5 Greatest Test matches of the Decade

[Sanz]

You can argue about the level of play if you like (and I'd personally say it's without question better than in the India/Pakistan game), but as far as the game being close and having incredible things happening in it, I don't know why you'd rate the others higher. I'd say I've seen better quality test matches than Edgbaston '05, but I've never seen one which was so incredible.

I guess you should watch this one then -

http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1998-99/PAK_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/PAK_IND_T1_28JAN-01FEB1999.html

 

[C_C]

Why is that? Edgbaston was a superb test even before the final day heroics from Lee and Warne.

First you had England scoring 400 in a day, then Flintoff bowled brilliantly and some excellent batting from Langer and Gilchrist got Australia within 100 or so. Then on the third morning, Lee took a handful of quick wickets and Warne got 4 to have England in deep trouble at 6/75 and then 9/131.

After that, Flintoff put in one of the great individual afternoons of all-round cricket, smashing the ball everywhere in a 50 run stand for the last wicket to set Australia 281 to win, and then bowling one of the best overs you'll ever see as his first in the fourth innings, taking two wickets in it and beating the bat several times, and all this with an injured shoulder that required an injection at tea. Flintoff's burst and some idiotic batting left Australia with a slim chance that seemed to be snuffed out by Harmison's slower ball to get Clarke and end the day.

Then from that, you had the incredible final day, when Warne, Lee and Kasprowicz played brilliantly and seemed to have the game won.

You can argue about the level of play if you like (and I'd personally say it's without question better than in the India/Pakistan game), but as far as the game being close and having incredible things happening in it, I don't know why you'd rate the others higher. I'd say I've seen better quality test matches than Edgbaston '05, but I've never seen one which was so incredible.

It was good no doubt.
But Edsbagston doesnt compare to the 3 tests I've named IMO.
It was just a good allround contest, not an epic one.
For one, there was no virtuoso performance akin to Tendulkar's 140 odd, Lara's 150 odd, Laxman's 281 and Dravid's 180...No bowling virtuoso like Saqlain or McGrath or Harbhajan.
The series didnt hinge on the result like it did for 2 of those 3 tests.
And it wasnt overall as close an affair right till the last half hour of 5th day.
Plus all 3 results were the unexpected ones. Right until OZ's crumble against Harbhajan, no one expected India to win and no one expected India to draw a day before that....in Lara test...well it was OZ literally all the way till the last over. WIth IND-PAK, IND were firm favurites right until the last 30-40 min of the match.
And i have no doubt, having watched most of Edsbagston match a month or so ago, that the quality of the game is definately a shade or two below the 3 tests i mentioned.

 

[adharcric]

I guess you should watch this one then -

http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1998-99/PAK_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/PAK_IND_T1_28JAN-01FEB1999.html

Laxman 0 (15), Dravid 10 (55), Azharuddin 7 (34), Ganguly 2 (25)
Either I didn't watch that or I don't remember it. Either way, I'm glad.

 

[Jono]

Laxman 0 (15), Dravid 10 (55), Azharuddin 7 (34), Ganguly 2 (25)
Either I didn't watch that or I don't remember it. Either way, I'm glad.

What the? You don't know that match?

And no you're not glad you didn't watch that, even if you're an Indian fan. The match was incredible, and Sachin's knock was brilliant considering his injury.

 

[C_C]

What the? You don't know that match?

And no you're not glad you didn't watch that, even if you're an Indian fan. The match was incredible, and Sachin's knock was brilliant considering his injury.

Yup.
I find it hard to believe that Lara's 153* gets rated in the top 5 and Sachin's that knock doesnt even enter the top 100...virtually identical knocks against two alltime best bowling attacks....and BOTH bolloxed up near the end...Lara got let off and Sachin didnt.
Thats all that seperates it really.

 

[Jono]

(and I'd personally say it's without question better than in the India/Pakistan game)

That's rubbish considering not one single knock in that game came close to Sachin's in the Chennai match. What about Saqlain's bowling performance agains the best players of spin in the world? Two 5-fors including a match-winning one in the 2nd innings. Absolutely brilliant.

The fan reaction after the match, with the Chennai crowd giving Pakistan a standing ovation says it all really.

But let's not stop us from making sweeping statements like 'without question' Edgbaston is better, despite the best fast bowler from Australia missing in that match, and Ponting giving England the initiative.

 

[Jono]

Yup.
I find it hard to believe that Lara's 153* gets rated in the top 5 and Sachin's that knock doesnt even enter the top 100...virtually identical knocks against two alltime best bowling attacks....and BOTH bolloxed up near the end...Lara got let off and Sachin didnt.
Thats all that seperates it really.

I love them both. Both should be in the top 20 without a doubt, but its been acknowledged how disgraceful it was for the Wisden top 100 test innings not to include that one.

