Gideon's Cricket World has kindly agreed to play a series pitting my first and second XIs from my Greatest Test XI, which I selected over the summer, against one another.
The teams are as follows:
1st XI: H Sutcliffe, L Hutton, DG Bradman, WR Hammond, GStA Sobers, *Imran Khan, +AC Gilchrist, MD Marshall, SK Warne, CEL Ambrose, M Muralitharan.
2nd XI: JB Hobbs, *SM Gavaskar, GA Headley, BC Lara, RG Pollock, KR Miller, +LEG Ames, RJ Hadlee, AK Davidson, DK Lillee, WJ O'Reilly
The series will be played at five different venues in five different countries: Cape Town, Lord's, Barbados, Mumbai and Melbourne.
Anyway, visit Gideon's Cricket World to see how the series pans out!
Showing posts with label Greatest Test XI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Greatest Test XI. Show all posts
Saturday, 27 October 2007
Tuesday, 18 September 2007
Greatest Test XI
So I have now picked what I believe to be the Greatest Test XI of those who made their debuts in 1908 or later. The side (click on a player's name to read the piece on them) is:
Herbert Sutcliffe
Len Hutton
Don Bradman
Wally Hammond
Garry Sobers
Imran Khan (captain)
Adam Gilchrist
Malcolm Marshall
Shane Warne
Curtley Ambrose
Muttiah Muralitharan
This is the XI I have picked to play on an unknown surface. To lend a little more realism to the task, here is my 'second XI' for them to play against:
Jack Hobbs
Sunil Gavaskar
George Headley
Brian Lara
Graeme Pollock
Keith Miller
Les Ames
Richard Hadlee
Alan Davidson
Dennis Lillee
Bill O'Reilly
What's your verdict? Which of these teams would win?
Herbert Sutcliffe
Len Hutton
Don Bradman
Wally Hammond
Garry Sobers
Imran Khan (captain)
Adam Gilchrist
Malcolm Marshall
Shane Warne
Curtley Ambrose
Muttiah Muralitharan
This is the XI I have picked to play on an unknown surface. To lend a little more realism to the task, here is my 'second XI' for them to play against:
Jack Hobbs
Sunil Gavaskar
George Headley
Brian Lara
Graeme Pollock
Keith Miller
Les Ames
Richard Hadlee
Alan Davidson
Dennis Lillee
Bill O'Reilly
What's your verdict? Which of these teams would win?
Greatest Test XI: Muttiah Muralitharan
To conclude our Greatest Test XI of the last century we pick our number eleven.
Muttiah Muralitharan’s greatness is simply indisputable. He and Shane Warne have been the focal points for a ‘golden age’ of spin bowling; and together, subjected to near-constant comparison. Together, they constitute the ultimate spin-bowling dream team.
Murali has perennially been accused of ‘chucking’, but on each occasion he has been cleared; it would be churlish to deny him a place in this Greatest Test XI because of doubts over the legitimacy of his action. Amidst all the controversy, though, he has continued to improve; he has revolutionised the art of off-spin by perfecting several variations, including the infamous doosra. The nature of his action enables him to extract turn from almost every surface.
It is true that his wickets tally has benefited from a multitude of victims amongst the minnows; but, incredibly, he averages 23.4 if they are excluded (two lower than Warne), which falls to under 21 during his ‘peak’ years since 2000 as he has learned to become more adaptable and effective outside the sub-continent. What makes this even more impressive is he has had no respite in unfavourable conditions, normally having to bowl nearly 30 overs a day, acting as both stock and strike bowler to claim more than six wickets a game.
He has been the single biggest factor in Sri Lanka’s emergence as a true Test force; he is of course lethal at home (and took 28 Tests in Australia’s three-Test series in Sri Lanka in 2004) but his finest moments have surely been away from home. Murali took 16 and 11 wickets in memorable victories in England; on a wearing pitch, there is no bowler you would rather have.
Statistically, as Charles Dawes illustrated in an article in Wisden Australia, he is certainly the greatest spinner of all time. Murali is unique; he has captivated audiences with his box of tricks and sheer enthusiasm for the game. As Steve Waugh put it, he is “the Don Bradman of bowling”.
Share your views by leaving a comment below.
Muttiah Muralitharan’s greatness is simply indisputable. He and Shane Warne have been the focal points for a ‘golden age’ of spin bowling; and together, subjected to near-constant comparison. Together, they constitute the ultimate spin-bowling dream team.
Murali has perennially been accused of ‘chucking’, but on each occasion he has been cleared; it would be churlish to deny him a place in this Greatest Test XI because of doubts over the legitimacy of his action. Amidst all the controversy, though, he has continued to improve; he has revolutionised the art of off-spin by perfecting several variations, including the infamous doosra. The nature of his action enables him to extract turn from almost every surface.
It is true that his wickets tally has benefited from a multitude of victims amongst the minnows; but, incredibly, he averages 23.4 if they are excluded (two lower than Warne), which falls to under 21 during his ‘peak’ years since 2000 as he has learned to become more adaptable and effective outside the sub-continent. What makes this even more impressive is he has had no respite in unfavourable conditions, normally having to bowl nearly 30 overs a day, acting as both stock and strike bowler to claim more than six wickets a game.
He has been the single biggest factor in Sri Lanka’s emergence as a true Test force; he is of course lethal at home (and took 28 Tests in Australia’s three-Test series in Sri Lanka in 2004) but his finest moments have surely been away from home. Murali took 16 and 11 wickets in memorable victories in England; on a wearing pitch, there is no bowler you would rather have.
Statistically, as Charles Dawes illustrated in an article in Wisden Australia, he is certainly the greatest spinner of all time. Murali is unique; he has captivated audiences with his box of tricks and sheer enthusiasm for the game. As Steve Waugh put it, he is “the Don Bradman of bowling”.
Share your views by leaving a comment below.
Sunday, 16 September 2007
Greatest Test XI: Curtley Ambrose
To continue our Greatest Test XI of the last century we pick our number ten.
Curtley Ambrose arguably had the greatest propensity for cricketing annihilation of any quick in this list. Given a wearing wicket, his pace and steepling bounce, generated from a 6ft7in frame, assisted by a McGrath-esque ability to consistently hit back-of-a-length just outside off-stump, made him virtually unplayable.
Yet there was much more to Ambrose’s game; he had a beautifully grooved action and could generate enough movement off the seam to remain a huge threat even when his pace had deserted him while, unlike similarly tall men, he did not over-bowl the short ball, and used his yorker to devastating effect. Even in the least helpful conditions, Ambrose was very seldom dominated; he did well in Asia, while his economy rate of 2.30 shows he was exceptionally parsimonious.
A few of Ambrose’s spells must rank amongst the very finest in the history of the game, relentless in their hostility. Top of the list is his breathtaking spell of 7-1, from 32 balls, at Perth (a ground that could have been made for him) in 1992. Indeed, he was consistently outstanding against Australia, the best side he faced. An equally memorable spell was his 6-24 at Bridgetown in 1994. Given an hour to bat in the evening, England subsided to a fired-up Ambrose, and were bowled out for 46 the following morning.
The mere sight of Ambrose gliding up to the wicket, before exploding onto the wicket and catapulting the ball down from almost 10ft, was truly one to behold. With the qualities he had, mere survival required tremendous skill and physical courage.
The side so far: Sutcliffe, Hutton, Bradman, Hammond, Sobers, Imran (captain), Gilchrist (wicket-keeper), Marshall, Warne, Ambrose
We now only have one player left to select. Share your views on the side by leaving a comment below.
Curtley Ambrose arguably had the greatest propensity for cricketing annihilation of any quick in this list. Given a wearing wicket, his pace and steepling bounce, generated from a 6ft7in frame, assisted by a McGrath-esque ability to consistently hit back-of-a-length just outside off-stump, made him virtually unplayable.
Yet there was much more to Ambrose’s game; he had a beautifully grooved action and could generate enough movement off the seam to remain a huge threat even when his pace had deserted him while, unlike similarly tall men, he did not over-bowl the short ball, and used his yorker to devastating effect. Even in the least helpful conditions, Ambrose was very seldom dominated; he did well in Asia, while his economy rate of 2.30 shows he was exceptionally parsimonious.
A few of Ambrose’s spells must rank amongst the very finest in the history of the game, relentless in their hostility. Top of the list is his breathtaking spell of 7-1, from 32 balls, at Perth (a ground that could have been made for him) in 1992. Indeed, he was consistently outstanding against Australia, the best side he faced. An equally memorable spell was his 6-24 at Bridgetown in 1994. Given an hour to bat in the evening, England subsided to a fired-up Ambrose, and were bowled out for 46 the following morning.
The mere sight of Ambrose gliding up to the wicket, before exploding onto the wicket and catapulting the ball down from almost 10ft, was truly one to behold. With the qualities he had, mere survival required tremendous skill and physical courage.
The side so far: Sutcliffe, Hutton, Bradman, Hammond, Sobers, Imran (captain), Gilchrist (wicket-keeper), Marshall, Warne, Ambrose
We now only have one player left to select. Share your views on the side by leaving a comment below.
Sunday, 9 September 2007
Greatest Test XI: Shane Warne
To continue our Greatest Test XI of the last century we pick our number nine.
What can you say about Shane Warne, “the finest legspinner the world has ever seen”, according to Richie Benaud? He has mastered the hardest of cricket’s arts, and continued to astound over a 15-year Test career. Yet, for all the flippers, googlies and top-spinners, his brillance lies in far more than these deliveries. Mentally, he is amongst the toughest players who have ever played the game, able to out-think the very finest batsmen and, famously, reduce an excellent Test batsman, Darryl Cullinan, to a man bereft of self-belief against him. He has not been able to display his captaincy skills internationally, but has proved an astute, innovative skipper for Hampshire, able to out-psyche the opposition and imbue copious self-belief in his team-mates.
