are two practice matches. 3) Those days, there were atleast 4 - mostly 5 - test matches. Hutton, Headley and even Bradman performed much much better towards the end of a series. Today mostly it is two test series. Players constantly having to adjust to not only different pitches, but different playing formats and different bowlers. 4) Strike rate of Hammond, Hutton, Compton were all below 40 ( yes 40 ). Even Hobbs was only 46. True, wickets were uncovered at night. But that can only affect the 1st hour's batting. Ian Chappell said this team was meant NOT for SAVING a match, but winning.

  • harshthakor on October 30, 2010, 10:59 GMT

    My best batsman in order are 1.Bradman 2.Jack Hobbs 3.Sobers 4.Tendulkar 5.Viv Richards 6.Brian Lara 7.Ricky Ponting 8.Wally Hammond 9.Sunil Gavaskar 10.Len Hutton 11.Graeme Pollock 12.George Headley

    Ian Botham was overall the 2nd best allrounder to Sobers and overall a better allrounder than Imran Khan.Atleast he should have made the 2nd 11.At his peak he was the best match-winning allrounder from 1977-1982 and could turn a match equally with ball and bat .True Imran was the best from 1982-1987 but he was mainly a pace bowler who became a good batsman much later.If Headley played in the modern era he may well have surpassed Lara and Sachin and if Lara payed for the strongest West Indian team he could well have been the best ever West Indian batsman.

    Best allrounders 1.Gary Sobers 2.Ian Botham3.Imran Khan 4.Jacques Kallis 5.Keith Miller6.Kapil Dev7.Hadlee 8.Benaud 9.Mankad 10.Mike Procter.

  • harshthakor on October 30, 2010, 9:50 GMT

    In a pure test match 11,Brian Lara may get my vote ahead of Tendulkar and Viv Richards.It is significant that until ayear ago Lara was rated the best after Bradman,considering the pressure he carried in a crisis and ability to score mamoth scores.Lara was better in a crisis than Sachin,but not as consistent.Lara has 9 test match double hundreds and a 300 and a 400.At his best ,in test cricket he changed a complexion of a game more than Sachin.

    Tendulkar,although the most complete ,is rated too much above Lara ,Jack Hobbs and Viv Richards.Had Viv played in the modern era he may well have averaged over 55 ,that too at a devastating strike rate.Tendulkar's flaws were in his 4th innings scoresand gis ability to win games ,but in recent times he compensated that with outstanding performances.

    For sheer batting prowess my vote would have gone to Rohan Kanhai who on his day would have even eclipsed Bradman.

  • SatyajitM on October 30, 2010, 4:30 GMT

    I had another look at the Effective averages article and could see how flawed it is and not because Sachin is low. Ponting who was considered the best by crickinfo jury has his effective avg cut down to 46! VVS and Sehwag who both had a good decade are even lower. Hayden and Smith cut a sorry figure as well. That's bcoz Aus was considered very strong througout and India good in the letter part of the decade. Dravid benefited becoz his best run was in the earlier part of the decade when India was not ranked as good. So, the author Madhusudhan Ramakrishnan had good intention but messed up in giving appropriate weightage for team weakness/ opposition bowling strength. A more seasoned statistician like Anath (best of the lot) or Rajesh would have done a better job of it.

  • BillyCC on October 29, 2010, 22:10 GMT

    Navillus, I agree with your comment about a flaw in the effective average method used by the It Figures article. Nevertheless, the bias that you mention about "that if a player plays in a strong batting side, his performance is pulled down because of the measurements that are used": this is quite a common theory which a lot of experts agree with. The stronger the side, the more opportunity to score runs and the more opportunity to score big runs. The truth is, that analysis was quite objective, although quite flawed. However, the conclusion you drew from it should not be dismissed so easily because there is truth in that conclusion. It is one factor out of many that can be adjusted for in determining a true effective average, whatever that is.

  • SatyajitM on October 29, 2010, 12:08 GMT

    @Meety, one important thing you failed to mention is that "Effective Averages" is a study of the Noughties only (2000 to 2009). The other thing where Lara got advantage is he played for a week team hence his runs were valued more (that's why Ponting who had the best decade is so low). If the same analysis is done for the Ninetees Sachin will on top by a distance. Sachin avg against team excluding BD and Zim was 59. Same figures for Lara was 51.6. In overall Ninetees WI was probably slightly stronger team than India hence Sachin would have got adv on that front as well (I also have an ovservation that Zim wasn't a bad team till 2004 or so and BD is a reasonable team 2009 onwards). Add to this the fact that Sachin is playing like dream in this decade so in final analysis even if you exclude Zim/BD, Sachin would be ahead. Let me also add that I admire Lara's batsmanship and we are well aware that these two geniuses respect each other.

  • cricketlovee on October 29, 2010, 11:32 GMT

    @ Meety : Sir i dont read all those stupid details of the history which rate Don as best...We australians call him best as he is an australian...Sir whatever argue you give or anyone else, the fact is if u get rational and real Don was not the best....i am not in favour of calling Sachin best....i too prefer lara or ponting..check my earlier comments...let sachin and ponting finish their span...just be true to urself (leave this column),average of 99 is unreal..there is something wrong with cricket at that time...either the fielding,or variety in bowling or giving lbw decision or giving easy boundaries and letting the pressure of......Don was way ahead of batsman of his era but please Cricket is way ahead of what was played in 1930s.....stop this fiction character...it looks good on paper...even i used to dream of his batting,when i saw his record...later i got real and applied common sense..he is great..fine...but please dont hype average of 99.4....it is chidlish...sorry

  • on October 29, 2010, 9:43 GMT

    'Would have been great to walk out with Bradman' - Tendulkar

  • Navillus on October 29, 2010, 9:23 GMT

    To continue on my previous post, the It Figures column uses rigour for the first time in the article about effective averages ... but does so completekly down the wrong line. It so happens that if a player plays in a strong batting side, his performance is pulled down because of the measurements that are used. That is why Lara and Chanderpaul end up at top and Sachin, Ponting, Laxman, Hayden much lower... When u bring in Gavaskar, he too played most often in a weak 1970s Indian batting side which pulls him up ... These guys who write these statistics articles are not trained statisticians and do not understand the concept of bias ...

  • Navillus on October 29, 2010, 9:17 GMT

    @Meety ... S.rajesh is not a statistician ... and It Figures generally splashes reports drawn up from stasguru but rarely draws scientific inferences ... so we need not attach too much importance to whatever is written there

  • Meety on October 29, 2010, 7:50 GMT

    @cricket lovee - Your comments regarding bowlers who took 50+ wickets in their career V the Don is deceptive. This is because of the small matter of WWII! Back then players were not paid to play (compensated for tours though), so many players retired rather than hang on for a fat pay check or beat records. You should read more cricket history!

  • Meety on October 29, 2010, 7:13 GMT

    Hey all, you should check out the IT Figures blog on "Effective Averages", after weighing up opposing teams bowling strengths a new average is derived, excluding Zim & Bang. This was based mostly on the 21st Century players but the Don & Gavaskar got a mention. Point is (this is not definative), that Lara ave 55, Shiv Chand 54, Dravid 52, Tendulkar 47, Ponting 46, Sehwag 43, Hayden 43, The Don 85, Sunny G 51! Very interesting, it is a fact that Punter had a Golden run second only to the Don that ended about 3 years ago, & it coincided with diminished bowling attacks. What also is very interesting is that in the Lara v Tendulkar war of words amongst bloggers, generally the SRT army quotes stats that "prove" SRT to be better than Lara, whilst Lara fans talk more about his highlights. This is the first stat that I have seen that agreed with a gut feeling that Lara was more of a brilliant talent then SRT, (I have stated many times that SRT's endurance and standard matches Lara).

  • SatyajitM on October 29, 2010, 5:13 GMT

    So, a very experinced jury gets it quite right. I think Gilly and Lilee slightly weak selection. If you see Gilly batsman+wk then he deserves it but this team otherwise appears to be a team of specialists and in that case there are many better keepers than him starting with Knott. Liliee's record is nothing to write about in bowling unfriendly pitches. As uasual Sachin haters are in full swing, jealousy being one prime human trait it's not unexpected. Jury have accepted Sachin best batsman after Don, which is fair. Also, I thought competition between Warne and Murali would be closer though I am ok with Warne chosen. One interesting thing is that his selection is unanimous, which means the SL selector Dileep Mendis voted for him as well. So, did Dileep had two spinners in his team or just one (Warne)?

  • BillyCC on October 29, 2010, 4:09 GMT

    AK47_pk, no one actually agrees with you. All your points are quite irrelevant actually, so there is nothing to actually agree with anyway. It could just be that you're a little too biased to see that.

  • AK47_pk on October 28, 2010, 21:45 GMT

    its good to see few ppl have started to agree with me now about bradman inclusion....if selectors really wanted to have an australian with sachin, then ponting was best choice, although i think he,ll never be able to beat lara if selection was not biased...

  • EverybodylovesSachin on October 28, 2010, 20:48 GMT

    Tendulkar....Bradman.......................................................................The rest. I Had to struggle myself including Bradman...I hvae not seen him play but by extraordinary record I put his name next to Sachin..Do we want to talk about rest? NO WAY.......

  • cricketlovee on October 28, 2010, 18:05 GMT

    even Nasser husain Captain of England made Giles and even flintoff bowl outside leg stump to tendulkar...does that mean they cant get tendulkar out..also please cricket is not all about pace...u can never be sure of the pace these bowlers bowled or type of rubbish and club cricket they played...cricket was not evolved properly As far as bradman is concerned,call him best ..i am an australian but i wont agree with you at his average..no way i would rate Ricky Ponting way ahead of Bradman but having said that you cannot leave 3 biggest greats of the game Lara,Ricky Ponting,Sachin Tendulkar..u just cant.... have u seen bradman one innings...NO will u see him play NO will new generation see him play............NO just fighting for those unreal records

  • cricketlovee on October 28, 2010, 16:26 GMT

    even Nasser husain Captain of England make jiles and even flintoff outside leg stum...does that mean they cant get tendulkar out As far as bradman is concerned,call him best ..i am an australian but i wont agree with you at his average..no way i would rate Ricky Ponting way ahead of Bradman but having said that you cannot leave there biggest greats of the game Lara,Ricky Ponting,Sachin Tendulkar..u just cant have u seen bradman one innings...NO will u see him play NO wil new generation will see him play............NO just fighting for those unreal records

  • Truecricketbuff on October 28, 2010, 16:21 GMT

    Great. So, all these judges most ex captains and all of whom have watched cricket for around 60 yrs are wrong...and a bunch of kids in here, with not a clue of even what the stats bases are actually showing, and who have probably watched cricket for max.20 yrs are right....Great!

  • Truecricketbuff on October 28, 2010, 16:19 GMT

    @subhankar chaudri etc......as so many ppl have mentioned. You ppl are not even remotely aware of what the statsbases are giving you. pls ref. to other comments or check for yourself what exactly the databases are giving you- before you behave like the common herd and in using so called "averages" reveal you ignorance not only about cricket but also about the so called "stats" you use to support your theories

  • cricketlovee on October 28, 2010, 16:10 GMT

    I am not an Indian but an australian..as a cricket lover i am a fan of sachin..u cannot leave a person out who holds almost every record of cricket batting...be true to urself guys,average of 99 is unreal..there is something wrong with cricket...please this guy is dead,you heavnt seen him playing and never will...stop crying for those unreal records...Cricket was not properly evolved..i wil not say sachin is best..no way..but he his still not finished..but players like Ponting,Lara,kallis way ahead of Bradman See Ian chappell 11,he is too an australian but he didnot include Bradman...this guy is dead..please you wil never see him play... he was involved in fraud..please check google...Say Ponting or Lara ahead of Tendulkar..i am with you...but not bradman..no way he himself said,my average woudnt have 99..cricket has improved

  • Truecricketbuff on October 28, 2010, 16:07 GMT

    Tendulkar....Bradman.......................................................................The rest.

  • Proteas123 on October 28, 2010, 9:36 GMT

    @ Bollo - You make a fair point, although I don't agree about Kallis not being up there with them. I would not play Kallis ahead of Sobers, I would play both rather than Imran or Miller (who are both great but bowling all-rounders). I would replace Tendulkar with Kallis at 5 and then have a more attacking bat at 4, Viv, Lara or Pollock. In this way you don't weaken your batting and you have the exstra bowling option of Kallis. Sobers does offer more variaty but his high strike rate reduces your strike power if the 4 specialists fail. Having Kallis gives another option and also then gives the optiion for a second spinner, although Warne and Sobers is probably enough. You are correct about being able to replace anyone barring Bradman and Sobers, which my alternative and yours with Imran/miller demonstrates very well.

  • Nayeem_Kohir on October 28, 2010, 8:44 GMT

    The greatest batsmen in test cricket 1. Don Bradman 2. Brian Lara 3. Wally Hammond 4. Vivian Richard 5. Jack Hobbs 6. Virender Sehwag 7. Javed Miandad 8. Greg Chappel 9. George Headley 10. Adam Gilchrist 11. Sunil Gavaskar 12. Sachin Tendulkar. The greatest batsmen in one-day cricket 1.Vivian Richards 2. Yuvraj Singh 3. Michael Bevan 4. Adam Gilchrist 5. Brian Lara 6. Javed Miandad 7.Inzimam-ul-Haq 8. Sanath Jaysurya 9. Dhoni. 10. Zaheer Abbas 11. Arvinda Desilva 12. Sachin Tendulkar

  • harshthakor on October 28, 2010, 5:06 GMT

    To correct one comment of Stark 62 Dennis Lillee captured 24 wickets in 4 supertests in the West Indies in 1978 ,against great batsman like Viv Richards and Clive Lloyd.No fast bowler has ever been more complete and he was a champion on docile tracks like Melbourne (11 wickets in the Centenary test)and the Oval,(10 wickets in 1972 and 1981)where he used his great skills and variations to overpower the opposition.Richards Hadlee was hardly effective on flat wickets,unlike Wasim,Marshall and Imran.

