1970-1990 v 1990-2010

[watson]

This team'd beat all the pretenders...

1950-70

Len Hutton
Bill Lawry
Rohan Kanhai
Graeme Pollock
Peter May
Garry Sobers
Godfrey Evans
Richie Benaud
Allan Davidson
Ray Lindwall
Fred Trueman

Keith Miller

Very nice team Monk. Maybe Benaud at 7 rather than Evans as his averages are slightly better.

 

[watson]

1970s &1980s
Gavaskar-Greenidge-Richards-Chappell-Lloyd-Botham-Imran-Knott-Marshall-Lillee-Underwood
1990s & 2000s
Hayden-Langer-Ponting-Tendulkar-Lara-Kallis-Gilchrist-Warne-Wasim-Ambrose-McGrath[/SIZE]

Nothing between the two teams although I think that the 1970s & 1980s team would win a 5-Test series because its superior top 3.

 

[subshakerz]

1970-1990

Greenidge
Gavaskar
V.Richards
G.Chappell
Miandad
Border
Knott
Imran
Hadlee
Marshall
Lillee
12th- Underwood

1990-2010

Smith
Hayden
Ponting
Tendulkar
Lara
Kallis
Gilchrist
Wasim
Ambrose
Murali/Warne
McGrath



Even money for mine. 70-90s openers are slightly better imo. Middle order breaks even. Gilchrist might give you the slightest advantage as a batsman, but not significantly over Knott. Modern team clearly have better spin options, but the combo of Underwood and Knott on a turning track would cause some real dramas if the modern team tried to tailor a deck to suit them. Pace bowling is pretty much on par.

I think you nailed it with these sides. Unless its a spinning wicket, I give a slight edge to 70-90s. Their four-man pace attack is just much more lethal.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

No offence to Greenidge, but I'd have Bazza Richards to open with Gavaskar.


1930-1950

Ponsford
Dempster
99.94
Headley
Hammond
Paynter
Miller
Ames (wk)
Larwood
Grimmett
Cowie

Strongest batting line up of the lot, and not a bad attack

 

[ohnoitsyou]

I'll go for Monks team here just because, but they are all pretty similar/
Would prefer to watch the 1970-1990 team and they also have the cooler pace trio but thats about the only way i can separate them.


I think a more interesting question would be what team has the better second XI.

1990-2010

Sehwag
Taylor
Sangakkara
KP
Clarke
Waugh
Prior
Steyn
Anderson
Waqar
Murali

1970-1990

Boycott
Richards
Dean Jones (nfi for this spot really)
Pollock
Crowe (Considering his peak was 85-95 not the most objective pick)
Loyd
Botham
Healy
Lillee
Holding
Prasanna


Modern team seems to be better, but that may just be my inability to glue down middle order spots in the 70s team resulting in an abundance of favouritism over quality.

 

[harsh.ag]

No offence to Greenidge, but I'd have Bazza Richards to open with Gavaskar.


1930-1950

Ponsford
Dempster
99.96
Headley
Hammond
Paynter
Miller
Ames (wk)
Larwood
Grimmett
Cowie

Strongest batting line up of the lot, and not a bad attack

How do you trust a guy who makes elementary mistakes like this?

 

[Fuller Pilch]

How do you trust a guy who makes elementary mistakes like this?

Oops - always proofread posts

Will edit

 

[harsh.ag]

This is the 1970-1990 team for me.

Barry Richards
Sunil Gavaskar
Viv Richards*
Graeme Pollock
Greg Chappell
Allan Border
Alan Knott +
Imran Khan
Richard Hadlee
Malcolm Marshall
Abdul Qadir

Maybe Lillee for one of Hadlee or Imran, and maybe Miandad for Border (for some) and maybe Underwood for Qadir (for some).

 

[Muloghonto]

If you compare Murali/Warne stats with Chandra/Prasanna's, it's hard to say that Murali/Warne were not far better.

Stats are rather meaningless in this instant. The 70s for example, was a much much better era for playing spin than the 90s, with only one weak team against spin: New Zealand.
Chandra & prasanna along with Bedi and Venkat do have worse stats than they deserve, because they literally had no one better than a Hansie Cronje or Virat Kohli to open the bowling for them and often took to bowling inside the first 5 overs- which needless to say, deflates stats a bit for spinners. Not to mention, the 70s era of 'block 10 balls and hit the only loose ball for a scoring shot' does make the spinners' strike rates balloon up.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I think a more interesting question would be what team has the better second XI.

1990-2010

Sehwag
Taylor
Sangakkara
KP
Clarke
Waugh
Prior
Steyn
Anderson
Waqar
Murali

1970-1990

Boycott
Richards
Dean Jones (nfi for this spot really)
Pollock
Crowe (Considering his peak was 85-95 not the most objective pick)
Loyd
Botham
Healy
Lillee
Holding
Prasanna


Modern team seems to be better, but that may just be my inability to glue down middle order spots in the 70s team resulting in an abundance of favouritism over quality.

Can't engage brain to do a 70-90 2nd xi, but my 90-2010 2nds would be:


Sehwag
Anwar
Sanga
Dravid
S. Waugh (c)
A. Flower (wk)
Cairns
Pollock
Steyn
Waqar
Murali

 

[Muloghonto]

For the subcontinental conditions XI:

70s-80s:

Gavaskar
Boycott
Richards
Javed Miandad
Clive Lloyd *
Imran Khan
Syed Kirmani (wkt)
Malcolm Marshall
Erapalli Prasanna
Bishen Bedi
Bhagwat chandrasekhar


90s-2000s:

Sehwag
Hayden
Dravid
Tendulkar
Jayawardene
Dhoni+
Wasim Akram
Shane Warne
Anil Kumble
Muttiah Muralitharan
Glenn McGrath

Verdict: 3-2 either way.