Warne also has the rare ability to excel himself when up against it and the side need him most. That much was clearly in evidence during the 2005 Ashes when, with a depleted attack and, due to injuries, his own leg-spinning weapons much less than they had been during the mid-90s, Warne relied on his subtlety (not always his biggest strength) cunning to claim an extraordinary 40 wickets in the series. His reputation was made during countless Australian victories; but, if anything, he was even more impressive in defeat.
His achievement in bringing such long-standing consistency to this most enigmatic of arts is remarkable, the result of Warne’s constant desire for cricketing improvement, which saw him develop a number of variations within the leg-spinner (carrying angles and degrees of spin). He made his name with The Ball Of The (20th) Century; the dismissal of Andrew Strauss may just have been The Ball of the 21st except, because it was Warne, the feelings were more of awe than the astonishment that greeted the dismissal of Mike Gatting.
With the bat, Warne also bettered himself when his side most needed him, and should really have scored a Test hundred. His raw statistics – 708 Test wickets in an era of bigger bats and shorter boundaries – are incredible, but his genius has transcended numbers.
The side so far: Sutcliffe, Hutton, Bradman, Hammond, Sobers, Imran (captain), Gilchrist (wicket-keeper), Marshall, Warne
We now only have two players left to select. Share your views on the side by leaving a comment below.
What can you say about Shane Warne, “the finest legspinner the world has ever seen”, according to Richie Benaud? He has mastered the hardest of cricket’s arts, and continued to astound over a 15-year Test career. Yet, for all the flippers, googlies and top-spinners, his brillance lies in far more than these deliveries. Mentally, he is amongst the toughest players who have ever played the game, able to out-think the very finest batsmen and, famously, reduce an excellent Test batsman, Darryl Cullinan, to a man bereft of self-belief against him. He has not been able to display his captaincy skills internationally, but has proved an astute, innovative skipper for Hampshire, able to out-psyche the opposition and imbue copious self-belief in his team-mates.
Warne also has the rare ability to excel himself when up against it and the side need him most. That much was clearly in evidence during the 2005 Ashes when, with a depleted attack and, due to injuries, his own leg-spinning weapons much less than they had been during the mid-90s, Warne relied on his subtlety (not always his biggest strength) cunning to claim an extraordinary 40 wickets in the series. His reputation was made during countless Australian victories; but, if anything, he was even more impressive in defeat.
His achievement in bringing such long-standing consistency to this most enigmatic of arts is remarkable, the result of Warne’s constant desire for cricketing improvement, which saw him develop a number of variations within the leg-spinner (carrying angles and degrees of spin). He made his name with The Ball Of The (20th) Century; the dismissal of Andrew Strauss may just have been The Ball of the 21st except, because it was Warne, the feelings were more of awe than the astonishment that greeted the dismissal of Mike Gatting.
With the bat, Warne also bettered himself when his side most needed him, and should really have scored a Test hundred. His raw statistics – 708 Test wickets in an era of bigger bats and shorter boundaries – are incredible, but his genius has transcended numbers.
The side so far: Sutcliffe, Hutton, Bradman, Hammond, Sobers, Imran (captain), Gilchrist (wicket-keeper), Marshall, Warne
We now only have two players left to select. Share your views on the side by leaving a comment below.
Friday, 7 September 2007
Greatest Test XI
To continue our Greatest Test XI of the last century we pick our number eight.
West Indies is regarded as the spiritual home of the fast bowler, so it is fitting that the man commonly regarded as their finest ever makes the Greatest Test XI. Malcolm Marshall was their finest quick during their 1980s heyday, seriously rapid, hostile and extremely consistent; but he complemented these gifts with subtlety and real cricketing intelligence.
He was a tremendously canny bowler, with the ability to swing the ball both ways and, later in his career, the purveyor of a fine legcutter. Though relatively small for a West Indian quick – 5ft11in – he still generated good bounce; and his mastery of the finer arts of seam-bowling ultimately separated him from his almost equally outstanding team-mates.
It speaks volumes for his adaptability that his impressive average of 22.5 against Australia was actually his highest against the five nations he played against; Marshall’s multifarious gifts were such that he simply excelled everywhere. However, it was perhaps England whom he saved his very best for, memorably claiming 7/22 at Old Trafford in 1988, on a wicket prepared for spin.
With the bat, Marshall was extremely talented; invariably willing to attack, he averaged 19 in Tests and also struck seven first-class hundreds, so he is worthy of the number eight spot in this side. The man with 376 Test wickets was, in the words of Mike Atherton, “the complete fast bowler”.
The side so far: Sutcliffe, Hutton, Bradman, Hammond, Sobers, Imran (captain), Gilchrist (wicket-keeper), Marshall
Share your views on the side by leaving a comment below.
West Indies is regarded as the spiritual home of the fast bowler, so it is fitting that the man commonly regarded as their finest ever makes the Greatest Test XI. Malcolm Marshall was their finest quick during their 1980s heyday, seriously rapid, hostile and extremely consistent; but he complemented these gifts with subtlety and real cricketing intelligence.
He was a tremendously canny bowler, with the ability to swing the ball both ways and, later in his career, the purveyor of a fine legcutter. Though relatively small for a West Indian quick – 5ft11in – he still generated good bounce; and his mastery of the finer arts of seam-bowling ultimately separated him from his almost equally outstanding team-mates.
It speaks volumes for his adaptability that his impressive average of 22.5 against Australia was actually his highest against the five nations he played against; Marshall’s multifarious gifts were such that he simply excelled everywhere. However, it was perhaps England whom he saved his very best for, memorably claiming 7/22 at Old Trafford in 1988, on a wicket prepared for spin.
With the bat, Marshall was extremely talented; invariably willing to attack, he averaged 19 in Tests and also struck seven first-class hundreds, so he is worthy of the number eight spot in this side. The man with 376 Test wickets was, in the words of Mike Atherton, “the complete fast bowler”.
The side so far: Sutcliffe, Hutton, Bradman, Hammond, Sobers, Imran (captain), Gilchrist (wicket-keeper), Marshall
Share your views on the side by leaving a comment below.
Wednesday, 5 September 2007
Greatest Test XI
To continue our Greatest Test XI of the last century we pick our number seven.
Adam Gilchrist has revolutionised cricket, scoring over 5000 Tests runs from number seven, at an average of almost 50; but, equally impressively, these have been scored at a strike-rate of 82, one of the highest in the history of Test cricket. He has been the epitome of Australian dominance, able to turn positions of weakness into great strength within a couple of hours or totally demoralise an opposition already up against it.
Over 90 Tests, he has scored centuries against every other Test nation, testament to his outstanding quality. With his bludgeoning blade, extraordinary hand-eye co-ordination and ability to attack all forms of bowling, Gilchrist has become one of the most feared batsmen in the history of the game, reducing outstanding bowlers to a state of near-helplessness.
In just his second game, he played one of the most remarkable innings, scoring 149* against a powerful Pakistani attack as Australia recovered from 124-5 to reach their victory target of 369. He has continued in much the same vein ever since, en route to his 17 Test hundreds, with his 204* against South Africa and century against England at Perth (the second fastest in Tests), particularly memorable. Yet it was his 144 in Sri Lanka, when he came in at number three with his side 80 behind in their second innings that provides enduring proof of his skills as a batsman.
As a wicket-keeper, Gilchrist is no Bob Taylor, someone whose keeping was of aesthetic value. Yet he has kept with distinction for 90 Tests, to claim 381 dismissals, just 14 away from Ian Healy’s world record. He is supremely reliable, and very seldom drops chances, while he has also been an instrumental part of Shane Warne’s success. Above all, though, he will be remembered as the consummate counter-attacking number seven.
The side so far: Sutcliffe, Hutton, Bradman, Hammond, Sobers, Imran (captain), Gilchrist (wicket-keeper)
Share your views on the side by leaving a comment below.
Adam Gilchrist has revolutionised cricket, scoring over 5000 Tests runs from number seven, at an average of almost 50; but, equally impressively, these have been scored at a strike-rate of 82, one of the highest in the history of Test cricket. He has been the epitome of Australian dominance, able to turn positions of weakness into great strength within a couple of hours or totally demoralise an opposition already up against it.
Over 90 Tests, he has scored centuries against every other Test nation, testament to his outstanding quality. With his bludgeoning blade, extraordinary hand-eye co-ordination and ability to attack all forms of bowling, Gilchrist has become one of the most feared batsmen in the history of the game, reducing outstanding bowlers to a state of near-helplessness.
In just his second game, he played one of the most remarkable innings, scoring 149* against a powerful Pakistani attack as Australia recovered from 124-5 to reach their victory target of 369. He has continued in much the same vein ever since, en route to his 17 Test hundreds, with his 204* against South Africa and century against England at Perth (the second fastest in Tests), particularly memorable. Yet it was his 144 in Sri Lanka, when he came in at number three with his side 80 behind in their second innings that provides enduring proof of his skills as a batsman.
As a wicket-keeper, Gilchrist is no Bob Taylor, someone whose keeping was of aesthetic value. Yet he has kept with distinction for 90 Tests, to claim 381 dismissals, just 14 away from Ian Healy’s world record. He is supremely reliable, and very seldom drops chances, while he has also been an instrumental part of Shane Warne’s success. Above all, though, he will be remembered as the consummate counter-attacking number seven.
The side so far: Sutcliffe, Hutton, Bradman, Hammond, Sobers, Imran (captain), Gilchrist (wicket-keeper)
Share your views on the side by leaving a comment below.
Monday, 3 September 2007
Greatest Test XI: Imran Khan
To continue our Greatest Test XI of the last century we pick our number six.
