5 Greatest Test matches of the Decade

[C_C]

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.

LOL.
Nice to see the article i wrote for that nuthouse long time ago is still there.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

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.

Waqar was not "beginning" his downward slide in 99, he began it in about 94 or 95 when he suffered his major injuries. He was still a good bowler in the late 90s, but he was far from the great bowler he was in the early 90s. Wasim as I said was excellent in 99 and probably better than anyone in the England team, and Saqlain very good also, but Shoaib wasn't playing (Afridi was the 4th bowler) and we're rating the attacks as a whole. Hoggard/Harmison/Flintoff/Jones/Giles is certainly comparable to Wasim and Waqar circa 1999 and Saqlain and Afridi as the spinners.

Australia whitewashed Pakistan because they were a middle of the road team with some extremely capable but inconsistent players and some average ones, backed by a couple of greats in Wasim and Inzy.

 

[C_C]

Waqar was not "beginning" his downward slide in 99, he began it in about 94 or 95 when he suffered his major injuries. He was still a good bowler in the late 90s, but he was far from the great bowler he was in the early 90s.

Waqar pre 95 was a bowler that Flintoff or Jones at their absolute best can only dream of so far.
Waqar 95-2000/01 was a bowler of considerable superiority to Jones and Flintoff. Waqar beyond that was a pale shadow.

. Hoggard/Harmison/Flintoff/Jones/Giles is certainly comparable to Wasim and Waqar circa 1999 and Saqlain and Afridi as the spinners.

No they arnt. Wasim-Waqar-Saqqi all come ahead of any single England bowler of that lot. And that constitutes 75% of the bowling faced of superior quality.

 

[Jono]

LOL.
Nice to see the article i wrote for that nuthouse long time ago is still there.

CC = Cavalier Carver eh? Nice article, particularly the parts about the match status index, which was a rubbish excuse of a mathematical stat by Wisden really.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

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.

I've read that article before, it doesn't compare them on Wisden's criteria because it doesn't have the formula they used. It just says that Sachin scored higher on most categories, but that means nothing if you don't know how the categories are weighted.

Anyway, I don't work for Wisden so I can't really tell you why Tendulkar is rated the second best batsman but doesn't have an innings in the top 118 (they also released the top 10 Indian innings, the lowest of which was 118th, and Tendulkar made none of them), but I imagine it's because none of his innings scored high enough. I mean, Ricky Ponting is obviously a great batsman and has scored 30 test centuries, but none of them make the top 100 either. Doesn't really mean a great deal, except that none of his innings have qualified... though the 150 odd at Old Trafford might if the list were redone.

I just think it's silly to attack the list as if it's biased or something because X innings didn't make it. You can argue that the formula could have been better or something, but it's not as if Wisden sat down and said "alright, let's make a formula to rate all test innings, and do it in such a way that Tendulkar doesn't make the top 100".

edit: by the way, by "situation" I meant the score when they arrived at the crease, the innings and so on, which I think they did take into account

 

[C_C]

CC = Cavalier Carver eh? Nice article, particularly the parts about the match status index, which was a rubbish excuse of a mathematical stat by Wisden really.

Yeah. I couldnt spell cavalier_carver and people there abbreviated my name to C_C anyways so i picked it.

 

[honestbharani]

Vote for the second best test match of this decade. I will say The Laman/Dravid test match

so the first is that Barbados test match?

 

[honestbharani]

I think Edgbastion just edges ahead of the other ones because it was also a recovery from a bad lords test, when everyone thought England where going to be crushed again.

so u didn't watch the 99 Frank Worrell Trophy?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

No they arnt. Wasim-Waqar-Saqqi all come ahead of any single England bowler of that lot. And that constitutes 75% of the bowling faced of superior quality.

Well, to put it simply, I entirely disagree. Waqar in 1999 was a good bowler but nothing particularly special. I'd rate Flintoff, Jones and Warne at least from that Edgbaston tests as better bowlers at the same point in time. Saqlain also wasn't any better than Flintoff or Jones, at least not in tests.

To say that Wasim, Waqar and Saqlain in 1999 were significantly better than the England attack in the 2005 Ashes is absurd, and makes me wonder how much of the series you actually bothered to watch.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

Wtih all due respect to the Ashes game, The Barbados match beats it in every category, IMO.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

they considered "match winning" as a factor. As usual, one of the reasons why that list will never be completely proper.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

I watched it LIVE.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Wtih all due respect to the Ashes game, The Barbados match beats it in every category, IMO.