  • harshthakor on October 28, 2010, 4:57 GMT

    Personally,I feel Tendulkar deserves his place but in test match cricket with his remarkable flair Brian Lara could replace him or Viv Richards,with his remarkable ability to compile mammoth scores at such a breathtaking scoring rate and brillianace in a crisis.At his peak Viv was better than Sachin or Lara in 1976-1981,particularly in the 1977-78 Packer supertests.No batsman changed the complexion of a match to such an extent.Statistically,in combined Cricket Sachin is the greatest batsman,being the most complete.Still in test Cricket he was not the best of match-winners or the best batsman in a crisis,or the most talented.Gary Sobers perhaps won all those accolades.

    With his mastery on wet pitches,I rate Jack Hobbs ,the closest to Bradman.Wasim Akram,the greatest left arm bowler ever,would nor have been as effective in the team as Imran Khan,Richard Hadlee or Glen Mcgrath.

  • on October 28, 2010, 4:33 GMT

    @cricketlovee: never mind Bradman, --Tendulkar averages less than 40 against Mcgrath, Akram, Waqar, Pollock, Donald and worse against Murali since 2000(when Murali became the leading bowler) -- Don didnt play in sticky wickets, but Tendulkar COULDNT average a good 40 against so many greats -- he had to wait for all the greats to retire to learn 4th innings batting --in last 15 years there have been 25 scores above 250, Tendulkar yet to play a marathon innings --he cudnt score a 200 against any great bowler,Lara has 6 inns

    HAVING SAID THAT, I will put him in my all time XI

    @stark62: Lillee was unplayable in NZ, Aus, Eng, even in fading form he took three wickets in the test he played in Sri Lanka...destroyed West Indian greats in super test in 1972, his stats against Viv and Gavaskar speak volumes of his capability

    ... Wasim Akram was just ordinary in 1985-1989; between 90-97 waqar matched if not outshined him with the ball---- post 1997 he didnt even average 3 wickets per match

  • lugujaga on October 28, 2010, 4:30 GMT

    THIS ALL TIME 11 IS A BIG STUPID JOKE AS FAR AS THE WICKET KEEPER POSITION IS CONCERNED.THERE IS NO WAY GILCHRIST CAN MAKE A TEST TEAM INFRONT OF ANDY FLOWER OF ZIMBABWE.THIS WHOLE THING IS A JOKE .ANDY FLOWER IS THE BEST KEEPER BATSMAN TO EVER PLAY TEST CRICKET.WHILE A LOT OF BATSMEN MADE THEIR RUNS AGAINST WEAK TEAMS SUCH AS ZIMBABWE ,ANDY FLOWER MADE HIS RUNS AGAINST THE SO CALLED HARD TEAMS. ANDY FLOWER IS THE MOST UNDER RATED PLAYER OF ALL TIME, AND THAT'S A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE AS FAR AS CRICKET IS CONCERNED. GILCHRIST CAN'T HOLD A CANDLE TO THE GREAT ANDY FLOWER AS FAR AS WICKET KEEPER BATSMAN GOES, LONG LIVE THE GREAT ANDY FLOWER!!! YOU HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT FOR WAY TOO LONG AND IT'S WRONG,SO WRONG.

  • Toescrusher on October 28, 2010, 4:02 GMT

    My name is Bradman I laugh and make runs I know you've seen my footage. I don't know who is Waqar,Akram,Imran,Shoaib I laugh and make runs hehehehe… I don't know who is Robert, Garner, Holding, Marshal, Clark and Craft I laugh and make runs hehehehe… Australia likes my hehehehe…other nation don't but who cares I laugh and make runs, see my footage if you don't believe me. Sarfraz hero of Melbourne who knows I laugh and make runs. Australia all out 88 whatever I laugh and make runs. My runs are great my runs are the best because I laugh and make runs. Ian Chappell don't know my secrete of making runs I am disclosing it today i.e. I laugh and make runs hehehe…. I will be in the Cricinfo All-Time World XI because I laugh and make runs hehehe….By the way I've just met Marshal he was saying very loudly "Bradman I was looking for you" I just barely managed to duck thanks Haven, I am glad I never met you down under. Marshal, can we be friends… or at least good neighbors i.e. thy neighbors.

  • PlayfromDallas on October 28, 2010, 3:30 GMT

    ALL-TIME WORLD XI IS ONLY AN ARGUMENT. Australia don't have any famous historical personality other than Bradman that's why we are seeing Bradman pushing phenomenon by the Australians. If Australians are rational then they should know Bradman couldn't have 99.94 avg had he played his cricket in 60s on words. Bradman is only good for the fiction especially he looks a perfect fictional character when smiling almost laughing while taking run may be he was laughing at us "You people of the future I am making you all fool particularly Australians, I laugh and make runs he he he..." In general Ausi over rate their players at any stage of the history Australia wasn't a better side than WI of the 70s and 80s yet we don't see WI over rating themselves By the way Chandrasekhar was a better spinner than Warne it seems entire panel is just appeasing Australia. Good thing is, this All-Time World XI is ESPN-Cricinfo World XI not The All-Time World XI, any All-Time World XI is just an argument.

  • Bollo on October 28, 2010, 3:23 GMT

    @cricketlovee. Congratulations, you win not only the Boorish One-Eyed Sachin Fan Award, but also the Most Misleading Use of Selective Quotes Award. Is this the same Wisden article which describes Bradman as 'without any question, the greatest phenomenon in the history of cricket, indeed in the history of all ball games' by any chance?

  • EverybodylovesSachin on October 28, 2010, 0:08 GMT

    When Gavaskar and Bradman played those times pitches were exteremly helpful to the bastman and dead pitches. They did not have any technology to prepare better wickets. Any dead pitch would allow bastman to score 200 plus and triple century...if you see earlier days more triple centureis and double centuries were scored...Sachin is the best bastman cause he scored many centuries on the wicket like Perth and all over the world.... Examples--Brian Lara's 400 - dead wicket -- I would score century on that wicket.. Bradman three Hundred on a day- Dead Wicket. - Sachin would score with style triple century..with the bad bowling they had.. Please do not bring helmet issue...Cricket sport is anyway dangerous with or without helmet..with Helmet it is difficult to bat...

    Earlier era (Bradman and Gavaskar era was Batsmans Era Bowlers were struggling...That is why we have Murli and Shane Warne getting 700 plus wickets..

  • cricketlovee on October 27, 2010, 23:12 GMT

    Truly speaking,there is always a bias and no one is correct to say who is better everyone has their opinion Still my squad will go as follows : If anyone remains true and unbias,It is more or less correct.. Many Legends will always miss out of 11..Please comment on this.I took hours to pick.Its an unbias Squad of 14..One is left to you Please note Shane Warne may get preference as he is a leg spinner..but its hard to leave Murli Kumar Sngakkara is big hundred Player.. I have picked Ricky Ponting ahead of Don bradman.( no one has seen him playing,quality of Cricket is a point goes against Bradman,and many others) Kallis is best allrounder and big hundred player..You cant leave him PLEASE COMMENT..NO ABUSE..NO FUN 1) Viv Richards2) Ricky Ponting3) Brian Lara4) Sachin Tendulkar5) Garry Sobers6) Jacques Henry Kallis7) Kumar Sangakkara 8) Shane Warne 9) Imran Khan10)Michael Anthony Holding11)Richard John Hadlee12)Malcolm Marshall13)Glen Mcgrath 14)Muttiah Muralitharan15)

  • Bhatin on October 27, 2010, 22:28 GMT

    @cricketlovee, I am not saying at all that Sachin Tendulkar is not great, but for all those criticism against Don, I have only a single question, if anyone can answer this :- With bowling attack comprising of Harold Larwood, Bill Voce, Bill Bowes, Gubby Alen, Morris Tait why did England still feel they could not get Bradman out ?? Why Douglas Jardin had to device Bodyline along with Arthur Curr just for one batsman ?? How could Bradman still avg. 56 in that series on fast and bouncy Australian wickets facing these guys of express pace ?? Bradman didnt play in other countries cause there was hardly any cricket in his times in other countries, but that does not mean that he would have been a failure. Do you think all these bowlers are mediocre bowlers ??

  • Bhatin on October 27, 2010, 22:26 GMT

    @cricketlovee, I am not saying at all that Sachin Tendulkar is not great, but for all those criticism against Don, I have only a single question, if anyone can answer this :- With bowling attack comprising of Harold Larwood, Bill Voce, Bill Bowes, Gubby Alen, Morris Tait why did England still feel they could not get Bradman out ?? Why Douglas Jardin had to device Bodyline along with Arthur Curr just for one batsman ?? How could Bradman still avg. 56 in that series on fast and bouncy Australian wickets facing these guys of express pace ?? Bradman didnt play in other countries cause there was hardly any cricket in his times in other countries, but that does not mean that he would have been a failure. Do you think all these bowlers are mediocre bowlers ??

  • AK47_pk on October 27, 2010, 22:00 GMT

    @bahtin....famous bodyline series?????????? lol no batsman would mind the likes of alan mulaley aiming to go for body...y there is not a single bowler in the list from bradman era??? do you think bradman wouldve survived agiainst murali,s or saqlain,s doosra or Qadir,s googli or wasim,s waqar,s nd shoaib,s revers swinging yoekers?????marshal,s deadly bouncers, kapil dev,s aquracy??? imran khan,s cutters??? HE ONLY PLAYED THE LIKES OF ALAN MULALEY SO QUITTTTTTT...he deservs a place in austraila 11 but not world...remember the famous yorker from shoaib which hit middle stump, clean bowled gr8 sachin??? bradman never played somethin like that but the like of alan mulaley nd gaugh.

  • cricketlovee on October 27, 2010, 20:50 GMT

    @Bhatin 1. Bradman played on ten grounds in two countries and Tendulkar played on almost 45-50 grounds in test in ten countries. 2.South africa and India were minnow worse than bangladesh ..they would not have given the test status 3.Fielding was poor,lbw was not easily given 4. Don never faced any regular bowler with 50 or more test matches, only one bowler Bedser later on joined 50 test matches club after his retirement. 5. Only six bowlers took 100 or more in his case then one bowler Bedser to 200 wickets in which three came after world war II, one just before it, one died during it and remaining one left cricket in early thirties against Australia Wisden noted that he never never truly mastered batting on sticky wickets. Wisden commented, "if there really is a blemish on his amazing record it is the absence of a significant innings on one of those 'sticky dogs' of old"

  • boozed on October 27, 2010, 20:06 GMT

    well to all those who thnk sachin should not have been on the list....they say lara was better-just scoring runs (big centuries)every 4-5matches is not good enough he wasnt consistent the way sachin is infact except bradman noone is as consistent as sachin......sachin as faced bowlers like akram,waqar,macgrath,murli,warne.....if these r not grt bowlers thn who would be......bradman played only against eng west indies n S africa.....he wouldnt have survived against murli..and in india.....n scoring runs in the 2nd innings is as important as scoring in 4th....so there is no match for tendulkar.....and tell one thing if pitches of the old were uncovered favourable for bowling thn y dnt we have the bowlers' record of the bradman era great...how come no bowler of bradman era make it to the list or have 300wickets......tendulkar played against the bowlers with best records and selected in this team stupendously well.......n tearing the best spinner of the game...wht else can anyone argue.

  • Stark62 on October 27, 2010, 20:02 GMT

    Lille is a joke!

    He played only 4 matches in the sub-continent; 3 in Pak where he averaged 101.00 and 1 SL where he averaged 35.55.

    1 in the Windies where he took no wickets and gave away 135 runs!

    Yet, he is still in the all time 11, in that case shouldn't anderson be in the squad because he is great at home?

    After those tours he never went to the sub-continent or the windies ever again, he ran like a little cry baby to save his average! LOL

  • Bhatin on October 27, 2010, 15:32 GMT

    For all those making idiotic comments about Don Bradman, read this :- "Had Bradman played in modern era, he would not have been as successful as he was. There are so many better bowlers around. He would have played ok but not as well as he was. Thats what many people feel.What do you think Harold ??". The question was put to none other than Harold Larwood.. I believe everyone knows whom he was. Larwood replied, "Thank God, I lost my eyes before I have to read something as stupid as this about Don..!!" Remember these comments are coming from Harold Larwood, the main weapon in Bodyline series for Douglas Jardine. Facing bodyline tactics Bradman managed avg of 56 in that series which modern players do no manage over entire career. And for all who say Bradman played only against England, Bradman had a full series in South Africa and where he was virtually unbeatable. South African players after seeing bradman leaving from a dinner commented, "Oh.. We had seen Don's back finally..!!!"

  • Smith_1 on October 27, 2010, 15:17 GMT

    Murali is the bowling bradman.but he has not a place in all time XI..this is only a selection of selected people.but statistics show the truth...

