Your choice– best playing XI from a match

[FaaipDeOiad]

Given that we are talking test cricket, Lee has never lived up to his initial promise. He actually had a good average back then (70 wickets @ 25 compared to his current tally of 210 @ 32).

Lee had a couple of good series to start his career, then dropped off very badly. By that stage he wasn't bowling anywhere near as well as he has been this year.

 

[sangita]

my agarkar

Touche.

Ajit Agarkar was born at worli on 17 12 1977he is 27 now. He had joined tata team under 16 he tour Pakistan with India A team he bang 16 wickets in two test matches with two 5 wickets haul. He was when selected in India senior team for independence cup in he has taken 50 in 23 matches He snatched the record from none other than Australian legend Dennis Lillie in 23 September 1998. He had scored fastest 50runs by Indian in ODI agarkar had taken 200wickets in133 matches 4th'Indian to reach this mark but fastest .1000and more runs and 200wickjet 2nd Indian to reach this mark but fastest in world he scored 202 runs in 11matches he bat just 8 times in it. Salvi like agarkar both are good Player agarkar first played for tata team under 16 and mumbai his best figure is in test unbeaten 109*against at lords and 16.2-241-6against Australia in Adelaide in one day 95 run against west Indies in India and 9-2-42-6 in Melbourne against Australia he is ba from rupale and fatima is mba he is wedding anniversary is on 9 Feb. he has written many articles on cricket in Marathi and English there is a picture of ball from which he has broken the stump
Mumbai seamer developed flu yesterday.

this photo is of agarkar when he wicket of Justin langer IN MY OPINION AJIT AGARKAR IS A BETTER AND PROVEN ALLROUNDER. IN FACT THE TEAM MANAGEMENT ERRED IN ITS POLICY AND WAS JUST HELL BENT ON GIVING CHANCES ONLY TO PATHAN WHEREAS WHENEVER AGARKAR WALKED TO THE CREASE IT WAS IN A PRESSURE SITUATION. HE IS ONE OF THE CLEANEST HITTERS OF THE BALL AND HAS PROVEN HIS BATTING SKILLS EARLIER ALSO ON MANY OCCASIONS WHEN HE WAS SENT UP THE ORDER. ALSO HE HAS COME TO THE SIDE AFTER A LAYOFF AND HIS CONFIDENCE AS FAR AS HIS BATTING IS CONCERNED IS NOT THAT HIGH. SENDING HIM UP THE ORDER WILL ALSO BOOST HIS CONFIDENCE AND HE CAN BAT FREELY ONCE HE HAS PLAYED ONE OR TWO GOOD INNINGS. AS FAR AS BOWLING IS CONCERNED HE IS QUICKEST TO TAKE 50 AS WELL AS 100 AND 200 WICKETS IN ODIS FOR THE COUNTRY. FOOLS LIKE KIRTI AZAD AND MANINDER SINGH WHO ARE NOT AWARE OF HIS ACHIEVEMENTS JUST KEEP ON HARPING AGAINST HIM. IN A CHAT PROGRAMME IN ONE OF THE TV CHANNELS WHEN MANINDER AND KIRTI WERE CONFRONTED WITH A VIEWER WHO BLASTED THEM FOR OPPOSING AGARKAR IN SPITE OF HAVING SUCH A SUCCESSFUL CAREER WHAT THE TWO HAD TO SAY WAS REALLY PATHETIC. WHEN INFORMED BY THE VIEWER THAT AGARKAR HOLDS THE WORLD RECORD FOR TAKING THE QUICKEST 50 WICKETS ONLY IN HIS 23RD MATCH BEATING DENNIS LILEE'S RECORD, WHAT THESE 'GREAT EXPERTS' HAD TO SAY WAS 'HOW MANY WICKETS HE HAS TAKEN AFTER THAT? AND LIKE VERY LEARNED JUDGES ANSWERED THEMSELVES - 70 WICKETS OR SO. WELL SUCH IS THE LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ON THE PART OF THESE SO CALLED EXPERTS. AJIT AGARKAR ON THAT DAY WAS HAVING CLOSE TO 220 ODI WICKETS UNDER HIS BELT WHICH THESE PEOPLE CANNOT EVEN DREAM OF. SO 220 MINUS 50 MAKES OUT TO 170 WICKETS. SO HELL BENT WERE THEY ON ERASING HIS REPUTATION AND SHOWING HIM IN BAD LIGHT THAT THEY REDUCED 100 WICKETS FROM HIS RECORDS. AJIT AGARKAR IS A SOFT SPOKEN MAN. IF THERE WERE ANY OTHER MAN LIKE GANGULY IN HIS PLACE, HE WOULD SEEK A PUBLIC APOLOGY FROM THESE TWO PEOPLE FOR HARMING HIS REPUTATION. BUT THEIR MENTALITY OF TRYING TO GET RID OF A MUMBAIYA MAN LIKE AGARKAR, A TEAM WHICH HAS TIME AND AGAIN BEATEN THEM, IS QUITE UNDERSTANDABLE, FOR THEY CAN'T EVEN IN THEIR DREAMS RAISE THEIR VOICES AGAINST THE OTHER MUMBAIYA MAN, SACHIN.

