Best Top 7 ever?

[Dasa]

GC Smith
V Sehwag
R Dravid
BC Lara
JH Kallis
Inzamam-ul-Haq
A Flintoff

 

[Lillian Thomson]

CG Greenidge
DL Haynes
RB Richardson
HA Gomes
IVA Richards
CH Lloyd
PJL Dujon

 

[weldone]

GC Smith
V Sehwag
R Dravid
BC Lara
JH Kallis
Inzamam-ul-Haq
A Flintoff

Good one...

 

[iamdavid]

Yeah. That is the best batting lineup I have ever seen, by a fairly comfortable margin, with my own eyes. If only Mark Waugh and Martyn's peaks (a little earlier and later than this point respectively) cooincided with Hayden, Langer, Ponting and Gilchrist...

There was however one test in which this top 7 appeared that they were all at or relatively close to their best - 5th Ashes test a the Oval in 2001.

Langer came back into the side this game in Slaters place and made 102.

Hayden was in a minor trough between very good series against India and New Zealand.

Ponting had just made a 140odd at Headingley and a 50 in this game (although Richard will probably remember the life he had on 0 lol).

Mark Waugh had enjoyed a fine aussie summer and was the leading runscorer in this series, averaging 86.

Steve Waugh was still rated very close to the best batsman in the world, made a great hundred this game (second of the series) despite batting on one leg.

Martyn had just established himself in the side with two hundreds in the first four tests.

Gilchrist was still at his very best, had made two of his best hundreds already that year and a few months later would make his 204 in South Africa.

Alas straight after this series the Waugh brothers went into a pretty rapid and permanent decline.

 

[iamdavid]

Sehwag
Chopra
Dravid
Tendulkar
Ganguly
Laxman
Patel

Wasnt shabby....however the relatively poor #7 and #2 hold them back.

 

[Richard]

Chopra batted at #1 in that line-up TBH. If Dinesh Karthik had been around a little while earlier he'd have considerably strengthened that line-up instead of the joke that Parthiv Patel often was with bat and gloves.

 

[Richard]

CG Greenidge
DL Haynes
RB Richardson
HA Gomes
IVA Richards
CH Lloyd
PJL Dujon

Trying to find the game in which this line-up appeared, and found it played in the entire 1984/85 series against Australia. Along, of course, with a bowling attack featuring Marshall, Holding, Garner and Walsh.

 

[weldone]

Sehwag
Chopra
Dravid
Tendulkar
Ganguly
Laxman
Patel

Wasnt shabby....however the relatively poor #7 and #2 hold them back.

Jaffer
Sehwag
Dravid
Tendulkar
Ganguly
Laxman
Dhoni

is better...Gambhir in place of Jaffer will be even better, which we are yet to see...

 

[Richard]

Ponting had just made a 140odd at Headingley and a 50 in this game (although Richard will probably remember the life he had on 0 lol).

Have never really thought of that as a let-off per se TBH. Ramprakash could have caught it if he'd been standing closer - but he wasn't, there was no reason he should have been, and at the position he was standing he had no chance at all of catching it.

 

[Richard]

Ive always liked this one.

Not a keeper or a specialist bowler in sight.

Just three front-line bowlers... had never noticed that before actually, despite running over the horror that that game was (until it was eclipsed by an even worse performance by the same team at the same ground against the same opposition 5 years later) more than once.

 

[iamdavid]

Have never really thought of that as a let-off per se TBH. Ramprakash could have caught it if he'd been standing closer - but he wasn't, there was no reason he should have been, and at the position he was standing he had no chance at all of catching it.

Wow, and I was embarrased just to have remembered that the third umpire let him off to a catch on 0 in an innings seven years ago.
You then go and show me up by remembering the exact positioning of the fieldsman..

 

[iamdavid]

Jaffer
Sehwag
Dravid
Tendulkar
Ganguly
Laxman
Dhoni

is better...Gambhir in place of Jaffer will be even better, which we are yet to see...