 

[Muloghonto]

English/Kiwi conditions:

70s/80s:

Gordon Greenidge
Geoff Boycott
Viv Richards
Greg Chappell
Alan Border
Alan Knott +
Richard Hadlee
Malcolm Marshall
Michael Holding
Denis Lillee
Bhagwat Chandrasekhar

90s-2000s:

Graeme Smith
Alec Stewart
Brian Lara
Sachin Tendulkar
Rahul Dravid
Jacques Kallis
Adam Gillchrist+
Curtly Ambrose
Alan Donald
Glenn McGrath
Muttiah Muralitharan

Verdict: 3-2 either way

 

[marc71178]

Dhoni at 6 & Wasim at 7. ROFLMAO.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Isn't the sign of a great team the fact that they can dominate anywhere in the world. So localising ATG for conditions kind of takes away from that

 

[Muloghonto]

Aussie/Windies conditions:

70s-80s:

Gavaskar
Roy Fredericks
Viv Richards*
Greg Chappell
Alan Border
Alvin Kallicharan
Alan Knott+
Malcolm Marshall
Michael Holding
Denis Lillee
Lance Gibbs

90s-2000s:

Virender Sehwag
Matthew Hayden
Brian Lara
Sachin Tendulkar
Ricky Ponting
Steve Waugh*
Gillchrist
Akram
Warne
Ambrose
McGrath

Verdict: 3-2 to the 90s.

 

[Muloghonto]

Isn't the sign of a great team the fact that they can dominate anywhere in the world. So localising ATG for conditions kind of takes away from that

Dominate against whom ? Who is the opposition ? another ATG team ? if thats teh case, then yes, horses for the courses is most accurate for ATG teams because really, it is in the top 1% skillset where the diffrence is, simply speaking, mastery of the conditions. Its not that any of them are weak against a particular type of bowling or lack shots.

I don't think 'one glove fits all' is a correct approach at all, particularly since in places like India you'd be a fool to pick 2 fast bowlers and 2 spinnners as opposed to 2 fast bowlers and 3 spinners, since in the ATG pool, the depth does permit it.

Players like Sehwag and Jayawardene, for example, would easily be ahead of any opener of the last 20 years and the likes of Ponting in subcontinental situations, while Ponting is easily the better choice above Jayawardene in Australia. So why not pick the better horse for the course ?

 

[Muloghonto]

Dhoni at 6 & Wasim at 7. ROFLMAO.

Dhoni in the subcontinent can play as a #6 batsman quite easily. If the match is anywhere in the subcontinent, I'd easily take Dhoni the batsman over Ponting/Martyn etc. the batsman without a hitch.
So care to explain whats so funny ?

 

[NUFAN]

Aussie/Windies conditions:

Fairly bizarre grouping, seeing as though the conditions are not particularly similar. I'm also Interested in seeing why you'd think Gibbs could handle these conditions better than the Indian trio (particularly Chandra who you picked for the Eng vs NZ).

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Dominate against whom ? Who is the opposition ? another ATG team ? if thats teh case, then yes, horses for the courses is most accurate for ATG teams because really, it is in the top 1% skillset where the diffrence is, simply speaking, mastery of the conditions. Its not that any of them are weak against a particular type of bowling or lack shots.

I don't think 'one glove fits all' is a correct approach at all, particularly since in places like India you'd be a fool to pick 2 fast bowlers and 2 spinnners as opposed to 2 fast bowlers and 3 spinners, since in the ATG pool, the depth does permit it.

Players like Sehwag and Jayawardene, for example, would easily be ahead of any opener of the last 20 years and the likes of Ponting in subcontinental situations, while Ponting is easily the better choice above Jayawardene in Australia. So why not pick the better horse for the course ?

And here is where we have to disagree. The mark of a truly great player is that they can dominate everywhere and anywhere against any and all bowlers. An atg side is called an all-time-great side for a reason, its composed of the greatest players of all time. Now not all factors are the same, so we make as informed assumptions as we are able to make based on the range of data available to us in order to attempt to compare players between generations, teams and conditions as accurately as possible. As soon as you play horses for courses, you are no longer picking the greatest players, you are picking the best players in x conditions. Greatest =/= best which is a fallacy that many a person has fallen for. What makes players great (among other aspects) is that they can perform in all conditions, its why Michael Clarke is one of the greatest players of the modern era while David Hussey has been unable to gain his baggy green. Likewise the great WI and Australian sides are rated as two of the best ever because they won consistently everywhere, or at the very least performed very highly. The #1 Ranked Indian and English sides of recent times, not so much. When you're making an ATG side, you're pretending its a real team, the core of the team should remain the same no matter what conditions you play in, because it wouldn't be a great team unless it could compete in a variety of conditions. Now if you were just subbing out a couple of players based on the conditions i would be completely fine with it, because thats what teams do, but the wholesale changes in the teams you propose, lol whut?

 

[marc71178]

Dhoni in the subcontinent can play as a #6 batsman quite easily. If the match is anywhere in the subcontinent, I'd easily take Dhoni the batsman over Ponting/Martyn etc. the batsman without a hitch.
So care to explain whats so funny ?

What's so funny is that you're putting Dhoni in as a keeper first and foremost then batting him at 6 and following him with 5 bowlers, none of whom are particularly good with the bat. 4 out all out springs to mind.