For a decade, Imran Khan dominated the Pakistani side to an extraordinary, almost unprecedented, extent. In his last 50 Tests, he averaged an astonishing 52 with the bat and 20 with the ball. Over this decade-long spell, he was perhaps the greatest cricketer in the world, and an inspirational skipper to boot.
The side he skippered are remembered, primarily, for a series of epic conflicts with one of the greatest sides of all time, the West Indies. In a trio of three-game series around the turn of the 1990s, Imran illustrated his supreme worth to Pakistan, and his incredible ability to excel himself when it mattered most; as Rob Smyth put it, “he lorded over these contests like a colossus”. His captaincy in these games was a crucial facet of Pakistan’s success; more important still was his breathtaking feats with the ball. In these nine matches, he took 45 wickets at under 15 against a fearsome batting line-up. The highlight was at Georgetown, when he recorded match figures of 11/121 en route to a spectacular victory.
Unusually for a quick bowler, Imran got better with age, peaking in his mid 30s. His reverse-swinging yorkers were devastating; Imran generated significant pace until late on in his career, and had both consistency and guile. When he made his Test debut, in 1971, he was palpably not Test class; yet developed into one of the most penetrating fast men of his era. And his bowling record is even more remarkable considering the generally docile Pakistani tracks; Imran needed tremendous nous and subtlety to thrive there.
He was a late developer, too, with the bat, but, with his sound technique, developed into the ultimate lower middle-order player, tremendously adaptable and able either to play long, dour knocks – batting five hours for 58* on the last day, to save the game against the West Indies – or taking the initiative; indeed, he averaged a phenomenal 62 at number 6. His value as a batsman was such that, during his peak years, he played even when unable to bowl at all. In this side, his presence means the side can have Sobers as a sixth bowler - so has a bowling attack ideal for virtually all conditions.
Yet, for all that, he is perhaps best remembered as a captain who galvanised Pakistan into a battle-hardened side able to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the phenomenal West Indies side of the ‘80s (and won the 1992 World Cup), inspiring his side through the brilliance of his performances and the strength of his personality. And, as such, he will captain my Greatest Test XI.
The side so far: Sutcliffe, Hutton, Bradman, Hammond, Sobers, Imran (captain)
Share your views on the side by leaving a comment below.
For a decade, Imran Khan dominated the Pakistani side to an extraordinary, almost unprecedented, extent. In his last 50 Tests, he averaged an astonishing 52 with the bat and 20 with the ball. Over this decade-long spell, he was perhaps the greatest cricketer in the world, and an inspirational skipper to boot.
The side he skippered are remembered, primarily, for a series of epic conflicts with one of the greatest sides of all time, the West Indies. In a trio of three-game series around the turn of the 1990s, Imran illustrated his supreme worth to Pakistan, and his incredible ability to excel himself when it mattered most; as Rob Smyth put it, “he lorded over these contests like a colossus”. His captaincy in these games was a crucial facet of Pakistan’s success; more important still was his breathtaking feats with the ball. In these nine matches, he took 45 wickets at under 15 against a fearsome batting line-up. The highlight was at Georgetown, when he recorded match figures of 11/121 en route to a spectacular victory.
Unusually for a quick bowler, Imran got better with age, peaking in his mid 30s. His reverse-swinging yorkers were devastating; Imran generated significant pace until late on in his career, and had both consistency and guile. When he made his Test debut, in 1971, he was palpably not Test class; yet developed into one of the most penetrating fast men of his era. And his bowling record is even more remarkable considering the generally docile Pakistani tracks; Imran needed tremendous nous and subtlety to thrive there.
He was a late developer, too, with the bat, but, with his sound technique, developed into the ultimate lower middle-order player, tremendously adaptable and able either to play long, dour knocks – batting five hours for 58* on the last day, to save the game against the West Indies – or taking the initiative; indeed, he averaged a phenomenal 62 at number 6. His value as a batsman was such that, during his peak years, he played even when unable to bowl at all. In this side, his presence means the side can have Sobers as a sixth bowler - so has a bowling attack ideal for virtually all conditions.
Yet, for all that, he is perhaps best remembered as a captain who galvanised Pakistan into a battle-hardened side able to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the phenomenal West Indies side of the ‘80s (and won the 1992 World Cup), inspiring his side through the brilliance of his performances and the strength of his personality. And, as such, he will captain my Greatest Test XI.
The side so far: Sutcliffe, Hutton, Bradman, Hammond, Sobers, Imran (captain)
Share your views on the side by leaving a comment below.
Saturday, 1 September 2007
Greatest Test XI
To continue our Greatest Test XI of the last century we pick our number five.
Garry Sobers was quite simply a cricketing phenomenon. Along with Graeme Pollock, he was the best batsman of his era; he was a superb fielder; and he was able to claim 235 Test wickets with three different types of bowling. Though his batting was clearly his strongest suit, he would probably have played at least 50 Tests for the West Indies as a bowler alone.
Sobers simply excelled at all aspects of the game; he could play all the shots, though his offside play was particularly memorable; and, much more so than other all-rounders, displayed real discipline with the bat. For instance, it would be unthinkable for Botham, Miller or Dev to have had the temperament to reach 365* in a Test; but that Sobers did, against Pakistan. In all, Sobers scored 26 Test hundreds, testament to his magisterial batting, but arguably his best knock was 254 for the Rest of the World against Australia. Uniquely, he scored at least one Test hundred everywhere from opening to number seven. When circumstances dictate, however, he was as destructive as anyone, as his sensational six sixes (for Notts against Glamorgan) in an over illustrates.
His bowling (which struggled initially in Test cricket) was almost equally impressive, and he claimed over 1000 first-class victims in all. To be able to get Test wickets with three distinct types of bowling – brisk fast-medium (he often opened the bowling), left-arm orthodox and wrist spin is perhaps unique in cricketing history and illustrates the multifarious nature of Sobers’ cricketing gifts.
Sobers would probably have made the final XI as a batsman alone; add in his brilliant fielding and incredibly versatile bowling, and he has a strong case for being the finest Test cricketer of them all.
The side so far: Sutcliffe, Hutton, Bradman, Hammond, Sobers
Share your views on the side by leaving a comment below.
Garry Sobers was quite simply a cricketing phenomenon. Along with Graeme Pollock, he was the best batsman of his era; he was a superb fielder; and he was able to claim 235 Test wickets with three different types of bowling. Though his batting was clearly his strongest suit, he would probably have played at least 50 Tests for the West Indies as a bowler alone.
Sobers simply excelled at all aspects of the game; he could play all the shots, though his offside play was particularly memorable; and, much more so than other all-rounders, displayed real discipline with the bat. For instance, it would be unthinkable for Botham, Miller or Dev to have had the temperament to reach 365* in a Test; but that Sobers did, against Pakistan. In all, Sobers scored 26 Test hundreds, testament to his magisterial batting, but arguably his best knock was 254 for the Rest of the World against Australia. Uniquely, he scored at least one Test hundred everywhere from opening to number seven. When circumstances dictate, however, he was as destructive as anyone, as his sensational six sixes (for Notts against Glamorgan) in an over illustrates.
His bowling (which struggled initially in Test cricket) was almost equally impressive, and he claimed over 1000 first-class victims in all. To be able to get Test wickets with three distinct types of bowling – brisk fast-medium (he often opened the bowling), left-arm orthodox and wrist spin is perhaps unique in cricketing history and illustrates the multifarious nature of Sobers’ cricketing gifts.
Sobers would probably have made the final XI as a batsman alone; add in his brilliant fielding and incredibly versatile bowling, and he has a strong case for being the finest Test cricketer of them all.
The side so far: Sutcliffe, Hutton, Bradman, Hammond, Sobers
Share your views on the side by leaving a comment below.
Thursday, 30 August 2007
Greatest Test XI
To continue our Greatest Test XI of the last century we pick our number four.
Wally Hammond came to epitomise the ideal of elegant English batsmanship. Had it not been for Bradman, he would now be recognised as the finest middle-order player Test cricket has ever known, possessing supreme talent and aesthetic value, particularly in his cover-drive.
Physically, Hammond was a powerful and imposing sight; this, aided by his masterful timing, meant he could reach the boundary with apparent minimal effort, as he did during his incredible five hour 336* against New Zealand in 1933. His athleticism was such that he was amongst the finest slip fielders of all time; and as a quick bowler, he claimed 732 first-class wickets and could be devastating when conditions offered help. In truth though, he did not maximise his bowling potential because of the importance to the side of his batting.
In 77 Tests until 1940, Hammond averaged 61, with 22 hundreds, numbers that are testament to his quality. He temperament was such that he was exceptional at converting starts, making almost as many centuries as fifties in both his Test and first-class career and an astonishing 36 first-class double hundreds (second only to Bradman, who has 37). Though well capable of accelerating, he was happy to eschew risk and build marathon innings.
Of course, he had an excellent technique; but he also had the rare ability to adapt his game it to different conditions. On his first tour to Australia, in 1928/29, for instance, Hammond decided he would be best served scoring primarily in the ‘V’; and was stunningly vindicated with 905 runs at 113, still the second highest series run aggregate in the history of the game.
Hammond’s Wisden obituary referred to an ‘almost Olympian aloofness’, and he was a famously moody character. Yet nothing can detract from a man whose range of cricketing gifts make him perhaps England’s finest ever player.
The side so far: Sutcliffe, Hutton, Bradman, Hammond
Share your views on Hammond and the side by leaving a comment below.
Wally Hammond came to epitomise the ideal of elegant English batsmanship. Had it not been for Bradman, he would now be recognised as the finest middle-order player Test cricket has ever known, possessing supreme talent and aesthetic value, particularly in his cover-drive.