 

[sangita]

my agarkar

Touche.

AGARKAR POWAR

 

[wpdavid]

Cant see how a side that included Chris Lewis, Derek Pringle, Dermot Reeve, a past it Ian Botham and an inexperienced Hick can be considered our best ever. Instead i nominate this side from the Carlton & United series in 97-98:

N V Knight
A J Stewart (c) (k)
M A Ealham
N Hussain
G A Hick
N H Fairbrother
A J Hollioake
R D B Croft
D Gough
D W Headley
A D Mullally

In it we have our best ODI opener ever-Nick Knight, our best wicket keeper ever- Alec stewart and our 2 best ODI bowlers ever- Alan Mullally and Darren Gough. All 4 were in their primes. I would also consider this one:

N Hussain
A J Stewart (c) (k)
G A Hick
G P Thorpe
N H Fairbrother
A Flintoff
A J Hollioake
M A Ealham
D Gough
A R C Fraser
A D Mullally

which when you look back at it appears to be a dream England side. Where was it from? The 99 world cup where England didnt make it past the first round at home

... which tells you how good it really was. Typical 90's England - looked good on paper, but seriously under-achieving. Thrashed hollow by SA & India IIRC, which says it all.
Again, the 1997/98 side looks good, but didn't they get comprehensively turned over in the WI? Lots of big name players doing very little, if memory serves ...

The thing about the 1992 lineup is that the players you listed actually played well together until they ran out of steam at the end of the tournament. Anyway ...

 

[tooextracool]

... which tells you how good it really was. Typical 90's England - looked good on paper, but seriously under-achieving. Thrashed hollow by SA & India IIRC, which says it all.

The india game was conditions affected IMO, with the likes of debashish Mohanty getting the ball to move all over the place. Losing to SA who no disgrace considering how good they were back then.
The problem with that world cup side was that Nick Knight withdrew from it not long before the world cup and left a void right at the top. More importantly however several other players unfortunately reached the very end of their careers during that series- Fairbrother, Fraser while Stewart was going through the worst phase of his life, he was dropped after the series.

Again, the 1997/98 side looks good, but didn't they get comprehensively turned over in the WI? Lots of big name players doing very little, if memory serves ......

The side that played in the WI was actually living off the side that won in sharjah the tournament before. the likes of matthew fleming and dougie brown were never going to be successful for too long at the international level, and tlooking at the squad there was also the hollioakes and mark ramprakash which is never good.

The thing about the 1992 lineup is that the players you listed actually played well together until they ran out of steam at the end of the tournament. Anyway ...

that may have been the case, but it just so happened that a lot of those players played above themselves much like in Sharjah 97/98. Most of them were not good enough to play international cricket and were found out not too long thereafter.

 

[wpdavid]

The india game was conditions affected IMO, with the likes of debashish Mohanty getting the ball to move all over the place. Losing to SA who no disgrace considering how good they were back then.
The problem with that world cup side was that Nick Knight withdrew from it not long before the world cup and left a void right at the top. More importantly however several other players unfortunately reached the very end of their careers during that series- Fairbrother, Fraser while Stewart was going through the worst phase of his life, he was dropped after the series.

1999 was a major ****up on nearly all fronts. Wasn't Knight dropped for Hussain? And they certainly weren't helped by the row over pay before the tournament. Even so, the extent of the loss to SA was unacceptable, I thought. And surely Gough, Mullally & Fraser should have made better use of the conditions against India. I know we were unlucky to have to bat for part of our innings late in the day before it was carried over, but even so ...

The side that played in the WI was actually living off the side that won in sharjah the tournament before. the likes of matthew fleming and dougie brown were never going to be successful for too long at the international level, and tlooking at the squad there was also the hollioakes and mark ramprakash which is never good.

So when was the Carlton & whatever game you mentioned? Forgive my ignorance, but I lose track of these things.

that may have been the case, but it just so happened that a lot of those players played above themselves much like in Sharjah 97/98. Most of them were not good enough to play international cricket and were found out not too long thereafter.