  • ThugbyFan on October 27, 2010, 15:09 GMT

    While Tendulkar has the most runs and centuries, he is a modern day flat track bully with helmet protection, dead and covered pitches and oversized bats. I would suggest Gavaskar was a way better batsman who had to bat with no helmet against Windies and Lillie/Thompson at their best. So Sachin can be 12th man and Gasvaskar IN. Also i would have dropped one of the older day pom batsmen The batting is powerful enough, one more bat isn't going to change the score much, and put in Murali. No South Africans? Oh thats right, they are all playing for the "English" team now. Murali is deadly. So three pace, a leggie, Sobers with spin or swing plus Murali's offies and i cannot see ANY team lasting two innings against such a devastating attack. Please aim all brickbats at my head, then no damage is done.

  • Proteas123 on October 27, 2010, 14:59 GMT

    @mrgupta - Who are you to call me a hypocrite for pointing out the flaw in your assessment. This forum was certainly not only set up for you to comment and make assumptions. I never said Sachin was no good, only that I rate Lara better. Statistically Kallis is a better player than all 3 because he is a good bowler as well and that is simply a fact.

  • Bollo on October 27, 2010, 14:46 GMT

    Disappointing that for many people things are so black and white. Apart from Bradman and Sobers, anyone in this team could be replaced with someone equally as good. Lara/Tendulkar...Warne/Murali...Hobbs/Gavaskar(only 1 vote in it BTW)...Lillee/Hadlee. In all of these cases you could think about it for 3 hours, make a decision, then wake up the next morning and change it...if you`re not completely one-eyed. Sick of hearing `x is not in the team, he is so much better than y, the whole process is a joke and/or racist.` I actually chose Hutton and Sehwag as my openers, but have no arguments with Hobbs at all, nor would I with Gavaskar or Trumper or Morris or B.Richards. Any of them could be there in my book. So the juvenile, melodramatic and ignorant `Sehwag makes Hobbs look like my grandmother` style comments really are starting to wear thin.

    On the other hand, if you are one of those people who thinks MS Dhoni should be keeping with Dravid at 3, you deserve all the flak you get.lol

  • Bollo on October 27, 2010, 14:02 GMT

    Hey Wolver. Sure, anyone`s going to have a bit more freedom batting at 6 behind 5 greats, but why not have one of the most destructive batsmen of all time there? I think Sober`s left-arm pace, orthodox or wrist spin gives more than Kallis offers with the ball as well. If people were to go with 2 all-rounders in the side I`d be happy with either Imran or Miller (at 7 if Gilchrist is in, or 6 if you`ve gone for a `pure` keeper). But then I`d have to move Sobers to 5, with either Sachin, or Viv missing out. Like you I`m a huge Lara fan and struggle deciding between him/Viv/Sachin. Seen all of them live and on telly of course, although perhaps not Richards at his very peak. I have a feeling that at their best the two(or counting Sobers, three) West Indians may have a slight edge, but the mighty Sachin, he`s hard to leave out and in the end I didn`t. Over-rated? - NO! well only by those who rate him better than Bradman. And Kallis? very bloody good, but not up there with these lads.cheers

  • on October 27, 2010, 13:55 GMT

    For all those who think sachin is selfish: If sachin wanted to play for himself & not for india, he would have had scored more than 20000 runs in test till now & would have had ten to twelve 400+ knocks under his name. & if other players during sachin's times were better,why does sachin's performance is better than all during his era? & please, match winner doesn't mean hitting the winning runs. About selecting best 11: Even if it were best 1000 cricketers, there would be some names missing & the ones included would be criticized.Everyone have their own criterias & opinions to select the best players.Even if you like the world XI or not, just get on with it rather than wasting time on unmeaningful debates.Its natural of humans to have different choices & opinions.Someone had rightly said: If all people on earth agree on one thing,it must be a conspiracy!!

  • mrgupta on October 27, 2010, 13:30 GMT

    @Wolver : After the stats i had posted you just decide Lara was better because He had a better avg in SA. His average in Aus and Eng was mediocre as compared to Sachin. He scored some big centuries but both of his record scores were of no use to WI as they did not win those matches. Just because Lara performed a little bit better than Sachin in SA he is better and even though Sachin has better performances in Australia and Eng than Ponting or Lara he is no good. You are such a Hypocrite. @Nayeem_Kohir: you feel Sachin is 12th in your list. You feel Sehwag is ahead of Him, what a joke. I dont want to pull down a player from my own country but you shud see his stats before commenting. His performance against Top teams in better to Sachin only against SA and that too in India only. The batting average of all the players you have mentioned (Barring Don) is way lower than Sachin even if you consider only Away matches. And Yuvi better than Sachin in ODI? Joke of the Century!!

  • Nampally on October 27, 2010, 13:20 GMT

    It is always tough to pick a world XI with so much talent available. Some of the greats left out because in the opinion of some they may not be as good as the chosen ones. I personally feel that Gavaskar deserves the opening spot. He was technically one of the best openers. The other comment I have is the World first team does not have an off spinner. There 2 good contenders for the place in Lance Gibbs and Murali. I also feel than Imran Khan is a better cricketer than Wasim Akram both as an opening bowler and as a batsmen. So I would replace Wasim with Imran. It is also a close race between Lara and Viv Richards, which could go either way and in this case it swayed towards Richards.Apart from this the first team looks good. Well done Selection committee. It was not an easy task by any means and mathematically speaking there could be "n" combination for a world side. Bradman, Sobers and Tendulkar are the only 3 who will make it in all teams.

  • AK47_pk on October 27, 2010, 13:00 GMT

    truth hurts friends BUT the truth is bradman dnt deserve a place in world 11 cuz he didnt played against world but only english....YES HE DESERVS TO BE IN AUSTRAILIA 11.....I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SEWAG OR LARA WITH SACHIN FOR THE OPENING SLOT.WOULD PREFER LARA ONLY CUZ SEWAG AVEREGE IS NOT VERY GOOD IN 2ND INNINGS...SORRY NO PLACE FOR BRADMAN WITH DUE RESPECT, SORRY TO SAY, HE DNT REPRESENT THE WORLD.

  • klobania on October 27, 2010, 12:23 GMT

    very truly speaking, i think lara n murali deserve place in place of sachin n warne.

  • on October 27, 2010, 12:16 GMT

    waqar younas was the devastating bowler of his era who use to bowl over 150 k consistantly and with a swing he was the top dawg and not to find his name in both teams only leads me to say that its a poor selection

  • caribman87 on October 27, 2010, 11:42 GMT

    GAVASKA IS INDIAN ALL TIME BEST BATSMAN IN MY BOOOK THEN SACHIN THEN DRAVID. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW SACHIN MADE IT OVER LARA AND GAVASKAR. GAVASKAR PLAYED IN THE GOLDEN AGE OF CRICKET WHERE ALL THE TEAM HAD TALENT COMPARE TO TODAYS GAME.SACHIN DID NOT FACES THE BOWLERS THAT HE DID AND THE WICKETS WERE MUCH MORE BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE IN TODAYS GAME.ALL YOU INDIANS FANS TALKING ALOT OF CRAP BUT DONT KNOW THE HISTORY OF CRICKET.LARA WAS A MORE STLYLISH AND BATTER BATSMAN THAN HE EVER WAS.LARA SCORE 10,000 RUNS FASTERS THAN ANY OTHER IN HISTORY.RICKY POINTING IS ANOTHER PLAYER THAT DESERVE TO BE IN THAT CLASS.

  • Proteas123 on October 27, 2010, 11:32 GMT

    @AK47 - You clearly don't know anything about international cricket. Keep watching India and stop bugging us with your ridiculous comments. @Bollo - In that line up Kallis would have more freedom to play and take risks and would definitely have a better strike rate, after all he has a pretty good strike rate in 20/20. @ mrgupta - Sachins average in SA is pretty poor and they were the second best team during most of his playing time. Sachin is overated, at best is as good as Ponting and Kallis (Batsman, Kallis way better player) but a bit short of Lara.

  • Smith_1 on October 27, 2010, 10:46 GMT

    I don't agree with all time XI.there is a no place to Murali.He has most of the bowling records.who can break those records??.i guess no one can reach to him.67-5w,22-10w and 1st one to get to 800 wickets,and who hold the record of ODI toooo. totally poor selection!!!!!

  • stormy16 on October 27, 2010, 10:03 GMT

    Interesting measure but doesnt make sense comparing through the ages and the conditions were so different as were the presures. You'd never get Bradman out on todays flat tracks but then again may be he would have felt the presure of the modern game and made more mistakes - we'll never know. For guys like Gilly, Sachin, Viv, Warne and Akram to get selected in this team is the ultimate honor.

  • Asif_Iqbal on October 27, 2010, 9:42 GMT

    Ha ha ha I'm surprised and happy that everyone behind me. For fixing wait all Pak player will be clear just becuse of Suresh Raina case going under carpet. For Pakistan cricket team all the pundits including Bycot,Chappel and even Sunny argue that Pakistan is the most talented team and they can easily beat any team very easily on thierday(which come very rare nowaday) also for Indian check their record against Pakstan both in test and oneday.

  • Nayeem_Kohir on October 27, 2010, 9:42 GMT

    In all time greats I will place Tendulkar at 12 at his best. The greatest batsmen in test cricket 1. Don Bradman 2. Brian Lara 3. Wally Hammond 4. Vivian Richard 5. Jack Hobbs 6. Virender Sehwag 7. Javed Miandad 8. Greg Chappel 9. George Headley 10. Adam Gilchrist 11. Sunil Gavaskar 12. Sachin Tendulkar.

    The greatest batsmen in one-day cricket 1.Vivian Richards 2. Yuvraj Singh 3. Michael Bevan 4. Adam Gilchrist 5. Brian Lara 6. Javed Miandad 7.Inzimam-ul-Haq 8. Sanath Jaysurya 9. Dhoni. 10. Arvinda Desilva 11. Zaheer Abbas 12. Sachin Tendulkar

  • Bollo on October 27, 2010, 9:33 GMT

    re.Kallis. Wonderful player, great all-rounder, incredible record, but if he`s in your team he must bat at 6 (replacing Sobers, regarded by some as the 2nd best batsman ever). Sure he has a wonderful average (as good as tendulkar or ponting) but with a poor SR of 44 is this the sort of bloke you want coming in after (my top 5) of Hutton, Sehwag, Bradman, Sachin, Viv? Hardly.

    Just for the record, my Top 5 all-rounders would be Sobers, Imran, Miller, Botham, Kallis. As many people have suggested, perhaps Hadlee would have figured in one of the teams if he could have been selected purely as a bowler (albeit one who could obviously bat a bit as well!)

  • owais210 on October 27, 2010, 9:23 GMT

    I think its a fantastic bunch of players in the ALL TIME WORLD XI. The trouble is half the people in my generation and in their teens etc, dont even know WHO some of these players are.

    At my age of 30, I compare the batsmen and bowlers that I have followed since I was a kid, and I expect the new gen is doing the same.

    What everyone needs to think about it is, its not a battle ground or trophy winning World XI, it is a fun thing done by ICC or Cricinfo to recognise the Maters of the Game.... An All Time XI would obviously mean an ALL TIME XI, and we may have players ferom even 1800's in it. =))

    Murli and Lara, have my vote, so has Imran Khan, Wasim Akram, Sachin, Gavasker, Miandad, Gary Sobers, Viv Rich, Don Bradman, Dennis Lille, and what about Johnty Rhodes who single handedly changed the nature of fielding in the history of cricket, with that HALLMARK Flying Dive for the catches in Gully and every possible position he was in.

  • Bollo on October 27, 2010, 9:22 GMT

    Just a few comments. re.the Warne/Murali debate, although I selected Warne in my XI I was surprised he was selected unanimously. I think arguments could be made for both, and anyone suggesting that one is streets ahead of the other, or that Warne`s selection is ridiculous is way off the mark. Many people have referred to Warne`s relatively poor record in India. Others have mistakenly commented on his poor record in Asia. In Asia he took 127 wickets at 26, only 11 of those against Bangladesh. Hardly a poor return.

    Very few people have referred to Murali`s poor record in India (ave 45), his very average record against Australia (ave 36) or his shocking record in Aus (ave 75). Even the greats have had their problems in certain places/against certain teams. For the Kumble fans out there, and I`m a massive fan of the man, and the way he played his cricket, he simply doesn`t compare to Warne/Murali. His away average was a very poor 36, in Aus 37, in NZ 40, Eng 41, Pak 42, SL 44...

  • Codenames on October 27, 2010, 8:45 GMT

    its amazing that sachin has been playing for 20 years, and it seems now he is better than ever! i am waiting for the tour to SA... even though i will be 200% behind SA, it will be great to see Sachin live in action.