Physically, Hammond was a powerful and imposing sight; this, aided by his masterful timing, meant he could reach the boundary with apparent minimal effort, as he did during his incredible five hour 336* against New Zealand in 1933. His athleticism was such that he was amongst the finest slip fielders of all time; and as a quick bowler, he claimed 732 first-class wickets and could be devastating when conditions offered help. In truth though, he did not maximise his bowling potential because of the importance to the side of his batting.
In 77 Tests until 1940, Hammond averaged 61, with 22 hundreds, numbers that are testament to his quality. He temperament was such that he was exceptional at converting starts, making almost as many centuries as fifties in both his Test and first-class career and an astonishing 36 first-class double hundreds (second only to Bradman, who has 37). Though well capable of accelerating, he was happy to eschew risk and build marathon innings.
Of course, he had an excellent technique; but he also had the rare ability to adapt his game it to different conditions. On his first tour to Australia, in 1928/29, for instance, Hammond decided he would be best served scoring primarily in the ‘V’; and was stunningly vindicated with 905 runs at 113, still the second highest series run aggregate in the history of the game.
Hammond’s Wisden obituary referred to an ‘almost Olympian aloofness’, and he was a famously moody character. Yet nothing can detract from a man whose range of cricketing gifts make him perhaps England’s finest ever player.
The side so far: Sutcliffe, Hutton, Bradman, Hammond
Share your views on Hammond and the side by leaving a comment below.
Tuesday, 28 August 2007
Greatest Test XI
To continue our Greatest Test XI of the last century, we reveal our number three.
The statistician Charles Davis recently compared the legends of all major sports. Pele came second on 3.7, but Bradman, on 4.4, was way clear of the field. He averages more than half as much again as any other Test batsman who has played at least 20 innings; indeed, the difference (39 runs per innings) alone is more than many good Test players managed.
The legend of Bradman is well known amongst cricketing enthusiasts; the ‘boy from the bush’ who practised by hitting a cricket ball with a solitary stump and emerged as an Australian icon when the country was in the midst of the Depression. Yet, because his numbers defied all belief, it has been his fate that they have come to characterise him, in a way they do not with other legends of the game.
In fact, besides the numbers, Bradman is best remembered for his part in the Bodyline series, partly because it was such a surprise he went from unbelievable to merely outstanding, averaging 56 as his side fell to a 4-1 defeat. When Bradman batted for Australia, runs – and records – were a big story; but, for their rarity, failures, were even more of one. So, ironically, his most famous innings is his duck in his final Test; not any number of gargantuan ones prior to that, including 334 for Australia, 452* for New South Wales or several epics in Australia’s 3-2 Ashes triumph of 1936/37, coming back from 2-0 down.
He simply never tired of batting, recording 29 hundreds in just 80 innings; equally impressively, 16 of these were over 150. Of course, the numbers can never tell the story of his remarkable balance at the crease, his complete mastery of the art of batting, or his insatiable desire for runs and meticulousness in all he did. But a mere glance at them reveals what a batting giant he was. As the best batsman in the side he will, naturally, take his place at number three.
The side so far: Sutcliffe, Hutton, Bradman
Share your views on the side by leaving a comment below.
The statistician Charles Davis recently compared the legends of all major sports. Pele came second on 3.7, but Bradman, on 4.4, was way clear of the field. He averages more than half as much again as any other Test batsman who has played at least 20 innings; indeed, the difference (39 runs per innings) alone is more than many good Test players managed.
The legend of Bradman is well known amongst cricketing enthusiasts; the ‘boy from the bush’ who practised by hitting a cricket ball with a solitary stump and emerged as an Australian icon when the country was in the midst of the Depression. Yet, because his numbers defied all belief, it has been his fate that they have come to characterise him, in a way they do not with other legends of the game.
In fact, besides the numbers, Bradman is best remembered for his part in the Bodyline series, partly because it was such a surprise he went from unbelievable to merely outstanding, averaging 56 as his side fell to a 4-1 defeat. When Bradman batted for Australia, runs – and records – were a big story; but, for their rarity, failures, were even more of one. So, ironically, his most famous innings is his duck in his final Test; not any number of gargantuan ones prior to that, including 334 for Australia, 452* for New South Wales or several epics in Australia’s 3-2 Ashes triumph of 1936/37, coming back from 2-0 down.
He simply never tired of batting, recording 29 hundreds in just 80 innings; equally impressively, 16 of these were over 150. Of course, the numbers can never tell the story of his remarkable balance at the crease, his complete mastery of the art of batting, or his insatiable desire for runs and meticulousness in all he did. But a mere glance at them reveals what a batting giant he was. As the best batsman in the side he will, naturally, take his place at number three.
The side so far: Sutcliffe, Hutton, Bradman
Share your views on the side by leaving a comment below.
Sunday, 26 August 2007
Greatest Test XI
The competition amongst the openers to feature in this notional side was immensely tough; so tough that I have decided to leave out one of Wisden’s Five Cricketers of The Century. Sir Jack Hobbs is, of course, incredibly unfortunate not to have been selected, and his non-selection perhaps rather arbitrary. However, for all he has been eulogized, a large part of this was due to the manner in which he came to personify a golden age of cricket. Despite Hobbs' phenomenal tally of 197 first-class centuries, and the style in which he made them, I have opted to select Herbert Sutcliffe – perhaps the opener one would most like to have bat for one's life – and the brilliant Sir Len Hutton.
The circumstances of Hutton’s career are remarkable. Like Hobbs's, his career was fragmented by a World War, to which he lost many of the best years of his career – from 23 (just after his then world-record 364) to 30. Yet the raw facts of his career, without taking this into account, are still astonishing. He averaged 62 over his first 70 Tests, playing in a manner that combined the elegance and aesthetic appeal of Denis Compton with the levels of concentration and technical faultlessness of Sutcliffe.
Above all, Hutton had complete mastery of he art of batting, and a temperament able to adapt to his side’s needs; he was adept at both eschewing risk and seizing the initiative, depending on his side’s needs. Crowds were wowed with the sheer elegance of his batting; but, Hutton often lifted himself in adversity. His dexterity against spin was illustrated by an outstanding 202*, out of 344, against the West Indians Ramadhin and Valentine; and the Ashes series of ‘50/51, when England fell to a 4-1 defeat against Miller, Lindwall et al, but he averaged 88, was testament to his quality in the trickiest circumstances. To top it all of, Hutton was a superb captain, of immense value to the side even when his batting declined, as when he regained the Ashes in ‘54/55.
Bill O’Reilly, writing on Len Hutton in 1950, encapsulated his virtues: “His footwork is as light and sure and confident as Bradman's ever was…He is the finished player now…his control of the game is masterful”.
Am I wrong to leave out the legendary Hobbs and Sunil Gavaskar, who was so outstanding against the West Indies? Or have I, perhaps, made the best of an impossible situation? Share your views by leaving a comment below.
The circumstances of Hutton’s career are remarkable. Like Hobbs's, his career was fragmented by a World War, to which he lost many of the best years of his career – from 23 (just after his then world-record 364) to 30. Yet the raw facts of his career, without taking this into account, are still astonishing. He averaged 62 over his first 70 Tests, playing in a manner that combined the elegance and aesthetic appeal of Denis Compton with the levels of concentration and technical faultlessness of Sutcliffe.
Above all, Hutton had complete mastery of he art of batting, and a temperament able to adapt to his side’s needs; he was adept at both eschewing risk and seizing the initiative, depending on his side’s needs. Crowds were wowed with the sheer elegance of his batting; but, Hutton often lifted himself in adversity. His dexterity against spin was illustrated by an outstanding 202*, out of 344, against the West Indians Ramadhin and Valentine; and the Ashes series of ‘50/51, when England fell to a 4-1 defeat against Miller, Lindwall et al, but he averaged 88, was testament to his quality in the trickiest circumstances. To top it all of, Hutton was a superb captain, of immense value to the side even when his batting declined, as when he regained the Ashes in ‘54/55.
Bill O’Reilly, writing on Len Hutton in 1950, encapsulated his virtues: “His footwork is as light and sure and confident as Bradman's ever was…He is the finished player now…his control of the game is masterful”.
Am I wrong to leave out the legendary Hobbs and Sunil Gavaskar, who was so outstanding against the West Indies? Or have I, perhaps, made the best of an impossible situation? Share your views by leaving a comment below.
Friday, 24 August 2007
Greatest Test XI
It is finally time to reveal our Greatest Test XI. We will be revealing - and explaining - our selections over the coming weeks, beginning with the side's first opener.
Splitting the four openers in the final shortlist was a near impossible task – each had an outstanding case for selection; but none were irrefutably worthy of it.
However, based on my criteria – exceptional performances “over an extended period of time” – it would be wrong to ignore the claims of Herbert Sutcliffe, who averaged 70 over his first 40 Tests. His first claim to fame was forming one half of the finest opening partnership in the history of the game, along with Jack Hobbs – in 38 innings, they averaged an astonishing 88 together; they are to the rest what Don Bradman is to every other Test batsman. But the junior partner soon established himself as a phenomenon in his own right.
Sutcliffe’s greatness was not as palpable as that of his opening partner, but his technique and levels of concentration were simply astounding. He was courageous, single-minded and mentally resolute in the archetypal Yorkshire mode, but could never be accused of selfishness; rather, Sutcliffe excelled himself when the side most needed him.
His success in the most testing conditions, such as his brilliant 135 to lead England’s chase of 332 at Melbourne in 1928/29, was testament to his mental and technical fortitude and ability against both pace and spin. But, clearly, a wide range of shots are needed to score Sutcliffe’s sheer volume of runs; when team needs dictated, he was an expansive player, and, on a turning wicket, once hit 10 6s in an innings of 113. He was, without doubt, a less obtrusive run-gatherer than Hobbs. Yet, in terms of his value to the side, especially in the trickiest circumstances, Sutcliffe was at least his equal; his Ashes deeds, including six centuries in Australia, were breathtaking. As so often, Wisden put it best, describing him as “the artist of the dead bat”.
