Misleading Teamsheets

[fredfertang]

One of the problems with career statistics is that they don't allow you to make judgments on men at a given point in their careers. I've just been looking at the West Indian touring party that came here in 1957, possibly the worst ever, but what a fantastic team, statsguru wise, you can pull out of it

1.Frank Worrell - Was to become a great captain but as a player was on the way down

2.Rohan Kanhai - On his first tour - once he gave up the gauntlets became if not an All Time Great, pretty close to it

3. Everton Weekes - Career almost over - a shadow of his former self

4. Clyde Walcott - As Weekes

5. Gary Sobers - An ATG on any interpretation - in 57 he had been in Test cricket three years and was yet to score a century and had taken 12 wickets in 9 Tests

6. Collie Smith - What might he have become?

7. John Goddard - much underrated all rounder and led 1950 side - in '57 was 38 and a shadow of his former self

8. Wes Hall - First tour - not called on in the Tests despite the 3-0 hammering

9. Roy Gilchrist - Another maiden tourist though this time one who never fulfilled his vast potential

　
10. Alf Valentine - won the 1950 series with Ramadhin - never the same again

11. Sonny Ramadhin - as Alf Valentine

　
What other teams have been far less than the sum total of their constituent parts?

 

[honestbharani]

The 2011 Indian test side that toured Australia..

 

[The Sean]

An XI from the Australian touring side of 1956 might have looked like:

Colin McDonald - a fine opener who by averaging 25-odd was actually one of Australia's better performers with the bat in a dismal series.

Jim Burke - a talented but tragic figure, he was actually the only Australian batsman to average over 30 (30.11 to be exact).

Neil Harvey - one of Australia's greatest ever batsmen, he averaged just 19 as his career averaged fell from 61 at the start of the series to 56 at the end, and continued to decline for the rest of his career.

Peter Burge - a player of great innings rather than a genuinely great batsman, he was neither in this series, scoring fewer than 100 runs in three Tests.

Keith Miller - Australia's shining light, useful with the bat and superb with the ball. As you'd expect.

Ron Archer - Poor with the bat, but did well with the ball. Miller Lite, one might say.

Richie Benaud - still finding his feet at Test level, he made some valuable runs but contributed negligibly with the ball.

Alan Davidson - as per Benaud, but without the valuable runs. Played just two Tests and did nothing notable in either.

Ian Johnson - a fine off-spinner and useful lower-order batsman, he contributed in neither capacity and was heavily criticised for his captaincy to boot.

Ray Lindwall - hampered by injury, one of Australia's legendary fast bowlers limped to just seven wickets in four Tests.

Gil Langley - An excellent 'keeper, he was poor with the bat (like most others) but at least did well behind the stumps

That XI at their peak would be a match for most in the history of the game. In 1956 they were all either out of form, in decline, too inexperienced, or Keith Ross Miller.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'd say our side for the first test of the 13/14 Ashes looks pretty strong on paper.

Cook - England's all time leading test ton maker; in middle of run of twenty-odd (and still counting) tests without making three figures

Carberry - Fair dos, maybe the one obvious weakness

Trott - formerly a guarantee of steadfast accumulation, bounced insensible by the Aussie quicks and would disappear from the tour after this test with a depressive illness

Pietersen - the swashbuckler who made more international runs for England than anybody else, would be sacked on the tour's conclusion

Bell - had ground the Aussie attack down barely six months previously, would average barely 26 on tour

Root - confidence shot after opening, would subsequently dominate the English summer, but could barely lay bat on a Johnson thunderbolt, dropped for the SCG

Prior - contender for the AT England XI as keeper/batsman, dropped before the Boxing Day test

Broad - our best bowler on tour, but 21 @ 27.5 isn't what Ashes are won on. Body had started to slow fall apart before our eyes

Swann - England's best slow bowler since Underwood, shoulder was fecked tho and would retire before the end of the series

Tremlett - the giant destroyer of Australia on the previous tour, but betrayed by his massive frame, down on pace and lasted just a test this time

Anderson - will become England's all-time leading test wicket taker shortly, but lived up/down to the "vampire" tag.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Don't know whether it fits that well, but the West Indies that toured Australia in 75/76 worth a mention maybe?

