All-time Test XI with a twist

[adub]

Vaughan did make his lineup though.

and whilst his average ain't much over 40 Straus' 20 tons and leadership qualities rate him well over Tres in my mind.

 

[adub]

would have Anderson over probably Lee or Jacobs.

Fleming over Collingwood.

The reason I didn't go with Anderson is because I think he's been better as he gets older so during the noughties not done enough, but a marginal call with Lee.

 

[Prince EWS]

No I think you're right not to put Anderson in, but I find it hard to put Lee in any side. He was decent enough when he swung the ball at pace. But commentators overrated him so much it put me off him. Should have been dropped before Gillespie in my opinion. I know Dizzy's stats weren't great at the time, but Lee's were over inflated due to his bowling more overs at the tail. But anyway my vote is for Dizzy Gillespie, one poor year does not make him lose to Brett 'look at me' Lee. I mean the mullet, get the mullet in your team!

Gillespie completely had the yips though; he'd lost it. Lee had just returned to the side and comfortably outbowled Gillespie and Kasprowicz in that series. There's no way Gillespie could be retained after that really.

 

[Riggins]

Spark?

 

[Prince EWS]

Spark?

It was actually a reply to schearzie who Sparked and then deleted his post.

 

[Prince EWS]

Actually he didn't even Spark; he just deleted for some reason.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Gillespie completely had the yips though; he'd lost it. Lee had just returned to the side and comfortably outbowled Gillespie and Kasprowicz in that series. There's no way Gillespie could be retained after that really.

Sorry, I realised I'd gone outside the zone of sub 27 ave. Completely my fault obviously.
But I also disagree with what you're saying, but it's probably like I say my prejudice against Lee but he seemed to be favoured to bowl at the tail, and he seamed to get cheap wickets there. I wouldn't say he comfortably outbowled either of Gillespie or Kasper ever. At times he got better results, but never a comfortably better bowler.
BTW I promise not to delete this post this time

 

[Bushranger]

My favorite all time team. 1. Matthew Hayden 2. Rayul Dravid. 3. Brian Lara 4. Ricky Ponting 5. Viv Richards 6. Dean Jones 7. Adam Gilchrist 8. Imran Khan 9. Shane Warne 10. Malcolm Marshall 11. Glenn McGrath 12th Andrew Symonds

 

[Manee]

Plenty of possible teams that I think would give All Time Test XIs a run for their money. Batting is obviously strong but bowling is interesting. Thomson, Anderson and Zaheer would be a fine bowling line-up by any standards if you take the three in their prime. There is pace, swing and reverse swing. But there is also the prospect of chucking the ball to Lee and Thomson and watching batsmen hop around. I cannot imagine tailenders lasting too long against those two!

 

[Manee]

Gillespie completely had the yips though; he'd lost it. Lee had just returned to the side and comfortably outbowled Gillespie and Kasprowicz in that series. There's no way Gillespie could be retained after that really.

Assuming you are talking about 2005 Ashes, did you (or anyone) see how he bowled against Bangladesh in the subsequent series. Was the bowling very much the same or was he back to bowling well. I know you said Gillespie had the yips but from what I remember, he didn't look to be bowling awfully, he just had no penetration or movement.

 

[Prince EWS]

Plenty of possible teams that I think would give All Time Test XIs a run for their money. Batting is obviously strong but bowling is interesting. Thomson, Anderson and Zaheer would be a fine bowling line-up by any standards if you take the three in their prime. There is pace, swing and reverse swing. But there is also the prospect of chucking the ball to Lee and Thomson and watching batsmen hop around. I cannot imagine tailenders lasting too long against those two!

People talk about taking players' peaks and looking at the highest level of skill they achieved a lot on this forum and I don't really buy into it a a very important measure a lot, but Bree Lee during this (almost) two year period bowled just as well as I've seen anyone bowl this century. It's often forgotten with his career of injury, inconsistency and unfulfilled potential, that he actually was indisputably the best fast bowler in the world for a little period before injury took hold of him again and Steyn took over. It's a shame that he mastered his skill at about the same time his body ceased to be capable of enduring the process; he was a bit like Ryan Harris in that way I guess.

 

[Prince EWS]

Assuming you are talking about 2005 Ashes, did you (or anyone) see how he bowled against Bangladesh in the subsequent series. Was the bowling very much the same or was he back to bowling well. I know you said Gillespie had the yips but from what I remember, he didn't look to be bowling awfully, he just had no penetration or movement.