What are your thoughts on Sutcliffe's selection? Share your views by leaving a comment below.
Splitting the four openers in the final shortlist was a near impossible task – each had an outstanding case for selection; but none were irrefutably worthy of it.
However, based on my criteria – exceptional performances “over an extended period of time” – it would be wrong to ignore the claims of Herbert Sutcliffe, who averaged 70 over his first 40 Tests. His first claim to fame was forming one half of the finest opening partnership in the history of the game, along with Jack Hobbs – in 38 innings, they averaged an astonishing 88 together; they are to the rest what Don Bradman is to every other Test batsman. But the junior partner soon established himself as a phenomenon in his own right.
Sutcliffe’s greatness was not as palpable as that of his opening partner, but his technique and levels of concentration were simply astounding. He was courageous, single-minded and mentally resolute in the archetypal Yorkshire mode, but could never be accused of selfishness; rather, Sutcliffe excelled himself when the side most needed him.
His success in the most testing conditions, such as his brilliant 135 to lead England’s chase of 332 at Melbourne in 1928/29, was testament to his mental and technical fortitude and ability against both pace and spin. But, clearly, a wide range of shots are needed to score Sutcliffe’s sheer volume of runs; when team needs dictated, he was an expansive player, and, on a turning wicket, once hit 10 6s in an innings of 113. He was, without doubt, a less obtrusive run-gatherer than Hobbs. Yet, in terms of his value to the side, especially in the trickiest circumstances, Sutcliffe was at least his equal; his Ashes deeds, including six centuries in Australia, were breathtaking. As so often, Wisden put it best, describing him as “the artist of the dead bat”.
What are your thoughts on Sutcliffe's selection? Share your views by leaving a comment below.
Monday, 20 August 2007
Greatest Test XI
With the final selection coming ever nearer, I thought it a good idea to clarify the rules of the exercise. Firstly, to be eligible for my side (and shortlist), all candidates must have played a minimum of 20 Tests so there is substantial evidence of a player's durability in Tests, rather than conjecture based on excellence in first-class cricket. Secondly, the title is perhaps a little deceptive: it is the greatest XI of the last hundred years, so all players must have made their debuts in 1908 or later, and are judged on performances up to and until the present day.
Candidates are selected on their performances over an extended period of time but certain players' statistics were damaged by poor performances at the beginning or end of their careers, and this must be taken into account. We should assume players operate at their 'peak' - but this must have been not merely a series or two but a significant duration of their careers.
Statistics are obviously hugely significant, but not overly so - there will be no hesitation in selecting, say, a batsman with a lower average than someone else on the list not included. Particularly important is how players fared during the toughest challenges of their Test careers - it is for this reason that Sir Ian Botham, although he averaged 38 with the bat and 23 with the ball during his first 54 Tests, has been omitted: he was consistently poor against the best side of his era, the West Indies, averaging 15 and 31 during this time span and 21 and 35 overall.
The final XI will be a balanced side with the tools to thrive in all conditions so, for instance, the side would not include four swing bowlers even if they were the best four quicks of all time. This notional side will play on an unknown wicket - which means players must have proved themselves in a variety of conditions and, ultimately, those who did best in the trickiest conditions they faced will be in a better position to be selected.
In the meantime, do take a look at my pieces analysing the 28-man shortlist and check out the XIs of Times cricket writer Patrick Kidd and fellow contributor Nick Gammons.
If anyone else wishes to contribute to the debate, with an XI or a particular area of analysis, please email cricketingworld(at)hotmail.com. We will be selecting our Greatest Test XI very shortly.
Candidates are selected on their performances over an extended period of time but certain players' statistics were damaged by poor performances at the beginning or end of their careers, and this must be taken into account. We should assume players operate at their 'peak' - but this must have been not merely a series or two but a significant duration of their careers.
Statistics are obviously hugely significant, but not overly so - there will be no hesitation in selecting, say, a batsman with a lower average than someone else on the list not included. Particularly important is how players fared during the toughest challenges of their Test careers - it is for this reason that Sir Ian Botham, although he averaged 38 with the bat and 23 with the ball during his first 54 Tests, has been omitted: he was consistently poor against the best side of his era, the West Indies, averaging 15 and 31 during this time span and 21 and 35 overall.
The final XI will be a balanced side with the tools to thrive in all conditions so, for instance, the side would not include four swing bowlers even if they were the best four quicks of all time. This notional side will play on an unknown wicket - which means players must have proved themselves in a variety of conditions and, ultimately, those who did best in the trickiest conditions they faced will be in a better position to be selected.
In the meantime, do take a look at my pieces analysing the 28-man shortlist and check out the XIs of Times cricket writer Patrick Kidd and fellow contributor Nick Gammons.
If anyone else wishes to contribute to the debate, with an XI or a particular area of analysis, please email cricketingworld(at)hotmail.com. We will be selecting our Greatest Test XI very shortly.
Tuesday, 14 August 2007
Greatest Test XI
Following Tim's rules and list this would be my greatest Test XI, with brief reasons for each selection:
Hobbs - perhaps the greatest batsman of all-time. Played equally well on all surfaces, displaying superb technique and elegance. Acknowledged as the player who took the baton from WG Grace and raised batting skill to the next level.
Gavaskar - a genius of the modern era, who set astonishing records for Test runs and centuries. His patience and bravery ensured that he was the only batsman to tame the fearsome West Indies pace attack of the late 70s and 80s.
Bradman - a colossus, whose sheer volume of runs almost defies belief. On good batting wickets he simply could not be gotten out. On poorer surfaces bowlers had a chance, but only a slim one. Even in the current batsman's era his average remains way out of reach.
Hammond - as fine a player as England have ever produced. Batted with natural power, elegance and intelligence, scoring runs both at home and on numerous tours. He was also an excellent bowler and one of the finest slip fielders cricket has produced.
Sobers - an awesome talent, who could do it all - bat, bowl fast, bowl slow, field brilliantly and captain with intelligence and cunning. Without doubt the greatest allrounder to play the game and for a long time the proud holder of the record for the highest Test score.
Imran Khan - at his peak he would have been selected as either a batsman or a bowler, though for much of his career he was a bowling allrounder. In addition to his great fast bowling and elegant batting he was an exellent captain, who held the mighty West Indies at bay in the 80s.
Gilchrist - capable of taking the game away from the opposition with his ferocious batting, he also learned to be a very capable wicketkeeper, equally adept to McGrath and Warne. Like all the greats he raised his game several levels when his team needed him most.
Hadlee - one of the most accurate and devastating bowlers Test cricket has ever seen. Taking an astonishing 5 wickets a match throughout his career, he carried his country on his back. Despite the pressure of leading the bowling attack he also batted extremely well.
Marshall - the greatest fast bowler ever to take the field. Could extract pace and bounce from any surface, swing the ball both ways and developed a devastating leg cutter. Add this to his work ethic and ferocious attitude and you have the perfect fast bowler.
Muralitharan - the best spinner (perhaps bowler full stop) of all-time, having claimed an astonishing 60 five wicket hauls and 20 ten wicket hauls. Could extract turn on glass, as well as exerting astonishing control, and his devastating variety makes him one of the hardest bowlers to read. Simply a wicket taking machine (with a smile).
McGrath - the ultimate model of consistency and accuracy, allied to a mean streak on the field that saw him single out batsmen, who he invariably terrorised throughout a series. The only pace bowler to dominate batsmen in the batting friendly 2000s, retiring with a massive haul of test wickets.
Hobbs - perhaps the greatest batsman of all-time. Played equally well on all surfaces, displaying superb technique and elegance. Acknowledged as the player who took the baton from WG Grace and raised batting skill to the next level.
Gavaskar - a genius of the modern era, who set astonishing records for Test runs and centuries. His patience and bravery ensured that he was the only batsman to tame the fearsome West Indies pace attack of the late 70s and 80s.
Bradman - a colossus, whose sheer volume of runs almost defies belief. On good batting wickets he simply could not be gotten out. On poorer surfaces bowlers had a chance, but only a slim one. Even in the current batsman's era his average remains way out of reach.
Hammond - as fine a player as England have ever produced. Batted with natural power, elegance and intelligence, scoring runs both at home and on numerous tours. He was also an excellent bowler and one of the finest slip fielders cricket has produced.
Sobers - an awesome talent, who could do it all - bat, bowl fast, bowl slow, field brilliantly and captain with intelligence and cunning. Without doubt the greatest allrounder to play the game and for a long time the proud holder of the record for the highest Test score.
Imran Khan - at his peak he would have been selected as either a batsman or a bowler, though for much of his career he was a bowling allrounder. In addition to his great fast bowling and elegant batting he was an exellent captain, who held the mighty West Indies at bay in the 80s.
Gilchrist - capable of taking the game away from the opposition with his ferocious batting, he also learned to be a very capable wicketkeeper, equally adept to McGrath and Warne. Like all the greats he raised his game several levels when his team needed him most.
Hadlee - one of the most accurate and devastating bowlers Test cricket has ever seen. Taking an astonishing 5 wickets a match throughout his career, he carried his country on his back. Despite the pressure of leading the bowling attack he also batted extremely well.
Marshall - the greatest fast bowler ever to take the field. Could extract pace and bounce from any surface, swing the ball both ways and developed a devastating leg cutter. Add this to his work ethic and ferocious attitude and you have the perfect fast bowler.