Hmm nah the 2003/04 lineup was better for me, simply because Dravid was in pristine touch back then, whereas he sadly appears to have declined a fair bit.
And I'm not of the opinion that Dhoni is a whole lot better than Parthiv Patel (with the bat in the longer form that is).

 

[Richard]

Ian Healy
Adam Gilchrist

Wrong dates. Those I'm thinking of are this for Healy and this for Gilchrist. Overall figures are almost identical but most of Gilchrist's runs came in one 7-Test burst, Healy spread it over the entire period.

 

[Richard]

Wow, and I was embarrased just to have remembered that the third umpire let him off to a catch on 0 in an innings seven years ago.
You then go and show me up by remembering the exact positioning of the fieldsman..

It wasn't a bad decision - the ball was clearly grounded.

The only way it'd have been out was if Ramprakash had been standing closer (or the third-Umpire had made a massive blunder).

 

[Richard]

Some other solid batting-lineups from the past, England in the 1950s where pretty good.

ENGLAND 1955:

Hutton
B Edrich
May
Compton
Cowdrey
Bailey

Not sure how many test they played together though

Thing which lets that down is the fact Bill Edrich wasn't an opener. If there'd been another proper opener in there that line-up would've been impregnable, as it was there was a single weak-link.

 

[Richard]

Healy was never a good batsman.

What?! While Healy's batting when he was good was obviously not close to being as good as Gilchrist's batting while he was good, not being as good as Gilchrist does not = "not good".

An average of 36 over 90 innings spanning 5 years is most certainly damn good. How anyone can suggest this never happened is beyond me.

 

[Richard]

There's no way Taylor was a better batsman than Hayden, sorry. I was a big fan of Taylor and he's my favourite Australian captain and was a pretty good batsman, but he wasn't in Hayden's league.

No, he wasn't - he was better.

I think you know that I and a few others think this, so I barely even know why I'm bothering to make this post. But... there's no way on Earth Hayden would have been capable of scoring runs against a great many of the attacks Taylor did - never mind the vast number Taylor scored early in his career.

 

[vic_orthdox]

No, he wasn't - he was better.

(In my opinion... )There's no way on Earth Hayden would have been capable of scoring runs against a great many of the attacks Taylor did - never mind the vast number Taylor scored early in his career.

Either way, I think you know this (is my opinion), so I barely even know why I'm bothering to make this post.

Translated for n00bs.

 

[Richard]

Richard is funny.

Why? For pointing-out that Healy when he was good was better than Gilchrist when he wasn't that good?

Obviously, Gilchrist when he was good was far better than Healy when he was good, and Gilchrist when he wasn't that good was far, far, far, far better than Healy when he wasn't that good. Gilchrist is clearly hugely superior. But this exercise isn't about comparing those two, it's about comparing strength of batting sides.

Incidentally, since aussie t hasn't done it, I'll do it for him.
MA Taylor 17 Tests, 1263 runs at 48.57
MJ Slater 15 Tests, 1157 runs at 48.20
DC Boon 18 Tests, 1375 runs at 55.00
ME Waugh 17 Tests, 1139 runs at 49.52
AR Border 18 Tests, 1101 runs at 45.87
SR Waugh 16 Tests, 1170 runs at 78.00
IA Healy 18 Tests, 709 runs at 39.38
Also featured:
PR Reiffel 11 matches 218 runs at 24.22
SK Warne 18 matches, 304 runs at 21.71
MG Hughes 11 matches, 226 runs at 22.60
CJ McDermott 14 matches, 153 runs at 15.30

Pretty damn impressive in my book, and the above batsmen played 104, 74, 107, 128, 156, 168 and 119 Tests respectively in total. Who knows, maybe the Husseys, Clarkes and Jaqueses will end-up doing so too (certainly overwhelmingly likely in the case of the 2nd of those 3) but they haven't yet.

 

[Richard]

Translated for n00bs.

I guess. Edited for picky McNamaras.