He bowled much better in Bangladesh than he did in England. He'd transformed into the bowler you're talking about by Bangladesh - bowled a tidy line and an awkward length but without the pace or movement to really trouble many batsmen. What always made Gillespie so deadly in his prime was that he seemed to lose a lot less pace off the pitch after the ball landed than most bowlers. I'm not sure if he actually did as such or it just seemed that way, but whichever the case it was well and truly gone by the time he played Bangladesh. He went back to domestic cricket for a while after that and was a solid bowler without ever really doing anything to suggest he should be back in the Test frame.

In England though he was actually terrible at times; perhaps he was striving to get back what he'd lost and was trying too much, but he was all over the shop rather than just innocuous.

 

[Manee]

He bowled much better in Bangladesh than he did in England. He'd transformed into the bowler you're talking about by Bangladesh - bowled a tidy line and an awkward length but without the pace or movement to really trouble many batsmen. What always made Gillespie so deadly in his prime was that he seemed to lose a lot less pace off the pitch after the ball landed than most bowlers. I'm not sure if he actually did as such or it just seemed that way, but whichever the case it was well and truly gone by the time he played Bangladesh. He went back to domestic cricket for a while after that and was a solid bowler without ever really doing anything to suggest he should be back in the Test frame.

In England though he was actually terrible at times; perhaps he was striving to get back what he'd lost and was trying too much, but he was all over the shop rather than just innocuous.

He was actually pretty quick for most of his Test career, I'm starting to find from clips on YouTube. More often than not pushing or over 140kph. IIRC, in Ashes 2005, he was often at 130kph.

 

[Manee]

People talk about taking players' peaks and looking at the highest level of skill they achieved a lot on this forum and I don't really buy into it a a very important measure a lot, but Bree Lee during this (almost) two year period bowled just as well as I've seen anyone bowl this century. It's often forgotten with his career of injury, inconsistent and unfulfilled potential, that he actually was indisputably the best fast bowler in the world for a little period before injury took hold of him again and Steyn took over. It's a shame that he mastered his skill at about the same time his body ceased to be capable of enduring the process; he was a bit like Ryan Harris in that way I guess.

Why don't you buy into it as being an important measure. Someone like Anderson should clearly go down as someone who started averagely but then become a world class bowler, same for Zaheer? Career averages are misleading in this way, right? Longevity is important, but I don't think you can really criticise longevity on the basis that they were a poorer bowler when they started.

 

[Prince EWS]

He was actually pretty quick for most of his Test career, I'm starting to find from clips on YouTube. More often than not pushing or over 140kph. IIRC, in Ashes 2005, he was often at 130kph.

Yeah he was a genuine express bowler as a younger player. Morne Morkelish. Repeated Injuries slowly wore that down but he just had absolutely no rhythm at all in England so his pace, control, movement - everything - was shot.

 

[Prince EWS]

Why don't you buy into it as being an important measure. Someone like Anderson should clearly go down as someone who started averagely but then become a world class bowler, same for Zaheer? Career averages are misleading in this way, right? Longevity is important, but I don't think you can really criticise longevity on the basis that they were a poorer bowler when they started.

To me it's all about how valuable it makes you to a side (not the side you play for as such, but any hypothetical side) across your career. I'd rather have an 87/100 Test bowler for eight years than a 70/100 bowler for seven years who suddenly became an 89/100 bowler for one year. The latter achieved a higher level of skill but would be less valuable to a Test side (unless of course that Test side had four other 88/100 bowlers for that entire time, and only had any use for either of them once broke that requirement, but you get my drift).


I don't hold it against players if they were selected before they were any good as such, so career averages are definitely misleading in that way. James Anderson has a higher Test average than Ryan Sidebottom but that's because Sidebottom played exclusively through his peak. I'm sure if you could find a sample of James Anderson's career that was a long as Sidebottom's entire Test career in which he averaged less. Not being good enough to make the side marks you down in my book just as much if not more than making it and performing poorly.

 

[adub]

People talk about taking players' peaks and looking at the highest level of skill they achieved a lot on this forum and I don't really buy into it a a very important measure a lot, but Bree Lee during this (almost) two year period bowled just as well as I've seen anyone bowl this century. It's often forgotten with his career of injury, inconsistent and unfulfilled potential, that he actually was indisputably the best fast bowler in the world for a little period before injury took hold of him again and Steyn took over. It's a shame that he mastered his skill at about the same time his body ceased to be capable of enduring the process; he was a bit like Ryan Harris in that way I guess.

Yeah it's easy to forget that post McGrath Lee really stepped up and led from the front. Bowled some excellent tests, but strangley even then never had that 7 or 8-fer day that most really good bowlers get at least once in their careers.