Muralitharan - the best spinner (perhaps bowler full stop) of all-time, having claimed an astonishing 60 five wicket hauls and 20 ten wicket hauls. Could extract turn on glass, as well as exerting astonishing control, and his devastating variety makes him one of the hardest bowlers to read. Simply a wicket taking machine (with a smile).
McGrath - the ultimate model of consistency and accuracy, allied to a mean streak on the field that saw him single out batsmen, who he invariably terrorised throughout a series. The only pace bowler to dominate batsmen in the batting friendly 2000s, retiring with a massive haul of test wickets.
Saturday, 11 August 2007
Patrick Kidd's XI
Patrick Kidd (of The Times and the excellent Line and Length cricket blog) has very kindly sent me his Greatest Test XI from the last century.
Openers: Hobbs & Sutcliffe - it is too tempting to keep cricket's greatest opening partnership together. Hobbs is one of Wisden's five cricketers of the century and seems to have been both loved and admired (not always characteristics seen in the same person - see Bradman). His longevity and appetite for hundreds (even though he often got out soon after the landmark) are admirable. That Sutcliffe averaged 70 after 40 Tests is astonishing even by today's batsman-friendly standards. Only Ricky Ponting has had such a long, golden run of form.
Middle order: Bradman is a no-brainer but I wonder how many people stop to contemplate his full record before putting him down. It is not just the monstrous average, a snick short of perfection, but the size of the hundreds he scored that enabled him to build that average. He hit 29 hundreds in 80 innings, an astonishing conversion rate, but if most of those had been between 100-150, his average would have been nowhere near 100. Ten of his hundreds were double-hundreds (one was 299) and two were triples; another six were above 150. When he batted well, he batted big. Consider this, too: that when he failed, Australia failed (in 12 matches they lost while he was in the team, his average dips to a human 43; in the eight series that Australia lost, he averaged only 62). Or that he scored almost 2000 runs after the second world war - having made his Test debut in 1928.
Hammond had the misfortune to play at the same time as the greatest batsman in history. Playing for the same county as WG Grace, he outshone the godfather of cricket, averaging 58 in Tests and 56 in first-class matches, including making 1000 runs before the end of May. He was another one who scored big hundreds - 10 of his 22 Test hundreds were over 150 and he had as many fifties as hundreds.
Viv Richards gets in because of the way he could destroy attacks, sadly too often England's, while "Garry Sobers" is the ultimate Mr Versatile, able to bowl brilliantly at different speeds, yet have a batting average in the fifties.
Wicketkeeper: Gilchrist gets in because he isn't Les Ames, the other option on your list, but would probably make it whatever the shortlist. His keeping is fine without being faultless, and his batting is invaluable at No 7. Very few wicketkeeper-batsmen get close to averaging 50 (Flower and Sangakkara the exceptions).
Spinner: That Warne took 195 wickets against England alone makes it difficult for anyone to ignore him. Still setting records, with 96 victims, in his 35th year and retired after his spinning won back the Ashes. India was the only place he didn't conquer. Wins the team spot for being a totem for Australia during their most invincible period, but Muttiah Muralitharan is closing up on him in both tally and prestige (and had 90 wickets last year) and if you ask again in a year's time, he may get the nod.
Fast bowlers: Marshall, Ambrose and McGrath each were the leading quick bowler in a world-dominating side. Just when Marshall started to fade and battered batsman started to breathe a little more easily, along came the taller, faster, more scary Ambrose to put the wind up them. McGrath wasn't all that fast, but his metronomic accuracy frustrated wickets out of every side.
Patrick's XI: Sutcliffe, Hobbs, Bradman, Hammond, Richards, Sobers, Gilchrist, Marshall, Warne, Ambrose, McGrath
So that's my XI from your list, but here is who I would really want to watch (from players not on your list):
Gooch, Slater, Dravid, Compton, Jardine, Flintoff (at his peak), Knott, Dev, Benaud, Thomson, Tyson ('54 version only)
If anyone else wishes to contribute to the debate, with an XI or a particular area of analysis, please email cricketingworld(at)hotmail.com. We will be selecting our Greatest Test XI around the end of the month.
Openers: Hobbs & Sutcliffe - it is too tempting to keep cricket's greatest opening partnership together. Hobbs is one of Wisden's five cricketers of the century and seems to have been both loved and admired (not always characteristics seen in the same person - see Bradman). His longevity and appetite for hundreds (even though he often got out soon after the landmark) are admirable. That Sutcliffe averaged 70 after 40 Tests is astonishing even by today's batsman-friendly standards. Only Ricky Ponting has had such a long, golden run of form.
Middle order: Bradman is a no-brainer but I wonder how many people stop to contemplate his full record before putting him down. It is not just the monstrous average, a snick short of perfection, but the size of the hundreds he scored that enabled him to build that average. He hit 29 hundreds in 80 innings, an astonishing conversion rate, but if most of those had been between 100-150, his average would have been nowhere near 100. Ten of his hundreds were double-hundreds (one was 299) and two were triples; another six were above 150. When he batted well, he batted big. Consider this, too: that when he failed, Australia failed (in 12 matches they lost while he was in the team, his average dips to a human 43; in the eight series that Australia lost, he averaged only 62). Or that he scored almost 2000 runs after the second world war - having made his Test debut in 1928.
Hammond had the misfortune to play at the same time as the greatest batsman in history. Playing for the same county as WG Grace, he outshone the godfather of cricket, averaging 58 in Tests and 56 in first-class matches, including making 1000 runs before the end of May. He was another one who scored big hundreds - 10 of his 22 Test hundreds were over 150 and he had as many fifties as hundreds.
Viv Richards gets in because of the way he could destroy attacks, sadly too often England's, while "Garry Sobers" is the ultimate Mr Versatile, able to bowl brilliantly at different speeds, yet have a batting average in the fifties.
Wicketkeeper: Gilchrist gets in because he isn't Les Ames, the other option on your list, but would probably make it whatever the shortlist. His keeping is fine without being faultless, and his batting is invaluable at No 7. Very few wicketkeeper-batsmen get close to averaging 50 (Flower and Sangakkara the exceptions).
Spinner: That Warne took 195 wickets against England alone makes it difficult for anyone to ignore him. Still setting records, with 96 victims, in his 35th year and retired after his spinning won back the Ashes. India was the only place he didn't conquer. Wins the team spot for being a totem for Australia during their most invincible period, but Muttiah Muralitharan is closing up on him in both tally and prestige (and had 90 wickets last year) and if you ask again in a year's time, he may get the nod.
Fast bowlers: Marshall, Ambrose and McGrath each were the leading quick bowler in a world-dominating side. Just when Marshall started to fade and battered batsman started to breathe a little more easily, along came the taller, faster, more scary Ambrose to put the wind up them. McGrath wasn't all that fast, but his metronomic accuracy frustrated wickets out of every side.
Patrick's XI: Sutcliffe, Hobbs, Bradman, Hammond, Richards, Sobers, Gilchrist, Marshall, Warne, Ambrose, McGrath
So that's my XI from your list, but here is who I would really want to watch (from players not on your list):
Gooch, Slater, Dravid, Compton, Jardine, Flintoff (at his peak), Knott, Dev, Benaud, Thomson, Tyson ('54 version only)
If anyone else wishes to contribute to the debate, with an XI or a particular area of analysis, please email cricketingworld(at)hotmail.com. We will be selecting our Greatest Test XI around the end of the month.
Thursday, 9 August 2007
The Fast Men
The selection of the fast bowlers is arguably the hardest aspect of this list, with a multitude of candidates having a very strong case. It is obviously also important to pick a balanced attack, capable of thriving in all conditions.
West Indies is regarded as the spiritual home of the fast bowler, but only two men made the final shortlist. Malcolm Marshall was their finest quick during their 1980s heyday, seriously rapid, hostile and extremely consistent. Yet he was also a canny bowler, with the ability to swing the ball both ways and, later in his career, the purveyor of a fine legcutter. It speaks volumes that his impressive average of 22.5 against Australia was actually his highest against the five nations he played against. Against England he was invariably at his very best against, memorably claiming 7/22 at Old Trafford in 1988, on a wicket prepared for spin.
Curtley Ambrose’s career average is almost identical to that of Marshall. Ambrose arguably had the greatest propensity for cricketing annihilation of any quick in this list, as he illustrated in his incredible spell of 7/1 at Perth, and in bowling England out for 46 at Port-of-Spain. When a pitch offered pace and bounce, his relentless accuracy, speed and 6ft7in frame made him almost unplayable. Yet he was outstanding in all conditions, able to extract huge seam movement in England, doing very well in six Tests in Asia and excelling himself against the best side he faced, averaging just 21 against Australia.
Fred Trueman was a ferocious quick, indefatigable and outstanding during the 13 years between 1952 and 1965. He had an extraordinary capacity to bowl – Trueman was never one for ‘resting’, and notched up an astounding 99,701 first-class deliveries – and this, aided by his movement, controlled aggression and mental strength, made him the first ever man to reach 300 Test wickets. But for numerous off-field clashes, beginning in the Caribbean in 1953-4, he may well have reached 400. Regardless, his record is testament to his status as a fast-bowling giant able to worry batsmen in all conditions, though he dipped slightly from brilliant to merely very good away from home.
Of all the fast bowlers in this list, none were more significant to their sides than Richard Hadlee, who played for New Zealand for 17 years, claiming 431 Test wickets with the most economical of actions. A tearaway in his youth, he soon developed cricketing know-how; he was unerringly accurate, almost invariably able to extract bounce and movement, and, like contemporary Imran Khan, only improved with age. Like all true greats, he lifted himself when it mattered most, faring brilliantly against the West Indies and especially Australia, against whom he claimed 9/52 at Brisbane in 1985 – and 33 wickets in the three-game series; and he was adaptable enough to thrive in India (though not in Pakistan). Hadlee was also an extremely useful batsman (average 27) who could easily bat at eight in the Greatest Test XI.