  • Truemans_Ghost on October 27, 2010, 7:11 GMT

    The problem with Bradman is his average is so far beyond anyone else it seems almost unreal and it becomes easy to dismiss it. But he averages something like 42 more than Tendulkar, or anyone else who has palyed a reasonable number of tests. Tendulkar is the best batsman of the modern game. Better than Ponting. Better than Lara. The best i have ever seen. But the difference is 42. Not 5 or 10 or even 20. I realise that batting average is the bluntest of cricketing statistics, but it does have some meaning. Differences i averages of 5 runs or so can be justified away by more nuanced stats, but 40odd? I'm not suggesting that Bradman is worth a Tendulkar with a Paul Collingwood (say) thrown in for free, but any suggestion that Bradman can be dismissed because he didn't play in the modern era or that he cannot be compared to moden greats seems to me ludicrou.s

  • Nayeem_Kohir on October 27, 2010, 6:39 GMT

    In all time greats I will place Tendulkar at 12 at his best

    The greatest batsmen in test cricket 1. Don Bradman 2. Brian Lara 3. Wally Hammond 4. Vivian Richard 5. Jack Hobbs 6. Virender Sehwag 7. Javed Miandad 8. Greg Chappel 9. George Headley 10. Adam Gilchrist 11. Sunil Gavaskar 12. Sachin Tendulkar

    The greatest batsmen in one-day cricket

    1.Vivian Richards 2. Yuvraj Singh 3. Michael Bevan 4. Adam Gilchrist 5. Brian Lara 6. Javed Miandad 7. Sanath Jaysurya 8. Zaheer Abbas 9. Dhoni. 10. Arvinda Desilva 11. Inzimam-ul-Haq 12. Sachin Tendulkar

  • Gulshan_Grover on October 27, 2010, 6:06 GMT

    Asif Iqbal wants 'dobing' test, I am sure no such test exists.

  • sathish4042 on October 27, 2010, 5:37 GMT

    @Asif_Iqbal ur comment is totally rubbish...sachin is the most victim of bad umpiring decisions..reg UDRS..sachin is not against it..he said that something close to 100% acuracy is wat needed..and u cant use any system tat gives u 94% accuracy...this is wat he said...and reg playing cricket in pak who is going to play cricket there....Even if u offer million $s no one is going to come there...very pity....

  • rajaindian on October 27, 2010, 5:32 GMT

    hey asif iqbal, u r a pakistani.........and remember ur team condition........and if we come there then pakistan will be beaten to their soul................and after that its better to play against zim, nz(not even b'desh)...we r too eager to defeat u in ur country..........were s (butt,asif.amir).hooo hooo hooo

  • --.-- on October 27, 2010, 5:16 GMT

    @ Muzammil Saeed Y getting so angry?True that Asif_Iqbal didn't take Inzmam's name alone ....he included Dravid and Lara too..but I don't think that Lara or Dravid even deserve to be called Cricketers. In every street of Pakistan, you would find better batsmen than the likes of Dravid and Lara. That's why I talked about only Inzmam - My HERO. And what made you think that I have nothing to say other than Sachin ? Oh come on, who cares about Sachin Tendulkar, even Imran Farhat bats better than him let alone Inzmam.

  • cricketlovee on October 27, 2010, 5:01 GMT

    Truly speaking,there is always a bias and no one is correct to say who is better everyone has their opinion Still my squad will go as follows : If anyone remains true and unbias,It is more or less correct.. Many Legends will always miss out of 11..Please comment on this.I took hours to pick.Its an unbias Squad of 14..One is left to you Please note Shane Warne may get preference as he is a leg spinner..but its hard to leave Murli Kumar Sngakkara is big hundred Player.. I have picked Ricky Ponting ahead of Don bradman.( no one has seen him playing,quality of Cricket is a point goes against Bradman,and many others) Kallis is best allrounder and big hundred player..You cant leave him PLEASE COMMENT..NO ABUSE..NO FUN 1) Viv Richards2) Ricky Ponting3) Brian Lara4) Sachin Tendulkar5) Garry Sobers6) Jacques Henry Kallis7) Kumar Sangakkara 8) Shane Warne 9) Imran Khan10)Michael Anthony Holding11)Richard John Hadlee12)Malcolm Marshall13)Glen Mcgrath 14)Muttiah Muralitharan15)

  • Asif_Iqbal on October 27, 2010, 4:55 GMT

    I have queston to answer "Have dobing agenciey ever take a dobe test of sachin?" I dont thinnk so because of his name the same reason most of the umpires give him benfit of doubt most of the time and due to this Sachin and co denied to use UDRS. fare fare fare and always fare. I'm eager to watch cricket math b/w Ind and Pak as Indian team currently number one without playing against Pakistan if you fare to come to Pak inform Pak will be there to play.

  • SSJumbo123 on October 27, 2010, 4:22 GMT

    I agree fully with AK47, he's not a tool & he makes perfect sense. Get outside the box all that criticise AK47 & think had Bradman played in this era would he have had the same success. The answer is we don't know. We should give Bradman the credit he deserves. But, Tendulkar is a great in every sense of the word, because of the success he has had and the consistency he has had for 20+ years.

  • Pathiyal on October 27, 2010, 4:21 GMT

    2 thumps up for Sach, he deserves to be on the all time eleven. wont be surprised if he gets more accolades (than this) in future. salute the sportsman and human being in him. i am not a fan, but i need to speak my mind out

  • CricFan24 on October 27, 2010, 4:21 GMT

    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, 4:20 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.

  • CricFan24 on October 27, 2010, 4:20 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.

  • Damo82 on October 27, 2010, 4:06 GMT

    I want to know how Richard Hadlee didn't get a look in? Not only was he a superior bowler than Dennis Lillee in the exact same era but he played for a side and single handedly won matches for a side far inferior than the Australians.

    Lillee was a very very good bowler but comparing him to the amazing Hadlee is not even a race. Do people even remember that Lillee averaged over 30 with the ball against Pakistan and almost 30 against the great Windies??

    Hadlee averaged 22 or less against the West Indies and the aussies were completely his bunny. In Australia Hadlee averaged 17 against them almost taking 100 wickets on their home grown pitches!!!

    I can not believe this man didn't get a look in.... Yes Lillee was a good bowler a real workhorse but Hadlee was a genius with the ball in hand let alone the fact that he was a great lower order batsmen too...

  • on October 27, 2010, 4:03 GMT

    lazy fat inzamam's comparison to Sachin. haha. poor pakistanis.

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

    PLEASE COMMENT..NO ABUSE..NO FUN

    1) Viv Richards 2) Ricky Ponting3) Brian Lara4) Sachin Tendulkar5) Garry Sobers 6) Jacques Henry Kallis7) Kumar Sangakkara8) Shane Warne 9) Imran Khan10)Richard John Hadlee11)Michael Anthony Holding 12)Malcolm Marshall13)Glen Mcgrath14)Muttiah Muralitharan15)

    I have picked Ricky Ponting ahead of Don bradman.( no one has seen him playing,quality of Cricket is a point goes against Bradman,and many others) no doubt he is a great player but i would go with Ponting

  • Umamahesh_Srigiriraju on October 27, 2010, 3:36 GMT

    What a pity! It should have been Brian Lara instead of Viv Richards. Remember people went to lengths, unable to decide who is better - Lara or Sachin? Those same people never had any doubts if Sachin and Lara were better than Viv. And now we see that the Great Lara is out and the cricinfo team while having that 31 minute talk show didn't even mention Lara's name in the middle order but mentioned probably Gower could be there!! Lol. What a pity! Wow!! Brian Charles Lara!! What a player!!!!

    Richard Hadlee!! He doesn't need any introduction. Does he? His record is head and shoulders above Dennis Lillee and Wasim Akram. 431 wickets in 86 matches with 36 - 5 wicket hauls and 10 wickets in a match - 9 times with a strike rate (SR) of 50.8. Now compare that with Lillee and Akram. His SR is next to the legendary Marlcolm Marshall. It's not as though Hadlee kept bowling hundreds of overs from one end and eventually he got all those wickets.

  • PlayfromDallas on October 27, 2010, 3:21 GMT

    If Sri Lankan population would have been about one hundred million Aravinda de Silva & Muralitharan would have been in the All-Time World XI. Creators of this All-Time World XI are only pleasing themselves. If Sri Lanka being a World Cup winner kept out then what legitimizes the inclusion of British players for making to the All-Time World XI without even winning World Cup? All-Time World XI must be selected based on merit for each number Viv Richard is not the player to play at number five his lowest number should be four and the highest should be three. World hasn't seen team as strong as West Indies of 70s & 80s maximum numbers of player deserves to be selected from the WI. Lillee was a great bowler within Australia or England only Imran, Holding, Headly have performed better around the world. With batting strength already; Allen Knott is the natural choice Last but not the least how one can not include Lara in the All-Time World XI? Simply, it is unfair to make All-Time World XI.

  • BillyCC on October 27, 2010, 2:52 GMT

    PTtheAxis, how can you be sure that Bradman would be just another cricketer in modern era if you too haven't seen him play? How can you be sure that not any one of these eleven players can play in any conditions? Sounds to me you're being a bit of a sheep as well.

  • CricketpunditUSA on October 27, 2010, 2:15 GMT

    Two innigs of Sachin come to my mind. Both are ODIs unfortunately. As a 16 yr old, in his first / second international match against Qadir, wacked him for 18+ runs in a single over. That changed the defeatist attitude of India towards Pakistan over night. Even VIV couldn't do that in the world cup. The other match is the world cup match against Pakistan. Akthar, Waqar and Akram - ripped the bowling apart... I mean to score against some ordinary attack is one thing but against this attack.... Only Sachin can dominate... Motivation is an important thing. I think he lost the motivation after 2003 WC a little bit. (happens to us when we go to work and do the same stuff on a daily basis). But when he puts his mind, he could do the impossible. Sydney test double century, dessert storm matches, these two games are good examples. I doubt Lara has the same dedication to the game as Sachin does. That's probably the only difference between these two guys..

  • on October 27, 2010, 1:35 GMT

    Hey AK47. What a first class tool. The only thing overrated here is the crap you write.

  • on October 27, 2010, 1:32 GMT

    Also, different era buddy, I dount you would have watched bradman, you would have seen those bowlers you mentioned but you have no solid base to compare them to the bowlers of bradman time, you clearly. Also there werent any one dayers or 20-20 in bradmans time - AT ALL, the transport bacl then wasnt great and it was much more expensive to travel compared to today's standard, you clearly havent taken any logical factors into consideration you loser!!!!1

  • BeCalmAndSupportEngland on October 27, 2010, 1:30 GMT

    How can u keep murali out from the world 11.can any one tell me who is the better spinner murali or warne?

  • on October 27, 2010, 1:29 GMT

    ahahaha AK_47 pk, are you serious. It is bloody hard to have a good average against anyteam, so even if he played 60 odd tests against england, he still did bloody good. Also, this was back when england were pretty strong. You're a joke, you also forgoet that bradman had 5 plus years of not playing cricket due to the war. I CANNOT BELIEVE YOU ARE COMPARING THE ENGLAND TEAM BACK IN BRADMAN'S TIME TO THE THE ZIMBABWE AND BANGLADESH TEAM OF TODAY, YOU TRUELY NO NOTHING ABOUT CRICKET, GO GET A CLUE BUDDY!!!!!!!!!!! PUT BRADMAN AGAINST THAT AND HE WOULD AVERAGE 300 PLUS. YOU ALSO FORGET THAT BRADMAN HAD A FIRST CLASS AVERAGE OF 95 WITH OVER 100, 100's, so he also played good in the aus comp as well as county and others.

  • tp_cricketfan on October 27, 2010, 1:10 GMT

    @AK47_pk you can't be serious. a player can only be judged by his performances against bowlers in the time he lived. how do you know he wouldn't have dominated all those bowlers? have you seen him play them? did you watch him play live in the 1930s? how can you judge?

    a 20 year career playing on uncovered pitches, punctuated by a world war, averaging almost 40 more than anyone to have ever played the game - that seems alright to me. do you think the likes of larwood, bedser, voce etc were rubbish bowlers? and have tendulkar or lara ever had to contend with bodyline?

    seeing as you seem to struggle with basic logic, i am not surprised you used murali as an example. 89 wickets in 11 tests against bangladesh at an average of 13 vs 59 wickets against australia (who can't play spin) at an average of 36. averages over 32 against india. he hasn't dominated the very best of his generation which is all you can do to be considered one of the greatest. that is exactly what bradman did.

  • Dashgar on October 26, 2010, 23:56 GMT

    good work Bhatin, you managed to pick the three series in a decade that Australia didn't win. A team of Langer, Hayden, Ponting, Martyn, Lehmann, Waugh, Gilchrist, Warne, Lee, Gillespie, McGrath may not beat this team but they would give them a run for their money and apart from maybe the great West Indians are the best team ever assembled by a country.

  • on October 26, 2010, 23:56 GMT

    I really think Imran Khan should have been in the first WORLD XI. He truly is the best allrounder of all time. A test bowling avg of 22 and betting avg of almost 40... nobody can match him.

  • PTtheAxis on October 26, 2010, 23:54 GMT

    well said AK-47. 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. you are right, 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.

