What does Wisden say?
My music blog also has a little post about a recent list What does the NME say?. Thanks, respective respected publications, for giving me food for thought.
The tone will be a little different. Whereas I was very appreciative of the NME's Top 500 Albums of All Time, Wisden's Greatest Ever Test XI, to mark their 150th year, represents an awful lot that is bad about cricket journalism and cricket historians.
While the NME sometimes might be accused of being a little too focused on the present, some sports historians, particularly cricket and boxing, are the opposite.
Their XI is
Jack Hobbs
WG Grace
Don Bradman
Sachin Tendulkar
Viv Richards
Gary Sobers
Alan Knott
Wasim Akram
Shane Warne
Malcolm Marshall
Sydney Barnes
A quick guide for those not too well-versed.
There are 4 English, 3 West Indians, 2 Aussies, 1 Indian, 1 Pakistani
2 who've played in the last 10 years
3 whose era is something like 83-2003
2 who are a bit like 60-80 (ish)
3 who are 1900-1960
1 who is pre-1900
So it doesn't seem to wildly out of whack in that sense, but there are some bad calls, some really bad calls.
Firstly, whose place is beyond question?
Bradman, statistically the greatest sportsman in history
Sobers, widely considered the greatest all-round cricketer.
No one, meaning no one, would put together this team and not include them.
Then there are those who are not far behind
Warne
Barnes
Pretty much shoe-ins
Then there are those where you say "Yes, fair enough, wouldn't have to be them but it's a fair choice"
Hobbs - he scored more runs than any cricketer ever, but is he the greatest TEST MATCH opener. His own opening partner Herbert Sutcliffe had slightly better stats. There are some from the modern age who might be considered - Australian Matthew Hayden, Indian Virender Sehwag, fast scorers with great stats. Still, no real objection to Hobbs.
Tendulkar - hmm, don't want to piss on anyone's parade but i think his pre-eminence amongst modern batsmen is up for debate. There are various players with great weight of runs and higher average, various cricketers who played more match winning innings, affected cricket more,got their hands dirtier. Tendulkar is the Beckham of cricket, arguably. But, saying all that, I can't say I really object, not really.
Richards - again, i feel he's been picked on legend and personality. There are better stats, for sure, including fellow West Indian Brian Lara. But, yes, he did change cricket. He was a great cricketer.
Wasim Akram - again, may not have been my choice, but he was a wizard, and a very decent low order batsman, who also provided a different option with his left-arm pace. Others like his countrymen Waqar Younis and Imran Khan might also have been considered.
Malcolm Marshall - he'd make my side, but there are plenty of other contenders in terms of great fast bowlers.
So, then where are the main bones of contention?
Two Englishmen
WG Grace
Alan Knott
Now, I must say there's shameless old timerism and Anglocentricity at work here, as well as ignoring of facts.
Grace's test stats - 1000 runs at 32 - we're talking worse than John Crawley. However much he was the father of cricket, this is a TEST XI. It's insulting to every great cricketer and every student of the game. It's folk who never even saw him going "trust us, we know more than you" and it's phony bullshit.
Alan Knott, a wonderful English wicketkeeper, arguably the best wicketkeeper of all, and a fine lower order batsman who averaged 32. Fine. But it's an anti-modernist pick. The Australian Adam Gilchrist was a Number 7 batsman-wicketkeeper who changed the way test cricket was played more than almost anyone else, who pushed the greatest test team ever to new heights, who scored at an unprecendented rate and took everyone else with him, who averaged 47 with the bat. And he was a great keeper, to spin and pace. No way would a test selector actaully pick Knott over him.
I imagine this list is a counterbalance to the ICC's 2011 fan-voted All Time Top XI, which was equally bollocks but in the opposite way.