Greenidge: Barely a year into his career, not the great opener he would eventually become
Fredericks: Produced a knock for the ages, but only played test cricket for one more year
Lawrence Rowe: In the midst of a terrible run where he avreaged 29 from late 1974-1976. Only scored one more hundred in his career after this tour.
Viv Richards: Had barely 5 tests under his belt before this tour. Showed glimpses of his genius in the last two tests, but otherwise, too green to make a difference
Clive Lloyd: Hmm, yeah, probably in the prime of his career. Scored 2 hundreds
Kallicharan: Only one apart from lloyd who was a quality seasoned batsman at the time
Deryck Murray: A decent cricketer who fought gamely but was never going to light the world on fire
Michael Holding: Debut series. As raw as they come... would transform into a phenomenal bowler soon after.
Andy Roberts: The only bowler who performed that series, but strangely he was barely 2 years into his career. Not that much more experienced than Holding. Brilliant even back then though
Keith Boyce: Final series
Lance Gibbs: His final series. Would've been a pale shadow of the bowler he once was.

Chappelli said this team didn't know how good it was at the time and it's probably true. Perfect example of a team in transition.... filled with huge names, with the benefit of hindsight, but most were either rookies or in the twilight of their careers.

 

[Howe_zat]

India in England 2011

Virender Sehwag, VVS Laxman, Sachin Tendulkar, Zaheer Khan and Harbhajan Singh all among India's best ever but a combination of age/fitness/tourincompetence saw them struggling
Gautam Gambhir following a dominating 2 years that would never return
Ishant Sharma at the rank worst of his ebbs and flows
Praveen Kumar, useful bowler with a good average but can't produce performances that turn a series around
Suresh Raina, like Gamhir but less so
MS Dhoni, modern folk hero completely lacking the skills to succeed in Tests in England
Rahul Dravid unable to bat on his own

 

[Spark]

Not a team, strictly speaking, but there is no way an on-paper middle order that read Ponting-Clarke-Hussey should have been the core of a batting lineup that was as **** as it was (is) for so long

 

[Howe_zat]

The original Australian Ashes 2009 team looked ace on paper. I remember expecting them to claim another 5-0

Phil Hughes - was the official Next Big Thing but ended up dropped for supposed short ball weakness
Simon Katich - Uber-consistent shine remover. Turned out the middle order needed something more.
Ricky Ponting - Infuriatingly phenomenal player just about to begin his decline
Michael Hussey - Remarkable average disguising the fact he would never make runs at #4
Michael Clarke - Did well but was nowhere near his 2010s best
Marcus North - Another Next Big Thing who'd made heaps in SA. Was rocks or diamonds and made runs at the wrong time.
Brad Haddin - Good player but mostly a home town hero
Mitchell Johnson - bowled to the left and right IIRC
Brett Lee - Didn't make it to the field
Nathan Hauritz - this one I grant you but I didn't expect him to have to bowl much. Doherty and Beer would go on to make him look good I suppose
Ben Hilfenhaus - good bowler who never really had a good Ashes

 

[OverratedSanity]

Michael Clarke - Did well but was nowhere near his 2010s best

Clarke was amazing that series.

 

[Midwinter]

The England team on the 1959 Australian tour was supposed to look pretty good.

 

[Goughy]

This collection of modern champions, West Indies Legends and All Time Greats all at different stages of their careers - and off the back of a series victory against Pakistan including Wasim, Waqar, Inzi, Saqlain, Mushy, Mohammad Yousuf - became the first WI team to lose a series against England in 31 years - battered 3-1

SL Campbell
CH Gayle
BC Lara
RR Sarwan
S Chanderpaul
JC Adams
RD Jacobs
FA Rose
CEL Ambrose
CA Walsh
RD King

Perhaps this tells us more about the Pakistan team which lost in the preceding series?

 

[fredfertang]

The England team on the 1959 Australian tour was supposed to look pretty good.

Indeed it was, and of course had slapped around my 1957 West Indians 18 months previously

 

[Cabinet96]

Clarke was amazing that series.

Yeah he and Hilfenhaus were genuinely excellent. Seems a weird one that. I suppose having won in SA they would've been favourites, but they lost their previous home series against the same opponents.

 

[honestbharani]

India in England 2011

Virender Sehwag, VVS Laxman, Sachin Tendulkar, Zaheer Khan and Harbhajan Singh all among India's best ever but a combination of age/fitness/tourincompetence saw them struggling
Gautam Gambhir following a dominating 2 years that would never return
Ishant Sharma at the rank worst of his ebbs and flows
Praveen Kumar, useful bowler with a good average but can't produce performances that turn a series around
Suresh Raina, like Gamhir but less so
MS Dhoni, modern folk hero completely lacking the skills to succeed in Tests in England
Rahul Dravid unable to bat on his own

In terms of the actual XI that took the field, I think the one that played the first test in Australia was much closer to the point the OP was trying to make... But yeah, this team were rather bad too compared to their peaks.. But that first test XI against Australia, My God they were exponentially awful given their career records...