  • on October 26, 2010, 23:52 GMT

    @AK47_pk

    If England were so bad back then why is it that only Bradman averages so highly and everyone averages similar to the bats of nowadays. If Bradman had played more tests against the other test nations, like India in the 30's, he would have averaged a lot higher than he did....Clearly with the list of bowlers you think he was lucky not to face you haven't read anything about cricket pre the 1980's so you have no idea what you are talking about. Pull your head in

  • cricketlovee on October 26, 2010, 23:52 GMT

    Truly speaking,there is always a bias and no one is correct to say who is better everyone has their opinion

    Still my squad will go as follows : If anyone remains true and unbias,It is more or less correct.. Many Legends will always miss out of 11..Please comment on this.I took hours to pick.Its an unbias Squad of 14..One is left to you

    Please note Shane Warne may get preference as he is a leg spinner..but its hard to leave Murli Kumar Sngakkara is big hundred Player.. I have picked Ricky Ponting ahead of Don bradman.( no one has seen him playing,quality of Cricket is a point goes against Bradman,and many others) Kallis is best allrounder and big hundred player..You cant leave him

  • cricketlovee on October 26, 2010, 23:49 GMT

    PLEASE COMMENT..NO ABUSE..NO FUN

    1) Viv Richards 2) Ricky Ponting 3) Brian Lara 4) Sachin Tendulkar 5) Garry Sobers 6) Jacques Henry Kallis 7) Kumar Sangakkara 8) Shane Warne 9) Imran Khan 10)Michael Anthony Holding 11)Richard John Hadlee 12)Malcolm Marshall 13)Glen Mcgrath 14)Muttiah Muralitharan 15)

  • dessi-munda on October 26, 2010, 23:42 GMT

    lol ak47.very stupid comments about the biggest player in the game.called cricket( i am sure you ever played this game) english were the one who started this game.they were on the top that time.i am sure you remember there was not helmet,no body gaurd and i am sure they didn't even have gourd on.lol.sure sachin is great player,but don't disrespect the player like sir don bradman.its not easy to make average around 100(even if you play against team of blinds)

  • on October 26, 2010, 23:31 GMT

    a world team without murali and lara is a joke. looking at the panel i can understand why they havent selected murali as there are 4 hystorians who are interested in the hystory of cricket than the prasent. Murali was awarded the wisdens bowler of the century a few yrs back, i wander what he has done recently for them not to pick him. i think this exercise is a waste of time as its impossible to compare someone like Bradman with Lara as he has only played the English. i dont want to compare murali with warne as they both probably deserve a place in this team though if murali was an australian i am sure he would have been in this side for sure. ian chappell if you think muralis action was suspect then dont bring him in to the calculation as this guy doesnt deserve this bullshit excuses you re bringing up. looking at the panel i am not surprised the whole eleven didnt come from the bradman era. all i can say is in another 100 yrs time murali will be there as the only man to take 800wkts

  • on October 26, 2010, 23:25 GMT

    How the selectors can miss the all time greatest all rounder Kallis in this team?? He certainly deserves a place in any team.

  • Dilbar786 on October 26, 2010, 23:24 GMT

    He is totally over rated, looking back at his averages when great bowlers like Wasim, A Donald, C Walsh played his averages in 30s.....Im pakistani and I hate ICC n BCCI

  • on October 26, 2010, 23:23 GMT

    ak47 u are an absolute spud. the only reason bradman never got to play more test was due to world war 2. u cannot avarage 99.94 make 12 double tons h.s 334 and not be in the world X1. Dont forget that Bradman pulled australia through the great depression, a symbol of hope in a bad time. its not all skill and statistics its what else you bring to the game, as shown ny being knighted for services to cricket.

  • EverybodylovesSachin on October 26, 2010, 23:21 GMT

    By looking at the comments ..So many people love Sachin ..Feels Good...

  • OHAI8D on October 26, 2010, 23:20 GMT

    AK47_pk, don't be stupid. If your argument is correct, why didn't anyone in his generation score as much runs and had a similar average? I'd love to hear your response to this.

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

    Even the younger tendulkar (8-10 year old) is better batsman than Umar Akmal.

  • on October 26, 2010, 23:05 GMT

    @ AK_47 pk: you're a fool. That's pretty much the only way to describe it. to suggest Bradman would have averaged less than he did by playing more often against the (at the time) lesser teams of world cricket is an absolute joke. It's like saying "take Tendulkar back to 1930, with no helmet, no thigh pad, uncovered pitces and and a 2-pound bat, and make him bat 80% of his career against the best team in the world, and see how he goes". I think he'd still be great, but it would take him time to adjust. Like Bradman, Tendulkar is a wonderful technical player, with great footwork and a fantastic eye. But get over the hero worship and try some objectivity.

    It's almost impossible to compare across eras - how do you think Bradman (or Hutton, Headley, Woolley, McCabe, Donnelly, et al) would go today on uniform, flat pitches, with planty of protective equipment? I would suggest adding about 20 per innings to their avarage would be a good start. P.S: I'm not an Aussie. Or a Pom.

  • on October 26, 2010, 22:34 GMT

    Where is Richard Hadlee? After all, he had a wonderful average that actually was better than Lillee's.

  • AK47_pk on October 26, 2010, 22:19 GMT

    hey indian brothers, parasd is missin nd yes how stupid these selectors were that they forgot to select robin singh( greatest all rounder for india) hehehe!

  • Kehsav on October 26, 2010, 22:15 GMT

    This team is awesome to the fact that, many players can play their role in different phase of the game and take away the game single handedly from their opponents. Each has quality to dominate the game of cricket. The real thing is, it the game of cricket(TEST CRICKET)... The dream of the opponents will be to defeat this team, which is the pleasure for any team and makes them believe that we are the top team.

    Anyways, can someone tell me, who has been chosen as the CAPTAIN for this dream team ?

  • AK47_pk on October 26, 2010, 21:52 GMT

    7 innings against westindies, 7 against south afriqa, 5 against india nd 61 against englnd(so basicly he only played against england) nd sir bradman is in world eleven..its a joke....i bet he enjoyed english bowlers....how can you judge some 1 when he has only played against 1 country??????????????? he was lucky that he didnt play against marshal, ambroz, imran, wasim, waqar, shoaib nd the likes of murali...I DNT THINK HE SHOULD BE REPRESNTING THE WORLD 11 BECAUSE HE DIDNT PLAY AGAINST WORLD BUT ENGLAND. SACHIN ND LARA ARE FAR BETTER PLAYERS THEN BRADMAN.......TAKE THIS, MAKE SACHIN PLAY AGAINST BANGLA DESH OR ZIMBABWE ALL THE TIME ND YOU,LL SEE HE,LL AVERAGE 200+ NOT 99....GET REAL PPL ND STOP OVER RATING BRADMAN.

  • Bhatin on October 26, 2010, 21:48 GMT

    @ Big_Brothers - I had a worst XI build up already.. sadly Ravindra Jadeja does not find a place in that either. May be we would have to have a special team for him Worst of Worst XI. My Worst XI is :- Michael DeVanuto,W.V.Raman,Umar Akmal,Mohd. Ashrful,Chamara Hathurasingha,Floyd Reiffer,Chris Read (WK),Nathan Hauritz,Ata-Ur-Rehman,Doda Ganesh,Mick Lewis. Chris Read had a really tough fight by Kamran Akmal for keepers spot, so had Doda Ganesh by David Johnson.

  • Bhatin on October 26, 2010, 21:48 GMT

    @ Big_Brothers - I had a worst XI build up already.. sadly Ravindra Jadeja does not find a place in that either. May be we would have to have a special team for him Worst of Worst XI. My Worst XI is :- Michael DeVanuto,W.V.Raman,Umar Akmal,Mohd. Ashrful,Chamara Hathurasingha,Floyd Reiffer,Chris Read (WK),Nathan Hauritz,Ata-Ur-Rehman,Doda Ganesh,Mick Lewis. Chris Read had a really tough fight by Kamran Akmal for keepers spot, so had Doda Ganesh by David Johnson.

  • circit on October 26, 2010, 21:48 GMT

    Who would have led this team ?

  • Bhatin on October 26, 2010, 21:43 GMT

    @zasohaib - Australian test team of 2000-01 could not even beat India in India with only Sachin Tendulkar from World XI, so forget beating World XI. Also Australia of 2005-06 lost Ashes in England and had to draw against India in Australia, their own backyard and Steve Waugh was made to fight to avoid defeat in even his last test, again only Tendulkar from World XI was in that team. Now imaging the World XI together against Australia team, Bradman even in his 80s would have averaged 50 against McGrath & Warne.

  • Bhatin on October 26, 2010, 21:43 GMT

    @zasohaib - Australian test team of 2000-01 could not even beat India in India with only Sachin Tendulkar from World XI, so forget beating World XI. Also Australia of 2005-06 lost Ashes in England and had to draw against India in Australia, their own backyard and Steve Waugh was made to fight to avoid defeat in even his last test, again only Tendulkar from World XI was in that team. Now imaging the World XI together against Australia team, Bradman even in his 80s would have averaged 50 against McGrath & Warne.

  • knowledge_eater on October 26, 2010, 21:16 GMT

    @ Sai Prasad its better to let people speak out, people come on cricinfo and comment for many reasons. Trust me it is partially helping his cause. We would be surprised if we meet them in person. More we will suppress the cause, more it will bounce and can harm him/society.

  • knowledge_eater on October 26, 2010, 21:08 GMT

    If I meet Sachin, I am going to pick his brain and will convince him to teach me how to play Straight Drives, backfoot cover drives, late upper cut, Hook shot, sitting down paddle sweep from outside offstump, Long-on least energy in put sixer, over the bowler/umpire slog, inside out lofted cover drive that goes for 6(not 4), from yorker length ball or turning ball and i don't know many more but I think these are enough to score decent amount of runs, and if he still has time than he will teach me some leg spin to get Warne out. Let people waste time on who is the greatest batsman, I say Sachin didn't waste time to become one of the greatest student of this game for sure.

  • knowledge_eater on October 26, 2010, 21:08 GMT

    If I meet Sachin, I am going to pick his brain and will convince him to teach me how to play Straight Drives, backfoot cover drives, late upper cut, Hook shot, sitting down paddle sweep from outside offstump, Long-on least energy in put sixer, over the bowler/umpire slog, inside out lofted cover drive that goes for 6(not 4), from yorker length ball or turning ball and i don't know many more but I think these are enough to score decent amount of runs, and if he still has time than he will teach me some leg spin to get Warne out. Let people waste time on who is the greatest batsman, I say Sachin didn't waste time to become one of the greatest student of this game for sure.

  • Bhatin on October 26, 2010, 20:59 GMT

    Where the hell is Umar Akmal ?? Not even Ata-Ur-Rehman ?? How could you miss a great like Doda Ganesh ?? My choice for Best 11 :- Michael DeVanuto,W.V.Raman,Umar Akmal,Mohd. Ashrful,Chamara Hathurasingha,Floyd Reiffer,Chris Read (WK),Nathan Hauritz,Ata-Ur-Rehman,Doda Ganesh,Mick Lewis. Chris Read had very tough competition from Kamran Akmal but narrowly missed out. Also to loose out were Dilhara Fernando, David Johnson & Nixon McLean. Team Coach - James Kirtley PR Manaher - Andrew Symonds

  • on October 26, 2010, 20:54 GMT

    Post 2 of 2

    3. Shane Warne as the spinner: Warnie was never effective in the subcontinent and the majority of his wickets were against the English and in Australia. We need a bowler who can take wickets on any surface against any kind of opposition. I would rank Murali high as a spinner in that regard, except for the fact that he chucks the ball. There is no way Murali can bowl his doosra without bending his arm at the elbow. I would have picked another genuine quick as a first change bowler once Marshall and Lillee had been through their initial spell, so there is no respite. Once the ball is reversing then Wasim would come in to clean up what's left of the tail. The spin workload can be easily shared between Sobers and Richards.

  • on October 26, 2010, 20:49 GMT

    Post 1 of 2

    I don't agree with a few selections:

    1. Jack Hobbs as opener: I think he should be replaced by Sunil Gavaskar. Hobbs played in an era which very few know about. Not that he is inferior but there is not a lot to go on to make his selection. There is a lot of perception behind his selection. A batsman should be judged based on the bowling that he faced up to and in my opinion there is no doubt about Sunil Gavaskar in that regard.

    2. Adam Gilchrist as Wicketkeeper: In a line up of Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Sachin, Richards and Sobers, why do we need another batsman/keeper. By the time these guys are done the score would be 600+ anyway and time to declare. We need a keeper who has the best glovework and in my opinion none better than Allan Knott or even Rod Marsh.

    To be continued...

  • on October 26, 2010, 20:30 GMT

    @gazaillion, arvind.........sachin is good no doubt. Ask from your heart, can sachin win you a match when he is playing. Your answer will be NO. Bcoz he is not reliable. I would rate Dravid and Izamam higher than him. They are more solid than sachin. By the way, for the last decade or so, you indians have shouting "sachin, sachin, sachin" all the time. Go find some other name. Meanwhile we found "Amir, Asif" to shout instead of Wasim, Waqar and Shoib. @cricket.buff...........you indians have nothing to say other than sachin. Why not replace Bradman for Sachin, Sober for Sachin, Richard for Sachin and even Sachin for Sachin.....pathetic way to judge someone. Asif took the names of Dravid and Lara as well but you indians as always...you know.

  • CricFan78 on October 26, 2010, 20:12 GMT

    Martin Amber the simple response to you is that Flower and co. who played for Zimbabwe were far better players of spin than the great English bats like Stewart, Hussain, Vaughan.

  • Bhatin on October 26, 2010, 20:08 GMT

    Someone asked Harold Larwood - "So many things have changed and new weapons are there for the bowlers too, Had Bradman played in 80s he would not have been as successful as he was and would not have been great Don Bradman. Thats the opinion of few english critics." Larwood said,"Its good that before reading something so foolish, I lost my eyes" A great in one era does not mean ordinary in other eras. Googly was not invented in times of W.G.Grace, that does not mean he would have been unable to handle it.Same applies to all mentioned in the World XI except Gilchrist. My choice is Alan Knott.