Virender Sehwag (Indian, current)
Sunil Gavaskar (Indian, 70s-80s)
Donald Bradman (Aussie 20s-40s)
Sachin Tendulkar (Indian, 90s-current)
Brian Lara (West Indian, 90s-2000s)
Kapil Dev (Indian, 70s-90s)
Adam Gilchrist (Aussie, 90s-2000s)
Shane Warne (Aussie, 90s-2000s)
Wasim Akram (Pakistani, 80s-90s)
Curtly Ambrose (West Indian, 80s-90s)
Glenn McGrath (Aussie, 90s-2000s)
So, a huge modern and Indian bias, and, jesus, i've just noticed, despite what i said earlier, no Sobers. Kapil Dev is not in the Top 5 all-rounders, let alone the best.
And neither team, amazingly, contains a South African, in particular the South African who South Africans - and I - consider one of the two greatest cricketers of all.
Jacques Kallis has scored almost as many runs at a higher average than Tendulkar, as well as taking more test wickets than Sobers at a better average. He's taken more test wickets than Joel Garner, Matthew Hoggard, any number. He was also the batsman i as an England fan least wanted to see coming to the crease. He ground out so many match-changing innings, the blindness to his greatness is damning..
Who else is wrongly excluded from both or either team?
The Sri Lanka spinner Muttiah Muralitharan, who took more wickets at a better average than Shane Warne. But Warne fits better into cricket's classical narrative. Muttiah was too ugly, too kooky, too close to 15 degrees.
And the best batsman of the modern era, statistically, Kumar Sangakkara, the magnificent Sri Lankan wicketkeeper-batsman, who is also the smartest man in modern cricket.
What would my team be?
Hobbs
Sehwag
Bradman
Sangakkara
Kallis
Sobers
Gilchrist
Marshall
Warne
Barnes
Ambrose
with serious consideration, depending on pitches, to Pollock (maybe two Pollocks), Graeme Smith, Javed Miandad, Dravid, Lara (my own favourite), Imran Khan, Waqar Younis, McGrath, Lillee, Muralitharan, Wally Hammond
Sure it's tricky, it's open to debate, but don't throw in a couple of howlers, Wisden!
The tone will be a little different. Whereas I was very appreciative of the NME's Top 500 Albums of All Time, Wisden's Greatest Ever Test XI, to mark their 150th year, represents an awful lot that is bad about cricket journalism and cricket historians.
While the NME sometimes might be accused of being a little too focused on the present, some sports historians, particularly cricket and boxing, are the opposite.
Their XI is
Jack Hobbs
WG Grace
Don Bradman
Sachin Tendulkar
Viv Richards
Gary Sobers
Alan Knott
Wasim Akram
Shane Warne
Malcolm Marshall
Sydney Barnes
A quick guide for those not too well-versed.
There are 4 English, 3 West Indians, 2 Aussies, 1 Indian, 1 Pakistani
2 who've played in the last 10 years
3 whose era is something like 83-2003
2 who are a bit like 60-80 (ish)
3 who are 1900-1960
1 who is pre-1900
So it doesn't seem to wildly out of whack in that sense, but there are some bad calls, some really bad calls.
Firstly, whose place is beyond question?
Bradman, statistically the greatest sportsman in history
Sobers, widely considered the greatest all-round cricketer.
No one, meaning no one, would put together this team and not include them.
Then there are those who are not far behind
Warne
Barnes
Pretty much shoe-ins
Then there are those where you say "Yes, fair enough, wouldn't have to be them but it's a fair choice"
Hobbs - he scored more runs than any cricketer ever, but is he the greatest TEST MATCH opener. His own opening partner Herbert Sutcliffe had slightly better stats. There are some from the modern age who might be considered - Australian Matthew Hayden, Indian Virender Sehwag, fast scorers with great stats. Still, no real objection to Hobbs.
Tendulkar - hmm, don't want to piss on anyone's parade but i think his pre-eminence amongst modern batsmen is up for debate. There are various players with great weight of runs and higher average, various cricketers who played more match winning innings, affected cricket more,got their hands dirtier. Tendulkar is the Beckham of cricket, arguably. But, saying all that, I can't say I really object, not really.