I'm trying to remember who was in the 1992 side. Pringle must have been close to retirement. Reeve can't have played (m)any tests after the WC. Lewis actually bowled really well, as he did sometimes do at that stage of his career. For whatever reasons, things deteriorated subsequently. But the point is that these guys did actually punch their weight, albeit briefly. I know the late 90's lineups looked better, but they never actually achieved much in the way of results, apart from the 3-0 texaco win against a very undercooked Aus side in 1997. As you say, Sharjah was a very different lineup anyway.

 

[tooextracool]

1999 was a major ****up on nearly all fronts. Wasn't Knight dropped for Hussain? And they certainly weren't helped by the row over pay before the tournament. Even so, the extent of the loss to SA was unacceptable, I thought. And surely Gough, Mullally & Fraser should have made better use of the conditions against India. I know we were unlucky to have to bat for part of our innings late in the day before it was carried over, but even so ....

Was he really dropped? I always thought he was injured. Cant say i understand how someone who scored half their runs in the WI not long before that and had an excellent year in 98 could be dropped. That really was the major issue across the 90s though. Such was the selection policy at the time that it screwed a lot of players over, and we never got to see a consistent England side despite having some very good players at the time. Fraser kept getting dropped for various reasons(and his injuries didnt help either), Hick too was dropped occasionally, Fairbrother barely ever played consistently while Mullally barely played much international cricket despite being one of our very best ever. Had all these players played together consistently for England during the 90s, i think things might have been completely different.
As far as the world cup in 99 was concerned, i thought our bowlers did a pretty decent job- Restricting SA to 225 and India to 230 odd. i think our batting failed miserably against SA when they could have done a lot better, but the loss to India was unfortunate as the conditions were so horribly against them with India batting in perfect batting conditions while England having to bat with the ball moving around all over the place.

So when was the Carlton & whatever game you mentioned? Forgive my ignorance, but I lose track of these things.

Down in Australia in 98/99. On the whole i thought we were a pretty decent team(although our batting was over reliant on Hick) in the tournament, and should really have won the first final, will never forget Hussain's dismissal when we had the game won at 198/4.

I'm trying to remember who was in the 1992 side. Pringle must have been close to retirement. Reeve can't have played (m)any tests after the WC. Lewis actually bowled really well, as he did sometimes do at that stage of his career. For whatever reasons, things deteriorated subsequently. But the point is that these guys did actually punch their weight, albeit briefly. I know the late 90's lineups looked better, but they never actually achieved much in the way of results, apart from the 3-0 texaco win against a very undercooked Aus side in 1997. As you say, Sharjah was a very different lineup anyway.

As i mentioned earlier the side that i mentioned didnt play together enough. i mean commone Fairbrother(a guy who played in 3 world cups) played 75 ODIs in his entire career, Mullally played 50, Fraser played 42. i think we had some very good players in both tests and ODIs back in the 90s but for injuries and the selectors.Most players were uncertain of their place in the side and as a result had too much pressure put on them. The fact that Knight, Hick, Fraser and Mullally were dropped as many times as they were despite being the best players of the decade only emphasises that.

 

[wpdavid]

As i mentioned earlier the side that i mentioned didnt play together enough. i mean commone Fairbrother(a guy who played in 3 world cups) played 75 ODIs in his entire career, Mullally played 50, Fraser played 42. i think we had some very good players in both tests and ODIs back in the 90s but for injuries and the selectors.Most players were uncertain of their place in the side and as a result had too much pressure put on them. The fact that Knight, Hick, Fraser and Mullally were dropped as many times as they were despite being the best players of the decade only emphasises that.

I wouldn't argue with that, although it's been true at other times as well, of course.
I found it quite interesting looking at results before & after the 1992 WC. We see England beating WI & NZ 3-0 home & away respectively, then reaching the WC final, finally beating the WC winners 4-1 in England. That's a pretty tidy set of results, and it's easy to forget how effective a oneday side we were for a while.

If I wanted to compare the 2 sides, I'd say that the early 90's had the better batting lineup, especially at the top of the order. They probably had better allrounders too. Not great in worldclass terms, but able to do a job. The late 90's side definitely had the better attack though - or at least they did when the selectors did their job properly. My gripe with that side was how often the bowlers would do a good job only for the batting to disappear without a trace. The 1999 SA game is a good example, but there are others. Ultimately the early 90's side was more successful, although maybe that reflects the standard of sides they played to some extent.