  • on October 26, 2010, 20:03 GMT

    @Hema_Adhikari

    easy on the sarcasm buddy , even though sachin's a great player i really think the

    lara v.s sachin IS DEBATEABLE

    inzi/dravid etc are not in the same league though ^.^

  • SuperiorEleven on October 26, 2010, 20:02 GMT

    I am really surprised!!! how come Imran Farhat is not in the list. Pakistani selectors should protest against this discirmination.

  • Bhatin on October 26, 2010, 20:00 GMT

    All the people mentioned above in the list have some or the other points going against them only exceptions are - Tendulkar,Richards & Marshall who had performed in all conditions across the world. The basic point is that these players were the best in their era and considering their stats its very hard to say they would have failed in other era. That is the reason they are in the best team across years.

  • on October 26, 2010, 19:54 GMT

    why the hell isnt brian lara in there ? why is wasim akram in there ? id put imran khan in place of him . alrounders always rock :D

  • on October 26, 2010, 19:47 GMT

    Good team :)

    In my selection, I had nine of these guys..........I had picked Hammond and Murali instead of Sachin and Akram then..........I would have picked Tendulkar if I had made the selection this week

    Anyways, great team!

  • klobania on October 26, 2010, 19:45 GMT

    @indian fans i dont understand why all the time cricinfo unnecessirily brings about topics regarding sachins achievements to get all the fanatic fans around india to start praising him. what sachin has done for india so far he even fails to win a single major tournament for india in 22 yrs career what inzi achieved only in the 2nd yr of international cricket ie 1992 world cup i know it does not mean he should be in world best XI it is only brian lara or miandad who should replace sachin in that playing XI as they play far better cricket n also against top teams n that is too in bouncy tracks. tendulkar is nothing but purely over hyped old aged flat pitches bully n nothing else. i bet it will be indian fans who will ask him to get retire once india knocked out in upcoming world cup. n even if they fail to do so, then must wait for another world cup losing side because sachin will not get retire until we show him the gate

  • zasohaib on October 26, 2010, 19:27 GMT

    I remember they arranged that Super Test between Australia and Rest of the world 11. The match was scheduled as a 6 day match because everyone was anticipating that if any team could beat the Aussies at that time, it was world 11. And the Aussies wrapped it up in 3 days :). I bet that both these teams would face the same consequences if they face the Australian team of that era, under the captaincy of Steve Waugh.

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

    The Australian test team of 2000-01 to 2005-06 would easily beat both these teams.

  • Jipster on October 26, 2010, 18:43 GMT

    If you all watched the video clips explaining why the selections were made then you'd all know why **your favourite player's name here** wasn't on the list... On the whole though, I find it hard to argue with most of that team. Alan Knott should have been keeper, and personally I would have replaced Dennis Lillee with Richard Hadlee, but as Lillee himself said, make a 2nd team out of the other contenders and you'd have one hell of a game !!

  • Sagwals.team on October 26, 2010, 18:31 GMT

    What about all time WORST XI .Guess the captain your favorite NOORUL Ravinder jadeja and vise is Rohit sharma.

  • on October 26, 2010, 18:00 GMT

    Inzamam better than Sachin? That is the funniest thing I have heard in a long time! Inzamam: Mat Runs Avg Away avg 120 8830 49.60 46.79 Sachin 171 14240 56.96 56.25 That should make it easier for people like Asif Iqbal. In 51 more matches Sachin has scored 5100 more runs than Inzamam. The selectors have picked Sachin for batting not for captaincy! And for those who think Ponting should have been picked, Sachin averages 58.25 in Aus and Ponting averages a mighty 25 In India! Case closed.

  • on October 26, 2010, 17:43 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

  • ironmonkey on October 26, 2010, 17:38 GMT

    I can't believe Ravindra Jadeja has not been selected in this side. Clearly his 53 for West Zone in the Duleep Trophy has to be the greatest innings conjured up on this planet. Can anyone else in that 11 claim to have scored 53 in the year 2006?

  • on October 26, 2010, 17:33 GMT

    @Cricinfo staff Can you please ban this guy Shine KR? God knows what his rant was supposed to mean. Even worse he seems to be copy/pasting the same thing on all cricinfo articles.

  • ashok_cricfan on October 26, 2010, 17:12 GMT

    @ Asif_iqbal........congrats buddy, your statement( inzmam better than tendulkar) has been selected for "ALL TIME XI--JOKES"........... and never forget that india has been reluctant to play pak for political reasons. Believe me, considering india's current form, pak would have been white washed even in a 50 match test tournament. Still we are reluctant to play...........proves the reason !

  • crazyindianfan on October 26, 2010, 17:08 GMT

    Muralidharan was a legend, but he picked 800 wickets because there was no great bowlers in Srilankan team. Shane Warne need to get wickets after Mc Grath , Gillespie, Brett Lee or other Australian Bowlers!!!!

  • TheGame666able on October 26, 2010, 16:23 GMT

    I don't understand how ppl say that warne was at a disadvantage being a part of a stronger bowling attack??If both ends are being kept tight,wickets are inevitable.In SL's case if others were leaking runs at one end or even not troubling the batsmen as much as their Aussie counterparts would have done;batsmen would have to take less chances against murali and would look to simply play him off rather than trying to score against him.It doesn't seem to be that straightforward an argument it seems. Warne had the luxury of playing the English more than murali who arent exaclty competitive against spin to say the least and murali had more matches with minnows. Finally : Warne 708 wickest in 273 innings Murali 800 wickets in 230 innings. That is a pretty wide gap to bridge. It is truly unfortunate few elements had tainted his image in the past due to vested interests and inspite of being cleared its ghost still lives on,For murali is truly a legend matched by few but surpassed by none.

  • on October 26, 2010, 16:11 GMT

    now where is the MURALI ???? n few other i name who forget the selectors

    glen macgrath brian lara aravinda de silva sanath jayasuriya klaid loid

  • mrgupta on October 26, 2010, 15:43 GMT

    People love to call Sachin a "Flat Track Bully". Well here are some stats. Sachin has scored 6 centuries in Australia in 16 Tests (2.6 test/100), Ponting has 21 in 79 tests (3.7 test/100), Lara has 4 in 19 tests (almost 5 test/100). Leaving out BD and Zim Sachin has scored 22 Away centuries in 84 tests (3.8 Test/100)), Ponting has 17 in 66 (3.9 test/100), Lara has 16 in 64 (4 test/100). On the "Flat Tracks" in Asia Ponting has scored at avg of 43, Sachin has 60+ and Lara has 58+ Batting Avg. So Ponting does not think Asian wickets as the "Flat Tracks". Lara has only decent average in Australia and England (42 and 48), Ponting has good avg only in Australia and mediocre in Eng (60 and 41) wheras Sachin has batting average of 58 in Australia and 62 in England. In the Away matches Won, Sachin has batting average more than what Lara and Ponting have managed.

  • on October 26, 2010, 15:31 GMT

    @Jarr30 ..mate for your kind infromation ..Akram is better the hadlee and mcgrath beacuse on the pitches and the condtion he bolwed.. i dont thing mcgrath and hadlle can ball there as good as him and he is better batsman and a good captian on top so check your stuff be4 saying any thing ..peace

  • dishNub on October 26, 2010, 15:27 GMT

    @Adhiqarie - because he is not good enough. That's your answer.

  • Jarr30 on October 26, 2010, 15:23 GMT

    Lara should be included in place of Bradman. Honestly Bradman just played against 2 countries in 11 test venues and he played in an era where bouncers were not allowed and wickets were not bouncy. When Englishmen threw a few bouncers at Bradman during the body-line series, Aussies made an international out-cry and couldn't handle the pressure.

  • on October 26, 2010, 15:12 GMT

    MARTIN -HOOKS: Well said. Did not know that The Don picked an 11 and that Sachin was on it. Guys, relax, and enjoy. The voting is done. Imangine what these guys can do.

    Cricket.Buff - the these guys how to enjoy the result!!! Brilliant/funny commenttaries.

    Ashif_Iqbal, you are a sore loser and don't deserve to be on this comment page - your reasoning is ridiculuous.

    I didn't expect Wasim Akram to be on, but congrats Wasim. In retrospect, he IS the best swing bowler. India should take Ganguly's advice and use him as a coach. Imagnine India with this batting attack and Wasim as coach!!!

  • MartinAmber on October 26, 2010, 15:09 GMT

    OK, just for the hell of it, this would have been my team based solely on what I've seen in 30 years: Gavaskar, Greenidge, Richards, Lara, Tendulkar, Imran, Gilchrist, Hadlee, Marshall, Warne, McGrath. With Murali in reserve for turning pitches. I'm English and there are no Englishmen, although I left Botham out relcutantly. Also, I would not quibble with anyone who favoured Sehwag over Greenidge, and would only ask that you bear in mind that some of us have very clear memories of Lord's 1984... For all-time, I would have to have Bradman (for Lara, though if I were basing it on personal preference I would commit blasphemy by replacing you-know-who...). I would also be compelled to replace Imran with Sobers. I don't know enough about men like Hobbs and Hutton to make a definitive call on the openers, and I only saw Lillee in one series (1981).

  • SzlyAr on October 26, 2010, 15:01 GMT

    Questions are ought to be raised. But this one is pure gimmick. Akram is better than Mcgrath or Hadlee??? You got to be kidding me! LMAO. I wonder how much of Cricketing sense one has in thinking as such.

  • on October 26, 2010, 14:45 GMT

    where is murali & lara. . . very bad selection by you. i thing u select best australian11. not world11 you know asian's weakness well. . bcoz of dat you select shachin [our god of cricket]

  • Crazy_Cricket_Fan on October 26, 2010, 14:42 GMT

    @MartinAmber@. Well said..Same filter applies to Sanga & SL team..they have played too many tests againsts the weekest teams(BAN,ZIM,NZ,PAK & WI) of 2000's...and they claim that they are the best test team and best test players...numbers wont reveal the true picture all times...gr8s like Sachin, McGrath, Warne, Kumble, Lara, Waugh, Ponting, Murali, Sehwag & SA Team had changed the face of Test format completely from DRAWcentric boring games to WINcentric exciting must watch games...again I am not saying Murali doesn't deserve a slot in ATXI..he is contender and just lost it to better deserving player..thats all..I still love to watch Murali though..

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

    Tendulkar ahead of Brian Lara and Greg Chappel???

    My World XI Gordon Greenidge/Hanif Mohammad, Virender Sehwag, Don Bradman, Viv Richards, Brian Lara, Adam Gildchrist, Imran Khan, Wasim Akram, Glenn McGrath/Richard Hadlee, Shane Warne, Muralitharan

  • on October 26, 2010, 14:30 GMT

    One generation wasted all their resources for the Sachin and they are compelling the next generations to do in their way..Next generation is wasting their money and time and following Sachin blindly..Its a sheer waste of time..Me living in a society..Their acting towards life affecting everyone including myself..

  • Truemans_Ghost on October 26, 2010, 14:24 GMT

    Gents, let us celebrate not denegrate here! I personally am surprised to see Lillee there- I'd have had Hadlee or Imran before him, but it doesn't mean Lilleee wasn't a great bowler. Sachin is the greatest batsman of our age, but it doesn't mean no other batsman can be compared to him. I've always been Warne over Murali man, but I recognise that is a largely emotional response and I quite understand the other view, and resent the implication that any suggestion that the Australian is better is somehow racist. I reckon they have it about right, I'd put Hadlee and Imran in instead of Wasim and Lillee.... and I flip-flop whether I'd rather have Wasim or McGrath, but surely that is the point.

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

    Sneaky 11: They can win when they want to! 1. Salman Butt 2. Asif Iqbal 3. Azharuddin 4. Jadeja 5. Salim Malik 6. Wasim Akram 7. Mohmd. Asif 8. Mohammad Amir 9. Ata-ur Rehman 10. Mushtaq Ahmad 11. Shane warn

  • STondulkar on October 26, 2010, 14:17 GMT

    Warne was always ordinary against sub-continent teams and was lucky to have Mcgrath, Gillespie etc around him in sub continent. No doubt he is one of the greats of the game but he was below par in subcontinent. He being unanimous choice is something not understandable.

  • on October 26, 2010, 14:08 GMT

    OMG, can anyone tell me why there is no Ravindra Jadeja? He should be an apparent choice of the selectors these days.

  • on October 26, 2010, 14:00 GMT

    Oops! How come they have forget me?

  • zekie on October 26, 2010, 13:58 GMT

    Sachin Tendulkar is such a great player, I respect him thouroughly and what he has done for the game. He is really a great batsmen. I have seen the world 11 and i just cannot comprehend how Brian Lara is not one of the six greatest batsmen of all time. I have seen this guy bat and he is truly genius. I have played the game of cricket and knows how psychological it is. Sometimes a 50 in certain conditons under enormous pressure is better than a 100. Stats cannnot really give you 100 percent of greatness. I know his attitiude to the game was not the best and he usually got into it with the WICB but god i would have given anything to watch him bat. He just has to be in the 11 he is the purest genius of batting I have ever seen.

  • golden_shine on October 26, 2010, 13:58 GMT

    @ Jarr30 ............man what are you talking about ..........You can't compare akram with macgrath , Macgearh was a great bowler but Akram is Legend ........It's not juts old bowl althought is cricket you have to bown almost 80 % of the time with old bowls .....Wasim was a magician with a bowl in hand , and Macgrath was a machine... Akram is same thing to modren bowlers that sachin is for modren batsmen........