Richards - again, i feel he's been picked on legend and personality. There are better stats, for sure, including fellow West Indian Brian Lara. But, yes, he did change cricket. He was a great cricketer.
Wasim Akram - again, may not have been my choice, but he was a wizard, and a very decent low order batsman, who also provided a different option with his left-arm pace. Others like his countrymen Waqar Younis and Imran Khan might also have been considered.
Malcolm Marshall - he'd make my side, but there are plenty of other contenders in terms of great fast bowlers.
So, then where are the main bones of contention?
Two Englishmen
WG Grace
Alan Knott
Now, I must say there's shameless old timerism and Anglocentricity at work here, as well as ignoring of facts.
Grace's test stats - 1000 runs at 32 - we're talking worse than John Crawley. However much he was the father of cricket, this is a TEST XI. It's insulting to every great cricketer and every student of the game. It's folk who never even saw him going "trust us, we know more than you" and it's phony bullshit.
Alan Knott, a wonderful English wicketkeeper, arguably the best wicketkeeper of all, and a fine lower order batsman who averaged 32. Fine. But it's an anti-modernist pick. The Australian Adam Gilchrist was a Number 7 batsman-wicketkeeper who changed the way test cricket was played more than almost anyone else, who pushed the greatest test team ever to new heights, who scored at an unprecendented rate and took everyone else with him, who averaged 47 with the bat. And he was a great keeper, to spin and pace. No way would a test selector actaully pick Knott over him.
I imagine this list is a counterbalance to the ICC's 2011 fan-voted All Time Top XI, which was equally bollocks but in the opposite way.
Virender Sehwag (Indian, current)
Sunil Gavaskar (Indian, 70s-80s)
Donald Bradman (Aussie 20s-40s)
Sachin Tendulkar (Indian, 90s-current)
Brian Lara (West Indian, 90s-2000s)
Kapil Dev (Indian, 70s-90s)
Adam Gilchrist (Aussie, 90s-2000s)
Shane Warne (Aussie, 90s-2000s)
Wasim Akram (Pakistani, 80s-90s)
Curtly Ambrose (West Indian, 80s-90s)
Glenn McGrath (Aussie, 90s-2000s)
So, a huge modern and Indian bias, and, jesus, i've just noticed, despite what i said earlier, no Sobers. Kapil Dev is not in the Top 5 all-rounders, let alone the best.
And neither team, amazingly, contains a South African, in particular the South African who South Africans - and I - consider one of the two greatest cricketers of all.
Jacques Kallis has scored almost as many runs at a higher average than Tendulkar, as well as taking more test wickets than Sobers at a better average. He's taken more test wickets than Joel Garner, Matthew Hoggard, any number. He was also the batsman i as an England fan least wanted to see coming to the crease. He ground out so many match-changing innings, the blindness to his greatness is damning..
Who else is wrongly excluded from both or either team?
The Sri Lanka spinner Muttiah Muralitharan, who took more wickets at a better average than Shane Warne. But Warne fits better into cricket's classical narrative. Muttiah was too ugly, too kooky, too close to 15 degrees.
And the best batsman of the modern era, statistically, Kumar Sangakkara, the magnificent Sri Lankan wicketkeeper-batsman, who is also the smartest man in modern cricket.
What would my team be?
Hobbs
Sehwag
Bradman
Sangakkara
Kallis
Sobers
Gilchrist
Marshall
Warne
Barnes
Ambrose
with serious consideration, depending on pitches, to Pollock (maybe two Pollocks), Graeme Smith, Javed Miandad, Dravid, Lara (my own favourite), Imran Khan, Waqar Younis, McGrath, Lillee, Muralitharan, Wally Hammond
Sure it's tricky, it's open to debate, but don't throw in a couple of howlers, Wisden!
Comments
Post a Comment