There are four Australians in this list. The most recent of them is Glenn McGrath, whose bowling bore considerable resemblance to that of Hadlee. The Australian was extraordinarily tough mentally and made a point of publicly ‘targeting’ a key opposition player. These batsmen very seldom won their duels with McGrath. His trademark was bowling just back-of-a-length outside off-stump, generating bounce and nip – and proving a match-winner in all conditions. He did worst against South Africa – though he still averaged just 27 – and illustrated his adaptability and sheer quality by averaging just 19 in India.
Dennis Lillee was regarded by many as the consummate fast bowler; he was a combination of raw pace and subtlety, and had a tremendous heart to boot. This helped him come back from what appeared a career-threatening injury to become the highest Test wicket-taker of all time at the time of his retirement. He will be remembered for forming one half of the ‘Lillian-Thompson’ partnership – one of the most feared in the history of the game – and, in particular, for a series of outstanding Ashes performances. However, his best match may have been an extraordinary 7/83 against the West Indies, fired on by a fiercely patriotic home crowd. In four Tests in Asia, though, he averaged 68.
Ray Lindwall, with his pace and late swing, was the outstanding bowler of his generation and a pivotal member of the 1948 ‘Invincibles’. His low arm leant his bowling a skidding effect, which made his bouncers – sparingly used, but very threatening – all the more effective; he also possessed a fine slower ball and developed the ability to swing the ball both ways. Lindwall’s bowling gave great aesthetic pleasure; and he was able to excel himself when it mattered most, having two superb tours of England. He perhaps played on too long, until the age of 38; in his first 44 Tests, though, he averaged just 21. Lindwall was also a buccaneering lower-order batsman good enough to hit two Test hundreds.
Alan Davidson played for much of his career with Lindwall; he was a high class left-armer who could be lethal with both the new and old ball. His strike-rate is the highest of all the fast bowlers in this list, but his control was such that he had a remarkably frugal economy rate of just 1.97. Though he took a few Tests to find his niche, in his last 34 games Davidson was colossal, averaging 19 with the ball and 26 with his free-spirited hitting. Unlike Lindwall, he excelled in Asia, too; but, above all, he will be remembered for his fantastic performances in the epic 1960/61 series against the West Indies.
NB: Imran Khan, who may well have featured here, was assessed as an all-rounder.
Links:
McGrath statistical analysis (Including Best overseas fast bowlers in Tests in the subcontinent since 1980)
Full set of Greatest Test XI pieces
We would welcome any pieces from readers (please email cricketingworld(at)hotmail.com) making a case for the selection of a particular player, or to provide any kind of additional analysis. We would also be happy to post XIs (with justification); we will post that of Patrick Kidd, from the Times, in a few days. The final side will be picked in a few weeks.
West Indies is regarded as the spiritual home of the fast bowler, but only two men made the final shortlist. Malcolm Marshall was their finest quick during their 1980s heyday, seriously rapid, hostile and extremely consistent. Yet he was also a canny bowler, with the ability to swing the ball both ways and, later in his career, the purveyor of a fine legcutter. It speaks volumes that his impressive average of 22.5 against Australia was actually his highest against the five nations he played against. Against England he was invariably at his very best against, memorably claiming 7/22 at Old Trafford in 1988, on a wicket prepared for spin.
Curtley Ambrose’s career average is almost identical to that of Marshall. Ambrose arguably had the greatest propensity for cricketing annihilation of any quick in this list, as he illustrated in his incredible spell of 7/1 at Perth, and in bowling England out for 46 at Port-of-Spain. When a pitch offered pace and bounce, his relentless accuracy, speed and 6ft7in frame made him almost unplayable. Yet he was outstanding in all conditions, able to extract huge seam movement in England, doing very well in six Tests in Asia and excelling himself against the best side he faced, averaging just 21 against Australia.
Fred Trueman was a ferocious quick, indefatigable and outstanding during the 13 years between 1952 and 1965. He had an extraordinary capacity to bowl – Trueman was never one for ‘resting’, and notched up an astounding 99,701 first-class deliveries – and this, aided by his movement, controlled aggression and mental strength, made him the first ever man to reach 300 Test wickets. But for numerous off-field clashes, beginning in the Caribbean in 1953-4, he may well have reached 400. Regardless, his record is testament to his status as a fast-bowling giant able to worry batsmen in all conditions, though he dipped slightly from brilliant to merely very good away from home.
Of all the fast bowlers in this list, none were more significant to their sides than Richard Hadlee, who played for New Zealand for 17 years, claiming 431 Test wickets with the most economical of actions. A tearaway in his youth, he soon developed cricketing know-how; he was unerringly accurate, almost invariably able to extract bounce and movement, and, like contemporary Imran Khan, only improved with age. Like all true greats, he lifted himself when it mattered most, faring brilliantly against the West Indies and especially Australia, against whom he claimed 9/52 at Brisbane in 1985 – and 33 wickets in the three-game series; and he was adaptable enough to thrive in India (though not in Pakistan). Hadlee was also an extremely useful batsman (average 27) who could easily bat at eight in the Greatest Test XI.
There are four Australians in this list. The most recent of them is Glenn McGrath, whose bowling bore considerable resemblance to that of Hadlee. The Australian was extraordinarily tough mentally and made a point of publicly ‘targeting’ a key opposition player. These batsmen very seldom won their duels with McGrath. His trademark was bowling just back-of-a-length outside off-stump, generating bounce and nip – and proving a match-winner in all conditions. He did worst against South Africa – though he still averaged just 27 – and illustrated his adaptability and sheer quality by averaging just 19 in India.
Dennis Lillee was regarded by many as the consummate fast bowler; he was a combination of raw pace and subtlety, and had a tremendous heart to boot. This helped him come back from what appeared a career-threatening injury to become the highest Test wicket-taker of all time at the time of his retirement. He will be remembered for forming one half of the ‘Lillian-Thompson’ partnership – one of the most feared in the history of the game – and, in particular, for a series of outstanding Ashes performances. However, his best match may have been an extraordinary 7/83 against the West Indies, fired on by a fiercely patriotic home crowd. In four Tests in Asia, though, he averaged 68.
Ray Lindwall, with his pace and late swing, was the outstanding bowler of his generation and a pivotal member of the 1948 ‘Invincibles’. His low arm leant his bowling a skidding effect, which made his bouncers – sparingly used, but very threatening – all the more effective; he also possessed a fine slower ball and developed the ability to swing the ball both ways. Lindwall’s bowling gave great aesthetic pleasure; and he was able to excel himself when it mattered most, having two superb tours of England. He perhaps played on too long, until the age of 38; in his first 44 Tests, though, he averaged just 21. Lindwall was also a buccaneering lower-order batsman good enough to hit two Test hundreds.
Alan Davidson played for much of his career with Lindwall; he was a high class left-armer who could be lethal with both the new and old ball. His strike-rate is the highest of all the fast bowlers in this list, but his control was such that he had a remarkably frugal economy rate of just 1.97. Though he took a few Tests to find his niche, in his last 34 games Davidson was colossal, averaging 19 with the ball and 26 with his free-spirited hitting. Unlike Lindwall, he excelled in Asia, too; but, above all, he will be remembered for his fantastic performances in the epic 1960/61 series against the West Indies.
NB: Imran Khan, who may well have featured here, was assessed as an all-rounder.
Links:
McGrath statistical analysis (Including Best overseas fast bowlers in Tests in the subcontinent since 1980)
Full set of Greatest Test XI pieces
We would welcome any pieces from readers (please email cricketingworld(at)hotmail.com) making a case for the selection of a particular player, or to provide any kind of additional analysis. We would also be happy to post XIs (with justification); we will post that of Patrick Kidd, from the Times, in a few days. The final side will be picked in a few weeks.
Saturday, 4 August 2007
The Kings of Spin
To continue the analysis of the short-listed players for the Greatest Test XI of the last century, we look at the four short-listed spinners. At this stage, it is worth pointing out that either one or two can be selected, depending on the balance of the side.
Muttiah Muralitharan has perennially been accused of ‘chucking’ (four times, and counting), but on each occasion he has been cleared. Amidst all his troubles, though, he has continued to improve, adding – and perfecting – a doosra in recent years. It is true that his wickets tally has benefited from a multitude of victims amongst the minnows; but, incredibly, he averages 23.4 if they are excluded, which falls to under 21 during his ‘peak’ years since 2000 as he has learned to become more adaptable and effective outside the sub-continent. What makes this even more impressive is he has had no respite in unfavourable conditions, normally having to bowl nearly 30 overs a day, acting as both stock and strike bowler to claim more than six wickets a game.
Murali has been subjected to innumerable comparisons with Shane Warne, whose world record tally of Test wickets he will soon overtake. Warne is a man whose cricketing contribution transcends statistics; from his ‘ball of the century’, his genius was palpable. This manifests itself not only in his plethora of leg-spinning variations, but also in his mental resilience and cricketing brain; when things are not going his way, Warne is good enough to adjust. The Australian’s ability to deliver when most needed – as during his phenomenal 2005 Ashes – was astonishing; with Warne in the side, his country never knew any need to play with five bowlers. Only India, with their magisterial middle-order batsmen, got the better of him.
Until the emergence of Warne, few doubted Bill O’Reilly’s status as the finest Australian leg-spinner of all time. Although his average of 22.6 is outstanding, his Wisden obituary asserts that “his figures have to be judged by the fact that all but one of his Tests came in the 1930s, when other bowlers were dominated by batsmen to an unprecedented extent. No one ever dominated O'Reilly.” That much is made clear by his extraordinarily frugal economy rate of 1.94. Like Warne, O’Reilly was a true master of his craft, relentlessly consistent and, wrote contemporary R. C. Robertson-Glasgow, able to adjust “pace and trajectory without apparent change in action”. From his 6ft2in frame, O’Reilly also generated unusual pace and bounced for a leg-spinner.