I think a fair argument for the Barbados match being better can be made as well. I was more responding to C_C claiming that the Edgbaston test is "nowhere near" any of the other three, which is pretty silly.

 

[honestbharani]

I think a fair argument for the Barbados match being better can be made as well. I was more responding to C_C claiming that the Edgbaston test is "nowhere near" any of the other three, which is pretty silly.

Well, I suppose, but when Tait and Lee are in the same attack dishing out hit mes, it does kinda take away the edge...


Jking there. While I do rate the Kolkata and the Barbados matches as the best ever I have watched, I do think that the match at Chennai and Edgbaston must be pretty close, mainly because Venkatesh Prasad was leading India's attack.

 

[Jono]

I've read that article before, it doesn't compare them on Wisden's criteria because it doesn't have the formula they used. It just says that Sachin scored higher on most categories, but that means nothing if you don't know how the categories are weighted.

Anyway, I don't work for Wisden so I can't really tell you why Tendulkar is rated the second best batsman but doesn't have an innings in the top 118 (they also released the top 10 Indian innings, the lowest of which was 118th, and Tendulkar made none of them), but I imagine it's because none of his innings scored high enough. I mean, Ricky Ponting is obviously a great batsman and has scored 30 test centuries, but none of them make the top 100 either. Doesn't really mean a great deal, except that none of his innings have qualified... though the 150 odd at Old Trafford might if the list were redone.

I just think it's silly to attack the list as if it's biased or something because X innings didn't make it. You can argue that the formula could have been better or something, but it's not as if Wisden sat down and said "alright, let's make a formula to rate all test innings, and do it in such a way that Tendulkar doesn't make the top 100".

edit: by the way, by "situation" I meant the score when they arrived at the crease, the innings and so on, which I think they did take into account

Point blank, if Sachin hadn't injured his back in that innings, and guided India to victory in that test, that innings would be on the list. There's simply no question about it. Its another case of Wisden putting far too much emphasis on 'winning' when judging an individual. Need I point to Hayden receiving test batsman of the decade from 96-2006, when a large part of the criteria involved test wins? Yet ironically, had Sachin not suffered from a back injury and guided India to win, the knock still would have been fantastic but equally less memorable. Why? Because when he received his back problems, as he always does, he began to play without care and hence played some absolutely magnificent knocks. He seems to always lift his game when he suffers an injury. WC 2003 vs. Pak is one example, VB Series 2004 vs. Aus at the Gabba is another. That's what made the knock memorable, and a reason why it should have made the list. I'm guessing "suffering from an injury and playing on" wasn't part of the criteria though

The Ponting example doesn't fly, because the fact is he reached his prime after the list was made, whereas Sachin was in the prime form of his life and had been belting centuries for many years prior to the list, hence why he was rated so highly by Wisden as a batsman alone. But its a fact that Sachin's prime unfortunately co-existed with a time when Indian cricket was very much 'win at home, get absolutely pummelled away'. Kumble, Dravid, Laxman, Sehwag etc. hit their stride and/or became greats 1) well after this list was made, and 2) a little after Sachin fell away from his best. This seems to have hurt him when it comes to judging his innings.

You're making it sound like I think Wisden purposely excluded Sachin, which is absurd since 1) they've rated him so highly as to name him the 2nd best ever individual batsman in the past in both forms of the game and 2) I very rarely claim bias. I have a specific qualm with their criteria, in particularl their emphasis on winning which is palpable and does favour other teams which have been able to dominate.

I just refuse to believe that one of these... (from http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/1460772.stm)

119no v England
Old Trafford 1990
148no v Australia
Sydney 1991-92
114 v Australia
Perth 1991-92
111 v South Africa
Johannesburg 1992-93
165 v England
Madras 1992-93
104no v Sri Lanka
Colombo 1993-94
142 v Sri Lanka
Lucknow 1993-94
179 v West Indies
Nagpur 1994-95
122 v England
Edgbaston 1996
177 v England
Trent Bridge 1996
169 v South Africa
Cape Town 1996-97
143 v Sri Lanka
Colombo 1997-98
139 v Sri Lanka
Colombo 1997-98
148 v Sri Lanka
Bombay 1997-98
155no v Australia
Chennai 1997-98
177 v Australia
Bangalore 1997-98
113 v New Zealand
Wellington 1998-99
136 v Pakistan
Chennai 1998-99
124no v Sri Lanka
Colombo 1998-99
126no v New Zealand
Mohali 1999-2000
217 v New Zealand
Ahmedabad 1999-2000
116 v Australia
Melbourne 1999-2000
122 v Zimbabwe
Delhi 2000-2001
201no v Zimbabwe
Nagpur 2000-2001
126 v Australia
Chennai 200-2001

... which have resulted in him being one of the greatest batsman of all time, couldn't warrant a place in the top 100. There's an obvious flaw there.