  • Hema_Adhikari on October 26, 2010, 13:55 GMT

    Very well said Martin:"30,000 international runs, almost 100 international centuries, considered by Bishop, Donald and Warne as absolutely the very best. Selected by Don Bradman himself in his eleven and so did wise Richie Benaud. Played on 75 international venues, 21 years of glittering career, runs in every country and in every continent. India's favorite son, Padma Vibhushan Sachin Tendulkar take a bow!!"

    Yes take a bow Sachin, world will never see a batsman like you ever again. Award him Bharat Ratna now!!

  • SangakaraFan on October 26, 2010, 13:49 GMT

    Asif_Iqbal@ I can only laugh at your comments. First of all, I have only seen Pakistan losing in the last decade, then how can Inzamam be a match-winner. Inzamam will always be included if there was a match-fixing XI. I don't understand how Gilli be better keeper-batsmen than Sangakkara.

  • Hema_Adhikari on October 26, 2010, 13:49 GMT

    @Asif_Iqbal, why be jealous of neighbour's achievement; lets rejoice together in greatness of Sachin Tendulkar. We are with you in what ever crisis you face next be it spot fixing or match fixing etc.

  • on October 26, 2010, 13:48 GMT

    @Arvind Iyer awesome comment!!! That's also one of the reasons I visit cricinfo when I feel down, It never fails to pep me up ! Another comment of that type is Sachin not playing for the team, its not like the runs he scores are not added to the team tally. Hope to read more such comments from you.

  • on October 26, 2010, 13:41 GMT

    Why didn't those selectors put Brian Lara in the side?????......he is possibly one of the greatest players ever to have played the game cricket......his stats proves it.....in Tests -9 double centuries,2 triple centuries and the one that takes above of all the other cricketers is that unbeaten quadruple century(400* off 582 balls) that he made against the English Chaps.....are thos selectors mad or what!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • SnowSnake on October 26, 2010, 13:39 GMT

    When will these backward looking excercises stop? To me it is equivalent to dreaming. Why look at the history and find solace? Look forward because that is what really matters. History is permanent and there is nothing anyone can do to change it. The relevant questions are: who is no. 1 batsman, bowler, & team today? Depending on the answers, what can be done to get your team to number 1 (if it is not there already). Enough with praising Bradman, Warne, Tendulkar, Sobers etc. For none of them will be playing 2 years from now. This bow down to the greats does not make any sense to me.

  • Jarr30 on October 26, 2010, 13:33 GMT

    I don't see how Akram is better than Mcgrath or Hadlee. Akram is only good when ball is the old & reversing, whereas Mcgrath was equally good & effective on flat sub-continent wickets. Dennis Lillee can't be better than Hadlee or Andy Roberts.

  • cric4india on October 26, 2010, 13:20 GMT

    @Arvind Iyer - Best comment to sum it up!

  • Nayeem_Kohir on October 26, 2010, 13:11 GMT

    BRIAN CHARLES LARA and GREG CHAPPEL were better batsmen than Sachin and deserved the place in the middle order of all time World XI ahead of Sachin.

    Sachin will hardly make it to the top 15 batsmen of all time. So his inclusion in the World XI is not justified.

    Bradman, Richards, Lara, Greg Chappel or Miandad should form the middle order of the all time World XI.

  • EverybodylovesSachin on October 26, 2010, 13:08 GMT

    What Great man Sachin is...He was 12 when he first faced Lillee and was unknown..today he is in the company of Lillee...You need to be very determined strong and disciplined to be one of the Greats..he did it......

    If someone 12 years of age today if determined and follow what Sachin did..maybe he will join the company of Sachin in next 20 years...

    Sachin is the best role model for next generations to come...........

  • 1011 on October 26, 2010, 13:04 GMT

    Most Entertaining XI: Virender Sehwag, Mark Waugh, Brian Lara, Viv Richards, Adam Gilchrist, Johnty Rhodes, Wasim Akram, Shane Warne, Muttiah Muralitharan, Allan Donald, Dennis Lillee

    Sehwag: Highest Strike Rate for an opener Waugh: Effortless batting style, and an excellent slip fielder for Ware and Murali Lara: 300+, 400+, 500... Richards: Best Swagger Gilchrist: Best Wicketkeeper. He can make it to the team just for his batting Rhodes: He made fielding into an art form, and pretty entertaining with his batting as well (remember his sweep shots against a fast bowler). If fielding needs to be given even an iota of importance in cricket, he becomes the automatic choice. Akram: Best swing bowler, and can hit a few boundaries too Warne: Most competitive spin bowler, and probably the only one who bowls a bouncer ! Muralitharan: Is it a Doosra, or is it a legal delivery, 14 degrees extension..... Donald: Hit him for a boundary at your own peril ! Lillee: 100 miles/hour with an attitude

  • 0wais on October 26, 2010, 13:00 GMT

    @ Cricket.Buff and Gazillion: why hav u targeted Asif_Iqbal and blasted him away by naming only pakistani cricketers??? he didn't take the name of inzamam alone, he mentioned Dravid & Lara as well..... u people don't like pakistan it doesn't mean target Pakistan everyehere

  • Adhiqarie on October 26, 2010, 12:59 GMT

    Why was Muralitharan left out?? I need answer...!!

  • Nitesh.Chandra on October 26, 2010, 12:58 GMT

    Sachin is truly so much more gracious than any of his fans or his critics. Hats off to this humble colossus!

  • Biggus on October 26, 2010, 12:43 GMT

    Congrats to Sachin. I never had any doubt he'd be there. To those whose favourites missed out, picking the team was always going to be a vexed issue, with so many wonderful players and only 11 spots in each side. We really should consider ourselves lucky that this is so. Makes me wish I had access to a time machine so I could travel back and see some of the guys I was not fortunate enough to see, but the choppy, grainy old footage has to suffice. Sadly I've only seen stills of Barnes, but to see him bowl on a drying wicket must really have been something.

  • _Australian_ on October 26, 2010, 12:24 GMT

    I am surprised at the people who want Murali in the side over Warne. Although Murali is a great bowler there are a lot of points that prove Warne was better. Murali did play most of his career in a side that had only average bowlers to support him and he effectively had more opportunities to take more wickets. Warne had to compete with the great McGrath (leading wicket taker for fast bowlers) for the share of the wickets for nearly his whole career. Murali took well over 100 of his wickets v poor test nations. If the results of the poor test nations were removed from both him and Warne you will find Warne took more wickets. Yes Warne did not do well in India but Murali did not do well in Australia. I 100% agree with the first and second sides picked. That is why the people selecting them are who they are.

  • e_ashish on October 26, 2010, 12:17 GMT

    Its nice to see all the cricketing greats are there in list , it will be treat to watch them in action. About spinners everybody is talking about Warne & Murali. Selectors & cricket lovers what about Subhash Gupate ????????????????????????

  • hmia1001 on October 26, 2010, 12:14 GMT

    Steve waugh, ponting, or even lara should have been in for sachin!!!

  • on October 26, 2010, 12:09 GMT

    @cricket.buff - regarding the warne/muralitharan controversy, I think one of the main considerations in the minds of the jury wasn't just ability, but legacy and influence. All these players chosen have had an undeniable impact on the game, and in that sense, I think Warne is clearly ahead of Murali. He revolutionised leg-spin bowling, which, before he made his debut was considered a dying art. And maybe it yet will be, it could be a dead cat bounce now that Warne, Murali and Kumble have retired, but nonetheless, I think that's a big factor. That's not to say Warne had less ability than Murali, I think both were fairly evenly matched in most respects. A lot of people have made mention of Warne's relatively lousy record in India. By the same token, Murali's record in Australia is even worse. Both have their weaknesses - it's what makes them human after all.

  • Vijay_MatchWinner on October 26, 2010, 12:02 GMT

    @Cricket.Buff

    haha...good assumption :D

  • on October 26, 2010, 11:56 GMT

    Congrats to the team and especially Sachin!

  • on October 26, 2010, 11:41 GMT

    I never understood what is the point in collecting the all time playing eleven ? There will always be a debate why this not included why that not included ! Also, if an all time playing eleven is not captained by Imran Khan , then i dont agree as in my openion there might be better bowlers than him and also batsmen but no better leader in Cricket ! To successfully captain Pakistan is an un-matched skill !

  • Asif_Iqbal on October 26, 2010, 11:33 GMT

    @Gazillion Pakistan record are still better against India and belive or not Indian team always fare to play against Paksitan on the other hand Pakistan are always ready to play aginst them any where any time. ha ha ha ha ha

  • caribman87 on October 26, 2010, 11:33 GMT

    I CANNOT SEE HOW LARA DID NOT MAKE THE CUT.I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE EXPLANATION FROM THE PANEL WHY.I GUESS THEY PICK ENOUGH WEST INDIANS.THERE IS ALOT OF GREAT PLAYER LEFT OUT AND THEREFORE THIS IS NOT CREDIBLE.POINTING,DRAVID,HAYDEN,MULRI,HOLDING,AMBROSE,LARA,GAVASKA...LEE.....VIV YOU TRULY DESERVE IT..YOU ARE THE MASTER BLASTER AND NO ONE CAN'T TOUCH YOU.

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

    hEYYYYYYY Guys , Dennis Lilly is all time veven , what a joke ?

  • Proteas123 on October 26, 2010, 11:30 GMT

    @Cricket.Buff - Warne was picked because he is a better bowler and has not inflated his total wickets with wickets against the minnows and playing most games on spinners wickets, like Muralidaran. I don't agree with all the choices but this one was clear cut.

  • Asif_Iqbal on October 26, 2010, 11:29 GMT

    @Gazillion HOW MANY MATHES INDIA WON BEFORE CAPTAINING MSD

  • golden_shine on October 26, 2010, 11:24 GMT

    Can anybody tell me what Dennis Lilly is doin in an all time eleven , the guy who almost never took a wicket in sub-continent ? I am not against him personall but common judges , there must be some explainnation that why Lilly is there and Waqar younis( the guy with highest SR among modren bowlers and performed all over the globe not ONLY on BOUNCY pitches) is not there ....

    can someone explain please ?

  • UNIVERSAL_CRICKETER on October 26, 2010, 11:24 GMT

    WHAT ABOUT RICHARD HADLEE..............

  • on October 26, 2010, 11:20 GMT

    i thought Richard Hadlee and Kallis should have made the cut...atleast in the second team..

  • anshu.sunny on October 26, 2010, 11:05 GMT

    The most amazing thing about Bradman and Sachin is this...Both Richards and Sobers are forced to be slotted at 5 n 6..not their normal batting positions.. to accommodate Bradman n Sachinat 3 at 4..cuz u cant imagine either Bradman or Sachin batting other than 3 n 4 respectively..This just tells u how great both of them are...

  • on October 26, 2010, 10:57 GMT

    I am sure Murli would have been the better option had this W11 been selected for matches against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.

  • Aloksrii on October 26, 2010, 10:55 GMT

    God Of cricket is intitle for it................jai ho

  • ustad12 on October 26, 2010, 10:50 GMT

    Warne, ahead of Muratlitharan - this is a joke, just compare their figures and their performances all over the world not just at home and with help of biased umpires! Even Kumble was superior to Warne in recent history. Just because Warne is white?

    And if you had to pick only one Pakistani, you found Wasim Akram to be better than Imran? Just check out Imran's batting and his performance as a captain - Imran was the second best allrounder,after Sobers, ever.

    Someone made a valid remark about all 4 bowlers being post 1970 - the "selectors" obviously feel in their wisdom that the last 40 years had all the best bowlers while the previous 70 odd years had none.

    This whole process is a farce!

    I am pretty sure, as usual, my comments wouldn't be published by cricinfo.

  • MilindaSB on October 26, 2010, 10:47 GMT

    i dont know why they left murali out? best off spinner cricket had ever produced

  • MartinAmber on October 26, 2010, 10:33 GMT

    Cricket.Buff - Here's one explanation as to why Murali was not an automatic selection. Warne played 3 matches against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, taking 17 wickets. Murali played 25 matches, taking 176 wickets. Strip out the weaker sides and the ICC World XI match, and their averages converge quite dramatically. Warne moves out very slightly to 25.53, Murali by over two runs to 24.91. Added to which, I think it is very fair to state that Warne was part of a far, far stronger bowling attack throughout his career. McGrath > Vaas and Lee, Gillespie, Hughes, McDermott and MacGill > any Sri Lankan who played at the same time. This explains why he took fewer wickets per match - it was emphatically not down to him being an inferior or less devastating bowler.

  • evenflow_1990 on October 26, 2010, 10:18 GMT

    i'm overall quite pleased with this team - my only worry is how the world's leading wicket taker in test matches was omitted. i'm not saying shane warne should be taken out of the team either. i'd like to see warne and murali play in the same team. that would be some challenge!

  • on October 26, 2010, 10:16 GMT

    No Botham or Kallis?!? Surely the greatest all-rounders would be first pick in a world XI team!!! 2 players for the price of one!!

  • on October 26, 2010, 10:14 GMT

    I have watched Sachin play continously for last 5 years. I have 2 regrets. The day when he stops playing. And my deep regret that I did not (many reasons) watch him bat since the day he started his career. Long live Sachin! May you keep on going for another 5 years and keep the world happy

  • Raj7sm on October 26, 2010, 10:00 GMT

    Warne who cannot bowl a googly is considered better than Murali who had all the repertoire of an off spinner and more.