 

[Arjun]

For England, I would nominate one of these teams:

1. The team that won the Test series in WI in 2004– This team had a four-man seam attack in which each bowler served a purpose. Hoggard would swing it, Harmison would blast it in, Jones would get some reverse-swing a little faster, while Flintoff and lone spinner Giles would be defensive bowlers. The batting was scratchy, but Butcher, Hussain and Thorpe batted well when it mattered and they had a fantastic 'keeper behind the stumps, as each time they bowled the West Indians cheaply. Then Chris Read was dropped and the better batting keeper Jones got in, and was welcomed by a 400 not out by Brian Lara, in a match which finally had big scores by Flintoff, Trescothick and Vaughan.
2. The ODI team from the final of the 2005 NatWest Series– The series was only squared, but it was still a competitive one. Except for Hoggard, they had their top Test bowling unit in action. They had Pietersen, one of the more explosive batsmen of today, unstoppable when in full flow, and a tough nut in Collingwood. Fine, they also had Jones, but given the end result and his 71, it wasn't too bad.
3. The Test team for the whole Ashes series of 2005– And why not?

 

[tooextracool]

I wouldn't argue with that, although it's been true at other times as well, of course.
I found it quite interesting looking at results before & after the 1992 WC. We see England beating WI & NZ 3-0 home & away respectively, then reaching the WC final, finally beating the WC winners 4-1 in England. That's a pretty tidy set of results, and it's easy to forget how effective a oneday side we were for a while.

If I wanted to compare the 2 sides, I'd say that the early 90's had the better batting lineup, especially at the top of the order. They probably had better allrounders too. Not great in worldclass terms, but able to do a job. The late 90's side definitely had the better attack though - or at least they did when the selectors did their job properly. My gripe with that side was how often the bowlers would do a good job only for the batting to disappear without a trace. The 1999 SA game is a good example, but there are others. Ultimately the early 90's side was more successful, although maybe that reflects the standard of sides they played to some extent.

its very interesting that. Looking at their record before the world cup, certainly in terms of results that team was right up there. Yet the side collapsed miserably after that despite having essentially the same players. i think one of the issues during that time was that they werent playing enough ODI cricket, and a lot of the players lost the plot completely. Certainly a batting lineup of Gooch, Stewart, Smith, Hick, Lamb, Fairbrother, Botham, Reeve, Lewis,Defreitas, Illingworth is a very good one and quite deep. The bowling was always an issue but they were delivering during that time. On reconsidering, i agree with you that in terms of efficiency that was our best side, although on paper the late 90s side should have been better. to think that if our selectors hadnt given half of those players from the 90s such a raw deal, we might have been quite a powerful unit throughout the decade is remarkable really.

 

[tooextracool]

For England, I would nominate one of these teams:

1. The team that won the Test series in WI in 2004– This team had a four-man seam attack in which each bowler served a purpose. Hoggard would swing it, Harmison would blast it in, Jones would get some reverse-swing a little faster, while Flintoff and lone spinner Giles would be defensive bowlers. The batting was scratchy, but Butcher, Hussain and Thorpe batted well when it mattered and they had a fantastic 'keeper behind the stumps, as each time they bowled the West Indians cheaply. Then Chris Read was dropped and the better batting keeper Jones got in, and was welcomed by a 400 not out by Brian Lara, in a match which finally had big scores by Flintoff, Trescothick and Vaughan.
2. The ODI team from the final of the 2005 NatWest Series– The series was only squared, but it was still a competitive one. Except for Hoggard, they had their top Test bowling unit in action. They had Pietersen, one of the more explosive batsmen of today, unstoppable when in full flow, and a tough nut in Collingwood. Fine, they also had Jones, but given the end result and his 71, it wasn't too bad.
3. The Test team for the whole Ashes series of 2005– And why not?

i dont think the first 2 mentioned were any good. From the side that played in the WI, Chris Read was useless at the time, Simon Jones had just returned from injury and was bowling quite poorly, Flintoff was rubbish with bat and ball despite the figures that he got, Hoggard was still heavily reliant on the conditions and only really Harmison was in top form.
the 2005 natwest series side was for all uses and purposes complete garbage and relied completely on Pietersen on Flintoff(much like the current England ODI side)

 

[Goughy]

i dont think the first 2 mentioned were any good. From the side that played in the WI, Chris Read was useless at the time, Simon Jones had just returned from injury and was bowling quite poorly, Flintoff was rubbish with bat and ball despite the figures that he got, Hoggard was still heavily reliant on the conditions and only really Harmison was in top form.
the 2005 natwest series side was for all uses and purposes complete garbage and relied completely on Pietersen on Flintoff(much like the current England ODI side)

So if the England team was no good and half the players were rubbish what does that make the West Indies team they had destroyed.