 

[C_C]

I love them both. Both should be in the top 20 without a doubt, but its been acknowledged how disgraceful it was for the Wisden top 100 test innings not to include that one.

I'll take yer word for it....because i wasnt around CW when Wisden did their bollox-up.

 

[Jono]

Oh I meant generally in the cricket world, as there have been a few articles on the net and other things which have mentioned that its ridiculous that following Widen's criteria, Sachin's knock didn't make the 100.

Not sure if its been mentioned on CW.

 

[Dasa]

That's rubbish considering not one single knock in that game came close to Sachin's in the Chennai match. What about Saqlain's bowling performance agains the best players of spin in the world? Two 5-fors including a match-winning one in the 2nd innings. Absolutely brilliant.

The fan reaction after the match, with the Chennai crowd giving Pakistan a standing ovation says it all really.

But let's not stop us from making sweeping statements like 'without question' Edgbaston is better, despite the best fast bowler from Australia missing in that match, and Ponting giving England the initiative.

I think quite a bit of the cricket in the Ashes, although very exciting, wasn't of the highest quality. Dropped catches, batsmen not showing application and bowlers bowling too many four-balls all round. I mean, the average scoring rate for the series was up near 4 runs per over....and it wasn't because of brilliant batting. Not to say it wasn't a great series, just the standard seems higher to many because of the close result and the history behind it.

 

[adharcric]

What the? You don't know that match?

And no you're not glad you didn't watch that, even if you're an Indian fan. The match was incredible, and Sachin's knock was brilliant considering his injury.

Yeah I should know about it, but my passion for and experience with cricket has been very unique and rather bizarre. I came from India as a 5-year old with minimal knowledge of cricket and was a huge fan of American sports for a while. Then something happened and I became absolutely obsessed with cricket after having been here for more than 5 years. Learnt the game on my own and played with some social adult clubs, started and captained a high school team with other ex-pat Indians/Pakistanis lacking in guidance and now I'm playing in a league.

The point is, my memories of pre-2000 cricket aren't too sharp, and my knowledge of pre-1997/8 cricket is mostly based on research, absorbing knowledge from other cricket enthusiasts (thank you CW) and trying to get a feel for what cricket was like before I fell in love with it.

Quite simply, cricket was written in my destiny. Rather unfortunate I had to pursue it without any guidance and struggle so much for my passion over here.

Now I really wish I had seen this Chennai match back then. I did see Azhar, Saqlain and that crop play once in a while when I went back to visit India over a few summers (96, 98), but none of these classics.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

That's rubbish considering not one single knock in that game came close to Sachin's in the Chennai match. What about Saqlain's bowling performance agains the best players of spin in the world? Two 5-fors including a match-winning one in the 2nd innings. Absolutely brilliant.

The fan reaction after the match, with the Chennai crowd giving Pakistan a standing ovation says it all really.

But let's not stop us from making sweeping statements like 'without question' Edgbaston is better, despite the best fast bowler from Australia missing in that match, and Ponting giving England the initiative.

Fair enough. I haven't actually seen the game in question (the Chennai one), so what I was actually talking about was the teams themselves. Saying "the standard of cricket was lower" isn't quite the same as saying that the individual performances in that particular match weren't as good. I'd certainly argue that the Australian and English teams from the Edgbaston test were superior teams, but obviously it's hard to judge which game had the better play in it, given the differing circumstances.

I will say though that to suggest that the Edgbaston test was "nowhere near" the other three is utterly absurd.

 

[C_C]

I'd certainly argue that the Australian and English teams from the Edgbaston test were superior teams, but obviously it's hard to judge which game had the better play in it, given the differing circumstances.

Err no. England at Edsbagston were not a superior team man for man compared to the Pakistani team that visited India in 98/99.
Pakistani bowling was far superior and their batting was considerably good too.
Pakistan had Anwar, Inzamam, Saqlain,Wasim, Waqar and Malik - all of whom would walk in easily in the current England lineup.

Top two teams doesnt equate to best quality cricket out there automatically. Which is why turn of the millenium clashes between the top two teams - OZ and RSA - were farcial.
And having watched all three tests, i would say that yes, Edsbagston test was a step or two below those three. It was a very good test, not a great test like those three, who IMO would rank in the top 10 tests of the last 30 years.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I love them both. Both should be in the top 20 without a doubt, but its been acknowledged how disgraceful it was for the Wisden top 100 test innings not to include that one.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Wisden 100 based on a mathematical formula? In other words, isn't each innings given a score based on the number of runs, the situation, the teams involved, the total runs scored in the match, the bowlers faced, the end result etc?

I don't think you can really argue with a mathematical formula because it excludes a particular innings. Obviously Tendulkar's innings didn't meet the required score to make the top 100 for one reason or another, but that's not really Wisden's fault.