    The lame excuse given by Mr Chappel is that outside Sri Lanka people have this nagging feeling about his action. What a logic??

    If they doubt Murali's, who has gone through every test under the sun, they should not be in the panel as independent judges in the first place.

    Warne was more interesting to watch when he was plotting the downfall of batsman: Yaah in India.

  • Beazle on October 26, 2010, 9:47 GMT

    Cricket.Buff asked-

    Jury members should give explanation that why Shane Warne was picked ahead of Muralitharan ?

    Warne was picked unanimously ahead of Murali by experts from around the world including all Asian countries. Murali's action was not a problem with many of them. Warne was picked because of pure cricket reasons. He is the greatest of all spinners, particularly in big match situations.

  • Mrchinaman on October 26, 2010, 9:38 GMT

    All we can do is to imagine this team playing on perth and Hobbs facing the deadly Barnes of another World XI team and when the umpires call "Lets play!!" Thanks cricinfo for giving us the ultimate pleasure to imagine a World XI team playing with another World XI. It's just unbelievable, Biggest spectacle of cricket history.

  • The_Dynamite_Kid on October 26, 2010, 9:37 GMT

    Inzamam isn't good enough to even clean the socks of Tendulkar, let alone carry his shoes.

  • Nayeem_Kohir on October 26, 2010, 9:26 GMT

    If there is an Indian who deserved to be in the World XI, it is Sehwag.

    Brian Lara, Greg Chappel, and some other batsmen from the past are superior batsmen than Sachin Tendulkar. Ricky ponting, Kevin Pietersen and Jaysuriya are as good as Sachin or even better when playing under pressure. Though Inzimam did not dominate as these batsmen did, he delivered when it mattered the most.

    Sachin is a selfish player and plays for records and always want to be called himself the best. He never comes up with the best batsman comment for anyone like Sehwag, Brian Lara or anyone else.

    On the other hand, a selfless Lara or even a fan in Sehwag called Sachin the best.

    Sachin is the most selfish cricketer I have even seen.

    So to see Sachin in the world XI makes me laugh at the Jury. This world XI should have the likes of Greg Chappel, Brian Lara, and Imran Khan to make the World XI instead of the likes of Sachin Tendulkar.

  • kantipur on October 26, 2010, 9:20 GMT

    Except for Sobers and Bradman, everybody else is replacable. I would personally chose Lara over Tendulkar or viv Richards because being a left hander would have given a given a different dimension to that middle order.

  • on October 26, 2010, 9:06 GMT

    OMG...i can nvr forget this photo..brings tears still now..Go Sachin Go..gift us the world cup..Amen

  • Ribs on October 26, 2010, 9:06 GMT

    Nice selection overall, but for me the million dollar question why viru name is not in the list. I never seen anyone like Viru playing test match in a more facinating way. The person who played better than viru is Sir.Vivian Richards. Turining out of number of audiance is high only when viru bats in test matches. Sachin played 21 years but viru's match performance is much higher than sachin. In this way I always rate viru higher than sachin. I remember we were twice lost the test series against australia by 3-0 white wash, both the occasions sachin played for us. But viru's inclusion made lot of impact, we started winning not only because of him but he is the major contributor of winning test matches. If some one deserved a place from india is undoubtly Viru the man who started winning matches for us

  • LilleeTheLegend on October 26, 2010, 9:06 GMT

    Because 'Cricket Buff', the cricketing fraternaty has spoken and Murali was an ilegitimate champion who took ilegitimate wickets. Therefore he shouldn't have made it into the 2nd (or any) 11 even. Warne in 1st 11 and Qadir in second 11 as pure champions who could turn a test match on it's head againt the 'best' competition at any given moment. Glad the cricketing fraternity has finally quashed this ridiculous debate over who is the best spin 'bowler'...

  • on October 26, 2010, 8:56 GMT

    The one with the highest wickets in test and odi....and murali is not selected,but they select warne..LMAO!!!

  • sameer-hussain on October 26, 2010, 8:54 GMT

    tendulakar is in list fine he is batting genuine fine where is the greatest allrounder of the planet who has brilliant record with bat and ball and he is non other than jacques kallis?

  • Ronita on October 26, 2010, 8:45 GMT

    Sad to see Sir B S Bedi name missing. Father of all spin.

  • on October 26, 2010, 8:30 GMT

    One more milestone for our little master..gr8

  • SanjivSanjiv on October 26, 2010, 8:29 GMT

    Congrats to all the players in the 1st and 2nd XI. There is a hairline difference among all these great players in their respective categories. All the great batsmen would give hard time to the bowlers and vice versa when on song. I wonder how much thought is given on the mental toughness while selecting these players in the first XI's, because the situation often demands to stay on the wicket instead of scoring runs in Test cricket. For example, Lillee on a hatrick with a team score of 5/28. Just a thought.....Sanjiv Gupta, Perth, Australia

  • Gazillion on October 26, 2010, 8:23 GMT

    @Asif_Iqbal How can you take the name of Inzamam when we are talking about greats like Bradman, Sachin,Richards etc. Inzamam is just one among many average/good cricketers. What is the definition of a match winner by the way. How many matches Pakistan won in last decade??

  • SudheerPusuluri on October 26, 2010, 7:54 GMT

    @Asif_Iqbal Take nothing away from Dravid,Lara and Inzi..because of the sheer longivity,consistency and the delight Sachin has given to the world he is just one notch up than the others..If you consider just the one days there is none better than Sachin..no arguments at all in that case.. In tests he has played as many good innings as others..watever he is scoring now is just making sure that he is The Undisputed Legend in the world cricket..just because we expect him to make century in every innings we see his 50s also as failures..I believe that's just one reason that is good enough to take Sachin into the world XI..

  • KC1977 on October 26, 2010, 7:44 GMT

    Its a fashion to talk about how different guys such as Lara, Inzi, Dravid, Ponting etc are great than SRT. People love doing that just for the sake of doing it. SRT never talks, his bat does it for him. Remember guys, these teams were chosen from people around the world, right from a common man to an expert. There are thousands of players played cricket right from 1880s...its close to 130 years of cricket now. So there will be differences of opinion, some people will always crib for people who are not in the list. But even when you select just 11 players out of those thousand, DG and SRT are such players who will come in any list. People talk about them and will talk about them for generations to come. Others will come and go, but cricket followers will always talk about SRT and DG ever n ever (may be Sobers, Richards and Warne to follow...).

  • SpeedCricketThrills on October 26, 2010, 7:40 GMT

    All the 4 bowlers are post 1970 - makes it a bit lopsided. Otherwise a good selection.

  • --.-- on October 26, 2010, 7:26 GMT

    Watching Don and Sachin playing together would have been a treat. Just imagine, Don and Sachin batting for hours and hours and hours and Richards, Sobers and Gilly still waiting for their turn. LOL ! Akram and Warne shouting angrily :- " Come on guys, we are fed up of sitting in pavilion, whatever you have put on board is MORE than enough, let us do our job now" ..Marshall smiling and saying to himself "I'm the spearhead, these kids (akram and warne) won't get much to hunt" lol !

  • --.-- on October 26, 2010, 7:08 GMT

    Jury members should give explanation that why Shane Warne was picked ahead of Muralitharan ?

  • --.-- on October 26, 2010, 7:07 GMT

    Congrats to Sachin, Bradman, Akram and every player ... ! Feeling sorry for Muralitharan, I thought he would get selected easily but that didn't happen.

  • cricketandmore on October 26, 2010, 7:06 GMT

    would love to get Sobers's reaction after being picked alongside Shane Warne :)

  • --.-- on October 26, 2010, 7:04 GMT

    @ Asif_Iqbal ... "Some time records do not reflect the correct picture of the player as per my opinion". I second you. Sachin should be replaced with Inzamam. Bradman should be replaced with Miandad, and Viv Richards should be replaced with Ramiz Raza. Well you talking about "true match winners", Ohh how could I forget 'Afridi'... replace Sobers with him.

  • on October 26, 2010, 6:49 GMT

    very well done!u r the only current player in world X1. Congratulations! We all indians proud of u

  • on October 26, 2010, 6:48 GMT

    for guys like Asif_iqbal http://sachinandcritics.com/sachin_is_a_match_winner.php

    SACHIN IS THE BEST MATCHWINNER!

  • on October 26, 2010, 6:32 GMT

    Whenever I feel like reading a bad joke, I just check cricinfo comments.. sure to find a weirdo who claims Inzamam is better than Sachin

  • on October 26, 2010, 6:26 GMT

    Our mastreo got another achievement..

  • Truemans_Ghost on October 26, 2010, 6:25 GMT

    Sachin is a far more gracious man than many of his fans.

  • the_blue_android on October 26, 2010, 6:25 GMT

    To all the lankans who are saying Murali should be on the list, he will never be and we all know the reason why :).

  • 114_in_final_Six_overs on October 26, 2010, 6:24 GMT

    30,000 international runs, almost 100 international centuries, considered by Bishop, Donald and Warne as absolutely the very best. Selected by Don Bradman himself in his eleven and so did wise Richie Benaud. Played on 75 international venues, 21 years of glittering career, runs in every country and in every continent. India's favorite son, Padma Vibhushan Sachin Tendulkar take a bow!!

  • RanjithShettyJordan on October 26, 2010, 6:23 GMT

    I cannot believe this. Congrats Sachin. He is sand witched between sir Don Bradman and sir Viv Richards.This means sachin will be at No.4 in any batting line for ever. Nobody can come close to him in this regard.Leave who is there and h who is not there.Just go through the list and dream one match with this team.Please only dream off 5 day test not 20-20.

  • BillyCC on October 26, 2010, 6:21 GMT

    Congratulations to Sachin. It is a wonderful achievement for him and it's great to read these quotes in the article. An absolute legend.

  • on October 26, 2010, 6:16 GMT

    Wow!! That was really a good & fully justiciable team selection by ESPNcricinfo. Congrats to Sachin for being the only indian in the team...

  • on October 26, 2010, 5:48 GMT

    This Fills me with pride! All Indians are proud of Sachin, No doubt. Longevity, that too, maintaining the same class. Just Like DB, but for one more year, and still counting.

    Hats off to Sachin!

  • on October 26, 2010, 5:42 GMT

    Very proud moment. Our master deserves it.

  • Asif_Iqbal on October 26, 2010, 5:05 GMT

    Some time records do not reflect the correct picture of the player as per my opinion Dravid,Lara and Inzama are better player then tendulakar because they are the true match winner and also captained well for their sides

  • murliramkey on October 26, 2010, 4:52 GMT

    Totally surprised!! Where is Muralidaran. After all he has achieved in test cricket, One must accede the fact that he deserves to be in this squad.

  • ravithecricbuff on October 26, 2010, 4:29 GMT

    Politeness soaring high in comments of all the greats!! No Sachin its not "unreal" your existence is supernatural!!

  • bongalkar on October 26, 2010, 4:22 GMT

    I am sure rama chandra guha would have wanted hazare on the list ...

  • Graeme_Swanns_Cat on October 26, 2010, 4:20 GMT

    Well done to all the winners (both the 1st and 2nd 11). People may have their own choices but it's hard to argue against any of the guys picked. Each one of them was/is a truly great player and I say that at a time when the word 'great' is so misused.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Graeme_Swanns_Cat on October 26, 2010, 4:20 GMT

    Well done to all the winners (both the 1st and 2nd 11). People may have their own choices but it's hard to argue against any of the guys picked. Each one of them was/is a truly great player and I say that at a time when the word 'great' is so misused.

  • bongalkar on October 26, 2010, 4:22 GMT

    I am sure rama chandra guha would have wanted hazare on the list ...

  • ravithecricbuff on October 26, 2010, 4:29 GMT

    Politeness soaring high in comments of all the greats!! No Sachin its not "unreal" your existence is supernatural!!

  • murliramkey on October 26, 2010, 4:52 GMT

    Totally surprised!! Where is Muralidaran. After all he has achieved in test cricket, One must accede the fact that he deserves to be in this squad.

  • Asif_Iqbal on October 26, 2010, 5:05 GMT

    Some time records do not reflect the correct picture of the player as per my opinion Dravid,Lara and Inzama are better player then tendulakar because they are the true match winner and also captained well for their sides

  • on October 26, 2010, 5:42 GMT

    Very proud moment. Our master deserves it.

  • on October 26, 2010, 5:48 GMT

    This Fills me with pride! All Indians are proud of Sachin, No doubt. Longevity, that too, maintaining the same class. Just Like DB, but for one more year, and still counting.

    Hats off to Sachin!

  • on October 26, 2010, 6:16 GMT

    Wow!! That was really a good & fully justiciable team selection by ESPNcricinfo. Congrats to Sachin for being the only indian in the team...

  • BillyCC on October 26, 2010, 6:21 GMT

    Congratulations to Sachin. It is a wonderful achievement for him and it's great to read these quotes in the article. An absolute legend.

  • RanjithShettyJordan on October 26, 2010, 6:23 GMT

    I cannot believe this. Congrats Sachin. He is sand witched between sir Don Bradman and sir Viv Richards.This means sachin will be at No.4 in any batting line for ever. Nobody can come close to him in this regard.Leave who is there and h who is not there.Just go through the list and dream one match with this team.Please only dream off 5 day test not 20-20.