 

[Jono]

I think a fair argument for the Barbados match being better can be made as well. I was more responding to C_C claiming that the Edgbaston test is "nowhere near" any of the other three, which is pretty silly.

So you decided to equal his silliness by claiming the Ashes test was no question a better match in terms of quality compared to a match you didn't watch.

Fighting silly comments with equally silly ones isn't strengthening your argument. And I'll tell you what, that Edgbaston test was a classic, but its so obviously being elevated above ones from 5-6 years ago because people simply haven't seen them. To claim Lee's 1-111 was of better quality than anything Prasad did in that Chennai test is silly. Lee will go down as the better bowler probably, but we're talking one match, and Lee was rubbish whilst Prasad was great in that specific match.

 

[C_C]

Well, to put it simply, I entirely disagree. Waqar in 1999 was a good bowler but nothing particularly special. I'd rate Flintoff, Jones and Warne at least from that Edgbaston tests as better bowlers at the same point in time. Saqlain also wasn't any better than Flintoff or Jones, at least not in tests.

To say that Wasim, Waqar and Saqlain in 1999 were significantly better than the England attack in the 2005 Ashes is absurd, and makes me wonder how much of the series you actually bothered to watch.

Quite a bit. Though i dont watch much cricket and as a result, my memory of cricket from 5-10 years ago is much more vivid than most people's.
I am pretty certain that Waqar of 99 would've ****ed all over Jones's stats from the Ashes if you could transplant him in there.
And Saqqi circa 99 was just as effective as Warne and murali today and threatening to join that club irrevocably......none of the english bowlers can say that really.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

So you decided to equal his silliness by claiming the Ashes test was no question a better match in terms of quality compared to a match you didn't watch.

Fighting silly comments with equally silly ones isn't strengthening your argument. And I'll tell you what, that Edgbaston test was a classic, but its so obviously being elevated above ones from 5-6 years ago because people simply haven't seen them. To claim Lee's 1-111 was of better quality than anything Prasad did in that Chennai test is silly. Lee will go down as the better bowler probably, but we're talking tests, and Lee was rubbish whilst Prasad was great in that specific match.

What I was trying to say is that the standard was higher in the Ashes test because the teams were better, not that both teams played better cricket. It probably came across the wrong way. As I said, I haven't seen the 99 Chennai test (though I have seen each of the other three in question), so I can't really judge how well the teams played in that game.

 

[honestbharani]

So you decided to equal his silliness by claiming the Ashes test was no question a better match in terms of quality compared to a match you didn't watch.

Fighting silly comments with equally silly ones isn't strengthening your argument. And I'll tell you what, that Edgbaston test was a classic, but its so obviously being elevated above ones from 5-6 years ago because people simply haven't seen them. To claim Lee's 1-111 was of better quality than anything Prasad did in that Chennai test is silly. Lee will go down as the better bowler probably, but we're talking one match, and Lee was rubbish whilst Prasad was great in that specific match.

yeah, but Prasad was a spinner.


Kidding. I do think that both matches were almost of equal quality, but the state of the pitch on the last day at Chennai means I will probably give it to the Chennai test by the slightest bit imaginable. But IMHO, I do think that match should be under a bit of a match fixing cloud. Nothing came out of enquiries but I refuse to believe that Mongia would have thought that the shot he played was the best option under the circumstances. I have a feeling that there was more than just a back injury behind Sachin not coming out for the presentation ceremony.

 

[honestbharani]

What I was trying to say is that the standard was higher in the Ashes test because the teams were better, not that both teams played better cricket. It probably came across the wrong way. As I said, I haven't seen the 99 Chennai test (though I have seen each of the other three in question), so I can't really judge how well the teams played in that game.

The Pak side of 99 WOULD have defeated the current Aussie and English side in most conditions if only they knew the word "consistency". It was a side when playing to their potential was more than a match for anyone in the world and at Chennai, they did play to their potential.