 

[C_C]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Wisden 100 based on a mathematical formula? In other words, isn't each innings given a score based on the number of runs, the situation, the teams involved, the total runs scored in the match, the bowlers faced, the end result etc?

I don't think you can really argue with a mathematical formula because it excludes a particular innings. Obviously Tendulkar's innings didn't meet the required score to make the top 100 for one reason or another, but that's not really Wisden's fault.

Wisden's rating system is/was highly flawed, so was PwC rating system. I remember doing an analysis for it once a long time ago shortly before PwC shut shop.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Err no. England at Edsbagston were not a superior team man for man compared to the Pakistani team that visited India in 98/99.
Pakistani bowling was far superior and their batting was considerably good too.
Pakistan had Anwar, Inzamam, Saqlain,Wasim, Waqar and Malik - all of whom would walk in easily in the current England lineup.

Top two teams doesnt equate to best quality cricket out there automatically. Which is why turn of the millenium clashes between the top two teams - OZ and RSA - were farcial.

How was Pakistan's bowling far superior, exactly? Waqar was miles past his best in 99, and would struggle to make the current England team, and while Wasim was a superb bowler at the time and Saqlain was obviously very good also, I don't see how that makes it a "far superior" attack to one including Flintoff and Jones in sublime form, and Hoggard and Harmison. After all, 99 is the same year that Pakistan toured Australia and got whitewashed, with an attack that was probably stronger than that one as it also included Shoaib.

It was obviously a good attack, but certainly not far superior to England's in 2005, which was quite brilliant all series.

 

[adharcric]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Wisden 100 based on a mathematical formula? In other words, isn't each innings given a score based on the number of runs, the situation, the teams involved, the total runs scored in the match, the bowlers faced, the end result etc?

I don't think you can really argue with a mathematical formula because it excludes a particular innings. Obviously Tendulkar's innings didn't meet the required score to make the top 100 for one reason or another, but that's not really Wisden's fault.

It's not necessarily Wisden's fault that they chose to use a formula, but they shouldn't go about claiming that a formula can signify the "greatness" of a match. Formulas don't mean much when it comes to sensational cricket and incredible finishes.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

It's not necessarily Wisden's fault that they chose to use a formula, but they shouldn't go about claiming that a formula can signify the "greatness" of a match. Formulas don't mean much when it comes to sensational cricket and incredible finishes.

Wisden wasn't rating the best matches, it was rating the best innings. Anyway, as far as I know Wisden never claimed their list was definitive or anything, it was just an attempt to rate all innings in test cricket based on objective criteria, and people got upset because no Tendulkar innings made it, and I believe quite a number of people claimed that it was somehow biased against India and/or subcontinental nations because of that.

 

[C_C]

How was Pakistan's bowling far superior, exactly? Waqar was miles past his best in 99, and would struggle to make the current England team, and while Wasim was a superb bowler at the time and Saqlain was obviously very good also, I don't see how that makes it a "far superior" attack to one including Flintoff and Jones in sublime form, and Hoggard and Harmison. After all, 99 is the same year that Pakistan toured Australia and got whitewashed, with an attack that was probably stronger than that one as it also included Shoaib.

It was obviously a good attack, but certainly not far superior to England's in 2005, which was quite brilliant all series.

Waqar in 99 was beginning his downward slide...he could replace anybody in the current English lineup - and i mean anyone, including Freddie - until 2001 or so when he really slipped up.
Wasim - same applies here. As good as Flintoff/Harmo and Jones are, they are nowhere close to Wasim and Waqar at their best and definately a ballpark behind even in 1999.
Saqlain is superior to any english spinner over the last 20 years by a light year and half.
Akhtar i would take any day of the week over Harmison too.
OZ whitewashed Pak, thanks to some extremely dodgy umpiring, Wasim and Waqar having a fallout ( Waqar played only one test and Wasim was the captain) along with their typical frail batting.
This is pakistan we are talking about - a team that can nuke itself right on the verge of world domination or launch a blitzkreig right at the face of extinction.

 

[Jono]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Wisden 100 based on a mathematical formula? In other words, isn't each innings given a score based on the number of runs, the situation, the teams involved, the total runs scored in the match, the bowlers faced, the end result etc?

I don't think you can really argue with a mathematical formula because it excludes a particular innings. Obviously Tendulkar's innings didn't meet the required score to make the top 100 for one reason or another, but that's not really Wisden's fault.

How on Earth does a mathematical formula take into account the situation?

Explain to me how Wisden can rate Tendulkar the second greatest test and ODI batsman (Behind Bradman and Viv respectively) yet not one of his innings can be ranked in the top 100 for tests? Its absurd and makes no sense at all.

There was an article here which went exactly by the Widen criteria, and compared Lara's 375 to Sachin's 136, and Sachin's 136 came out on top.