I think you are being overcritical

 

[tooextracool]

So if the England team was no good and half the players were rubbish what does that make the West Indies team they had destroyed.

I think you are being overcritical

the WI side that they destroyed were very very poor.nonetheless i was a bit overcritical yes, the England side wasnt a bad one(especially with the Thorpe/Butcher/Hussain middle order), but in terms of player ability at the time it was probably one of the worst we've had over the last 2 years.

 

[wpdavid]

its very interesting that. Looking at their record before the world cup, certainly in terms of results that team was right up there. Yet the side collapsed miserably after that despite having essentially the same players. i think one of the issues during that time was that they werent playing enough ODI cricket, and a lot of the players lost the plot completely. Certainly a batting lineup of Gooch, Stewart, Smith, Hick, Lamb, Fairbrother, Botham, Reeve, Lewis,Defreitas, Illingworth is a very good one and quite deep. The bowling was always an issue but they were delivering during that time. On reconsidering, i agree with you that in terms of efficiency that was our best side, although on paper the late 90s side should have been better. to think that if our selectors hadnt given half of those players from the 90s such a raw deal, we might have been quite a powerful unit throughout the decade is remarkable really.

It is when you look at how dreadful our results were after the early 90's. I suppose the point when it became obvious how far we had been left behind was early 1996 when we were thrashed 5-1 or 6-1 in SA immediately before our disasterous WC campaign. I think you're right that we didn't play enough of the game and we certainly didn't think enough about how we played it. Before then, I'd always felt we were there or thereabouts. After the 1996 WC, it was generally obvious that we were well off the pace. But I do think that standards rose elsewhere. By 1999, Aus, SA and, for most the tournament, Pakistan were streets aheads of anything I'd seen for years.

 

[vic_orthdox]

During the early 90's, when everyone else started playing a fair bit more ODI cricket and England didn't really increase it (e.g still playing the Texaco Trophy Best of 3 series), was there as much Domestic OD cricket as what they have now?

 

[marc71178]

Yes, there was IIRC, the 40 over Sunday league.

 

[wpdavid]

Yes, there was IIRC, the 40 over Sunday league.

And the B&H with its group stage before the knockout rounds, plus whatever the C&G was called in those days, which was a straight knockout competition. I read somewhere that we actually played more oneday domestic cricket than other countries, although I don't know whether that's true or not.

It does all raise the question of why we fell away so badly after the early 90's and have pretty much stayed there ever since.

 

[tooextracool]

It is when you look at how dreadful our results were after the early 90's. I suppose the point when it became obvious how far we had been left behind was early 1996 when we were thrashed 5-1 or 6-1 in SA immediately before our disasterous WC campaign. I think you're right that we didn't play enough of the game and we certainly didn't think enough about how we played it. Before then, I'd always felt we were there or thereabouts. After the 1996 WC, it was generally obvious that we were well off the pace. But I do think that standards rose elsewhere. By 1999, Aus, SA and, for most the tournament, Pakistan were streets aheads of anything I'd seen for years.

i think by the mid 90s SA were streets ahead of everyone. They had the perfect balance in their side, and if it werent for their choking in finals, they would have won a lot more tournaments other than just the first ICC knockout.
As far as England was concerned, as i said the selection policy in both tests and ODIs left a lot to be decided, and that issue is still left to be decided. That and the rather obvious inclination to focus on tests instead of ODIs- which im afraid has not changed has left them behind. You are right in the fact that the standards of other sides rose, ODI cricket has certainly developed since the early 90s- batsman have become better at attacking in the death, bowlers have become more adept at bowling during the slog overs, strategies and field positions have become much more effective and fielding has improved tenfold since. But for me the biggest difference is that teams like SA,Aus, India, Pakistan and SL were playing more than twice as many ODIs as England were during the time.

 

[Autobahn]

i think by the mid 90s SA were streets ahead of everyone. They had the perfect balance in their side, and if it werent for their choking in finals, they would have won a lot more tournaments other than just the first ICC knockout.

Which spookily enough they won with a team which echoed the virtues and makeup of the infamous England sharjah side.

 

[dips_december]

Indian 11 :
Sunil Gavaskar
Sachin Tendulkar
Rahul Dravid
Sourav Ganguly
Mohammed Azharuddin
Mahendra Singh DHoni
Kapil Dev
Anil Kumble
Harbhajan SIngh
Javagal Srinath
Venkaesh Prasad