Cricinfo Best Test 11 from last 25 years

[Migara]

Define 'test class'. Kaman Akmal played 53 tests, was clearly 'test class' yet is oft derided for his poor keeping.

And Flolwer was never dropped or changed due to poor keeping. If that does not define test class, don't know what it is then.

 

[trundler]

Arjuna Ranatunga definitely has a shout.

He only meets half the criteria. Surrounded by imbeciles, yes but wasn't that good (see Flower, Headley)

 

[trundler]

Glenn Turner as the 2nd opener, perhaps. Need 2 fast bowlers now.

 

[Migara]

He only meets half the criteria. Surrounded by imbeciles, yes but wasn't that good (see Flower, Headley)

Averaging 36 in test and ODIs at a SR of 77 in that area is good enough. Far better ODI bat than Chanders.

And Border had Jones, Boon and two Waughs.

 

[cnerd123]

And Border had Jones, Boon and two Waughs.

Still imbeciles tbf

 

[Burgey]

Lol those blokes were all utter ****e for the most part until 89. TOTAB carried like none before or since.

 

[TheJediBrah]

People judging a keeper by whether or not he was picked to play as a keeper . . . surely you can all see how dumb that is

Flower was a great batsman who kept to help his team. Whether he played as a keeper or how often he did is irrelevant to his keeping skills, which were very average. Sangakkara was superior as a keeper.

Flower also averages a ridiculous number as well. And as a pure batsman better than Gilchrist.

Very debatable

 

[trundler]

For the most part of his captaincy, Border had Rod Marsh, Kim Hughes who was okay, and everyone else was completely useless. He had to take an 11-for to seal a win once, dammit. And all those countless draws where he single-handedly weathered the storm. Border and Headley are the first 2 blokes I'd put in that XI and then Hadlee and Tayfield. A sub-40 average for a specialist bat isn't very good unless we're talking pre-WWI. So, the 2 fast bowlers.. who would they be?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Kim Hughes? Bloke averaged 24 in ODIs. Wasn't anything special in Tests either.

 

[trundler]

He was okay. Had one memorable knock. Everyone else was utterly useless. Was trying to point out that ****ing Hughes was the next best.

 

[trundler]

Flower, IMO, is an ATG batsman. I'd put him alongside Miandad, Crowe, Steve Waugh, etc. Just below the Tendulkar, Richards, Lara, Greg Chappell tier as a batsman. GIlchrist solely as a batsman would be behind Flower but that is a pointless assertion since he's the complete package.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Flower was test class. That is enough.

He wasn't even close. "Picked to keep in Tests" =/= "Test-class keeper"

if the definition of Test-class is anyone who played Test cricket (including several from Zimbabwe from the mid-00s who would have struggled to make a county 2nd XI team), then almost every first-class cricketer in the world is "Test-class"

Flower, IMO, is an ATG batsman. I'd put him alongside Miandad, Crowe, Steve Waugh, etc. Just below the Tendulkar, Richards, Lara, Greg Chappell tier as a batsman. GIlchrist solely as a batsman would be behind Flower but that is a pointless assertion since he's the complete package.

I'd still rate Gilchrist higher, for his scoring rate and explosiveness alone. Even just based purely on averages Gilchrist could be considered greater or at least equal purely as a bat, taking into account where he batted, throwing wicket away for declarations so often etc.

 

[trundler]

Gilchrist played in a stronger team and he batted in the lower-order which boosts his average because of not-outs and allowed him to play as he pleased without much worry. Flower was the only competent batsman in his team and so did not have the same luxury. He had to be more cautious and ergo scored slower. Gilchrist is almost an ATG bat, Flower is one IMO.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Gilchrist played in a stronger team and he batted in the lower-order which boosts his average because of not-outs and allowed him to play as he pleased without much worry. Flower was the only competent batsman in his team and so did not have the same luxury. He had to be more cautious and ergo scored slower. Gilchrist is almost an ATG bat, Flower is one IMO.

I respect your opinion but thinking that batting in the lower order in Tests boosts your average because of not outs is a fallacy. Especially in a strong team it's more likely to hurt your average because you're batting for declarations more often and throwing your wicket away. Being not out at the end doesn't help your average either because it means that your innings is being cut short when you're already being played in.

50 not out doesn't help your average, when you could have gone on to make 100+ if you hadn't been interrupted, because you're just starting again on 0 again in different conditions next innings

 

[TheJediBrah]

The major thing in favour of that line of thinking though is that in a stronger team someone like Gilchrist more often would come in with the opposition already on the back foot and bowlers possible tired out a bit more, whereas a guy like Flower would likely have had more innings facing bowlers with a but more confidence and fresher.

 

[trundler]

I respect your opinion but thinking that batting in the lower order in Tests boosts your average because of not outs is a fallacy. Especially in a strong team it's more likely to hurt your average because you're batting for declarations more often and throwing your wicket away. Being not out at the end doesn't help your average either because it means that your innings is being cut short when you're already being played in.

50 not out doesn't help your average, when you could have gone on to make 100+ if you hadn't been interrupted, because you're just starting again on 0 again in different conditions next innings

Yeah but Flower still averages more. Flower did all those amazing things like the double hundred at Nagpur which, considering he played for Zimbabwe (Headley, a similar case), makes it all the more special. Flower was closer to a Kallis, or a Hammond in his approach than Gilchrist who was more in the Richards. Trumper, etc mould. Difficult to asses such different styles and both of them had vastly different roles. Flower was Zim's rock and Gilchrist was supposed to get quick runs and cash in on the top-order's success (though he bailed Aus out of difficult situations often as well).

 

[trundler]

I respect your opinion but thinking that batting in the lower order in Tests boosts your average because of not outs is a fallacy. Especially in a strong team it's more likely to hurt your average because you're batting for declarations more often and throwing your wicket away. Being not out at the end doesn't help your average either because it means that your innings is being cut short when you're already being played in.

50 not out doesn't help your average, when you could have gone on to make 100+ if you hadn't been interrupted, because you're just starting again on 0 again in different conditions next innings

A CW first!

 

[Daemon]

Yep, Gilchrist definitely had more opportunity to downhill ski

 

[TheJediBrah]

That's why it's not a simple comparison. Different roles, different advantages and disadvantages. I have little doubt that Gilchrist would have averaged quite a bit more if he batted a few spots higher in the order. The guy threw his wicket away with declaration batting almost every second game, and most of his best innings were actually with the team in trouble (which did happen), coming in at 5/150, 5/200 etc.

 

[OverratedSanity]

That's why it's not a simple comparison. Different roles, different advantages and disadvantages. I have little doubt that Gilchrist would have averaged quite a bit more if he batted a few spots higher in the order. The guy threw his wicket away with declaration batting almost every second game, and most of his best innings were actually with the team in trouble (which did happen), coming in at 5/150, 5/200 etc.

Batting up the order is flat out tougher though. In theory, that would more than compensate for any gain in average due to not batting in declaration situations that often.