The name of Jim Laker will forever be associated with the 1956 Ashes, during which he claimed an unsurpassed 46 wickets in the series, including the immortal 19 in a Test at Old Trafford. When wickets offered assistance, the off-spinner could be close to unplayable; but, as Laker illustrated in the 1958/59 Ashes, he could be effective in all conditions. He was also a pivotal member of the Surrey side that claimed seven consecutive titles in the 1950s.
Additional information
Murali and the Bangladesh Factor
The best additional resource is certainly the Cricinfo website.
It is worth noting that, according to the selection criteria, "this notional side will play on an unknown wicket - which means players must have proved themselves in a variety of conditions and, ultimately, those who did best in the trickiest conditions they faced will be in a better position to be selected."
Muttiah Muralitharan has perennially been accused of ‘chucking’ (four times, and counting), but on each occasion he has been cleared. Amidst all his troubles, though, he has continued to improve, adding – and perfecting – a doosra in recent years. It is true that his wickets tally has benefited from a multitude of victims amongst the minnows; but, incredibly, he averages 23.4 if they are excluded, which falls to under 21 during his ‘peak’ years since 2000 as he has learned to become more adaptable and effective outside the sub-continent. What makes this even more impressive is he has had no respite in unfavourable conditions, normally having to bowl nearly 30 overs a day, acting as both stock and strike bowler to claim more than six wickets a game.
Murali has been subjected to innumerable comparisons with Shane Warne, whose world record tally of Test wickets he will soon overtake. Warne is a man whose cricketing contribution transcends statistics; from his ‘ball of the century’, his genius was palpable. This manifests itself not only in his plethora of leg-spinning variations, but also in his mental resilience and cricketing brain; when things are not going his way, Warne is good enough to adjust. The Australian’s ability to deliver when most needed – as during his phenomenal 2005 Ashes – was astonishing; with Warne in the side, his country never knew any need to play with five bowlers. Only India, with their magisterial middle-order batsmen, got the better of him.
Until the emergence of Warne, few doubted Bill O’Reilly’s status as the finest Australian leg-spinner of all time. Although his average of 22.6 is outstanding, his Wisden obituary asserts that “his figures have to be judged by the fact that all but one of his Tests came in the 1930s, when other bowlers were dominated by batsmen to an unprecedented extent. No one ever dominated O'Reilly.” That much is made clear by his extraordinarily frugal economy rate of 1.94. Like Warne, O’Reilly was a true master of his craft, relentlessly consistent and, wrote contemporary R. C. Robertson-Glasgow, able to adjust “pace and trajectory without apparent change in action”. From his 6ft2in frame, O’Reilly also generated unusual pace and bounced for a leg-spinner.
The name of Jim Laker will forever be associated with the 1956 Ashes, during which he claimed an unsurpassed 46 wickets in the series, including the immortal 19 in a Test at Old Trafford. When wickets offered assistance, the off-spinner could be close to unplayable; but, as Laker illustrated in the 1958/59 Ashes, he could be effective in all conditions. He was also a pivotal member of the Surrey side that claimed seven consecutive titles in the 1950s.
Additional information
Murali and the Bangladesh Factor
The best additional resource is certainly the Cricinfo website.
It is worth noting that, according to the selection criteria, "this notional side will play on an unknown wicket - which means players must have proved themselves in a variety of conditions and, ultimately, those who did best in the trickiest conditions they faced will be in a better position to be selected."
Monday, 23 July 2007
The keeping dilemma
The final shortlist for the wicket-keeper in the Greatest Test XI of the last century consists of Les Ames and Adam Gilchrist. Although their careers were 60 years apart, it is telling that both were fine batsmen; though nostalgia may tell us otherwise, the best sides in history have almost invariably (with the exception of the 1948 Australian side) had ‘keepers who could contribute significantly with the bat.
Adam Gilchrist’s bludgeoning bat has been a key feature of Australia’s dominance in the 2000s. His ability to drastically – and often irrevocably – alter the momentum of games from number seven is surely unsurpassed in the history of Test cricket, as his 17 Test hundreds, with at least one against each nation, suggests. The speed at which he acquires his runs – he has a Test strike-rate of 82 - has been phenomenal; and, while it is true some of his knocks have come after his side were already firmly in control, his brilliant 144 in Sri Lanka in 2004, batting at number three, was testament to his quality in more testing circumstances. Behind the stumps, he is no artist; but, this side is judged purely on effectiveness – and Gilchrist, who always kept well to Warne, very seldom gloves chances.
Les Ames is often regarded as having pioneered the wicket-keeper batsmen. He is part of a long tradition of fine Kent glovemen, and was inconspicuous, but hugely reliable and adaptable behind the stumps, claiming the world record for first-class stumpings (some of which were off pace bowlers). But, like Gilchrist, he will be remembered, above all, for his ability to seize a game with the bat. Ames was a highly-classical batsmen who could play all round the wicket, and twice won the Walter Lawrence Trophy; his quality with the bat is illustrated by his average of almost 50 in 33 (out of 47) Tests playing at four or five and, above all, by his 102 first-class centuries. His bat succeeded everywhere he went, with the exception of Australia, and his Wisden obituary called him “without a doubt the greatest wicketkeeper-batsman”; but, with Gilchrist’s emergence, is this still the case?
Who would you choose? Leave a comment below.
Adam Gilchrist’s bludgeoning bat has been a key feature of Australia’s dominance in the 2000s. His ability to drastically – and often irrevocably – alter the momentum of games from number seven is surely unsurpassed in the history of Test cricket, as his 17 Test hundreds, with at least one against each nation, suggests. The speed at which he acquires his runs – he has a Test strike-rate of 82 - has been phenomenal; and, while it is true some of his knocks have come after his side were already firmly in control, his brilliant 144 in Sri Lanka in 2004, batting at number three, was testament to his quality in more testing circumstances. Behind the stumps, he is no artist; but, this side is judged purely on effectiveness – and Gilchrist, who always kept well to Warne, very seldom gloves chances.
Les Ames is often regarded as having pioneered the wicket-keeper batsmen. He is part of a long tradition of fine Kent glovemen, and was inconspicuous, but hugely reliable and adaptable behind the stumps, claiming the world record for first-class stumpings (some of which were off pace bowlers). But, like Gilchrist, he will be remembered, above all, for his ability to seize a game with the bat. Ames was a highly-classical batsmen who could play all round the wicket, and twice won the Walter Lawrence Trophy; his quality with the bat is illustrated by his average of almost 50 in 33 (out of 47) Tests playing at four or five and, above all, by his 102 first-class centuries. His bat succeeded everywhere he went, with the exception of Australia, and his Wisden obituary called him “without a doubt the greatest wicketkeeper-batsman”; but, with Gilchrist’s emergence, is this still the case?
Who would you choose? Leave a comment below.
Monday, 16 July 2007
Sobers is a certainty; but what about Imran and Miller?
To continue the analysis of the short-listed players for the Greatest Test XI of the last century, we look at the three all-rounders in the 28 – Garfield Sobers, Keith Miller and Imran Khan.
Garfield Sobers would probably have made the final XI as a batsman alone; add in his brilliant fielding and incredibly versatile bowling, and he may well be the finest Test cricketer of them all. Sobers simply excelled at all aspects of the game; he could play all the shots, though his offside play was particularly memorable; but his bowling (which struggled initially in Test cricket) was almost equally impressive. To be able to get Test wickets with three distinct types of bowling – brisk fast-medium (he often opened the bowling), left-arm orthodox and wrist spin must be unique in cricketing history. Though Sobers scored 26 Test hundreds, including the then-record Test score of 365* against Pakistan, arguably his best innings was 254 for the Rest of the World against Australia, but the games were not awarded Test status.
Keith Miller was never a player to be judged merely on statistics; but his Test averages – 37 with the bat and 23 with the ball – are nonetheless extraordinary. Miller, a famously brave fighter pilot during world War Two, was gregarious and played his cricket to entertain; this he achieved magnificently. His batting was classical and attacking; he scored seven hundreds, though it is now recognised that his best batting was for Dominions against England in 1945. With the ball, he was, though sometimes a slightly reluctant bowler, very fast and adaptable, capable of bowling excellent off-cutters. He averaged only just over three wickets a match, because opening bowlers Lindwall and Johnston would often clean the opposition up; but, on the 1956 Ashes tour and at the age of 37, Miller heroically bowled 70 overs in the game at Lord's, claiming 10 wickets in the Australian win.
Imran Khan began in the Pakistan side as a bowler who could bat; but, in his last 51 Tests, he averaged an astonishing 52 with the bat and 20 with the ball. Moreover, he was Pakistan’s captain and icon; undoubtedly their ever greatest player, he inspired them to their World Cup win, aged 39 and, towards the end of his career, Pakistan clung to West Indies’ coattails in the Test arena, drawing three series 1-1 in the late 80s and early 90s – in nine Tests against them, Imran averaged 32 with the bat and, remarkably, took 45 wickets at under 15, including 11/121 in a thumping victory in Georgetown. His bowling record is even more remarkable considering the generally docile Pakistani tracks – with his pace, indefatigability and lethal reverse-swinging yorkers, batsmen were never safe. As a batsman, he developed a sound technique and became both middle-order stabiliser and aggressor through sheer force of will. A question to consider is how high he could conceivably bat in this side.
Do one, both or neither of Imran and Miller deserve to be in the Greatest Test XI? Leave a comment below.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)