Cricinfo Best Test 11 from last 25 years

[ankitj]

Reckon this team from 1 series would beat them, tbh

Len Hutton
Arthur Morris
Don Bradman
Denis Compton
Keith Miller
Neil Harvey
Godfrey Evans +
Ray Lindwall
Jim Laker
Alec Bedser
Bill Johnston

Results | The Ashes, 1948 | ESPNcricinfo

Not a chance. Even with Bradman this team will get steamrollered by the original one.

 

[smash84]

McGrath above Hadlee is not something I could ever agree with. So little to choose between them from in style or quality as bowlers, daylight as bats. Any other 2 ATGs I see as preference, with an argument either way. This one I see as pure madness.

Exactly. In an ATXI I would always go for Richard hadlee over McGrath because bowling wise there is hardly anything between them but batting wise hadlee >>> McGrath.

 

[smash84]

Exactly. In an ATXI I would always go for Richard hadlee over McGrath because bowling wise there is hardly anything between them but batting wise hadlee >>> McGrath.

Same for Imran actually. Just a marginally worse bowler than others but much better bat.

 

[Bolo]

Imran is so hot and cold as a bowler that I can see a reason not to pick him. If you assume hot Imran, or even career average Imran, then he needs to be picked

 

[smash84]

Imran is so hot and cold as a bowler that I can see a reason not to pick him. If you assume hot Imran, or even career average Imran, then he needs to be picked

I don't know about hot and cold. He was exceptional for a 13 year period from 76/77 to 88/89. He did have 2 years of injury in there but even after the injury he was blasting away sides single handedly. Iirc he had one of the best man of match to matches played ratios ever because he was such a high impact player.

 

[Bolo]

Might be the wrong choice of words. He started as a bits and pieces player and ended up as a part-timer. I just want to make sure neither of those versions make the team as a specialist bowler. All players have peak years, but the difference between Imran's peak and lows is ridiculous.

 

[smash84]

Might be the wrong choice of words. He started as a bits and pieces player and ended up as a part-timer. I just want to make sure neither of those versions make the team as a specialist bowler. All players have peak years, but the difference between Imran's peak and lows is ridiculous.

But imran is unique too. Went from a medium pacer to express fast bowler and that too one of the greatest ever. Hard to find another example like that in the history of cricket. Also wasn't anything special with the bat but improved himself to a point where he could easily fit into the top order if the pakistan side. Even batted at number 3 in a wc final. Of course post 1989 he was touching 37 and getting long in the tooth so his bowling fell away but it's good to evaluate the context of his career. The man was extraordinary.

 

[smash84]

Might be the wrong choice of words. He started as a bits and pieces player and ended up as a part-timer. I just want to make sure neither of those versions make the team as a specialist bowler. All players have peak years, but the difference between Imran's peak and lows is ridiculous.

Also he has a 13 year peak. That's as long as McGrath's whole career in terms of length of time.

 

[Bolo]

He had probably the greatest career of the quicks and it would be difficult for me to argue against him being the greatest player.

I just find him problematic in the context of an ATG side. I'm not a fan of picking a player based on their peaks. Their entire career should be considered. For most players, you can just look at their average career. I'd be fine with average imran, but average doesn't really work for Imran though. He was either unstoppable or mediocre as a bowler. I really don't want mediocre Imran in the team.

I'm not saying he shouldn't be picked based on this logic- it is an oddly specific reason to deny such a great player a spot. I just find placing him problematic, so I would typically put a player I hold in less regard in the team instead of him.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I just find him problematic in the context of an ATG side. I'm not a fan of picking a player based on their peaks.

This should not be a problem if the peak is a decade long.

Your post fits Waqar much more than Imran.

 

[Bolo]

This should not be a problem if the peak is a decade long.

Your post fits Waqar much more than Imran.

The difference between the two for me is that Waqar was always a frontline bowler. Pick him and find you are getting the subpar version and this remains, so even if you get an iffy version, you are getting a bowler. The logic excludes Waqar as well though.

I don't mind ignoring a bad year or two for bowlers. Everyone has them. But for Imran it's basically half a career.

Anyway, just my logic in picking ATG teams. I'm not expecting others to follow it and I certainly don't think others should feel the need to. He's more deserving of a spot than just about anyone else, it's just difficult for me to remain consistent in my selection process and pick him

 

[Burgey]

How do you reconcile McGrath and Hadlee having nearly identical averages when the former played in what’s widely regarded as the most prolific batting era since the 30s? Or is that not something which you take into account? If you don’t that’s fine, we all just pick our own sides anyway, but I’m interested in your thoughts on it as a factor.

 

[Bolo]

I think McGrath is a better bowler for this reason. But I also think Hadlee sent down way too many over per match and his average suffered as a result, so while McGrath is the better bowler, the difference in quality would barely ever result in a different in match result. The difference in their batting averages though is the distance between Hadlee and Viv- it's going to change a match from time to time.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think McGrath is a better bowler for this reason. But I also think Hadlee sent down way too many over per match and his average suffered as a result, so while McGrath is the better bowler, the difference in quality would barely ever result in a different in match result. The difference in their batting averages though is the distance between Hadlee and Viv- it's going to change a match from time to time.

That's funny because I think the opposite. You pick your best bowlers in an ATG side, having a no. 9 who can bat a bit more isn't going to help as much as having a better bowler, even if the difference is slight.

Depends on the type of game we're playing I guess. If we're fighting out close low-scoring games then a handy lower order batter can make all the difference, if you're forcing a result in handy batting conditions lower order batting can be irrelevant.

 

[Bolo]

I'm only suggesting the tiniest of sacrifices to the bowling to gain a huge advantage in the batting. Pollock was a bowler of the type and was a pretty magnificent one to boot. But I wouldn't pick him over McGrath because they were appreciably different in quality. There is a hair width seperating Hadlee and McGrath. I doubt McGrath would pick up more wickets than Hadlee- Hadlee managed more per match at a fractionally better strike rate in a slower era. McGrath might earn them the tiniest bit cheaper than Hadlee, but unless you think McGrath would have averaged in the teens in Hadlee's era, the extra runs Hadlee brings with the bat is going to exceed the runs McGrath saves with the ball.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

I'm only suggesting the tiniest of sacrifices to the bowling to gain a huge advantage in the batting. Pollock was a bowler of the type and was a pretty magnificent one to boot. But I wouldn't pick him over McGrath because they were appreciably different in quality. There is a hair width seperating Hadlee and McGrath. I doubt McGrath would pick up more wickets than Hadlee- Hadlee managed more per match at a fractionally better strike rate in a slower era. McGrath might earn them the tiniest bit cheaper than Hadlee, but unless you think McGrath would have averaged in the teens in Hadlee's era, the extra runs Hadlee brings with the bat is going to exceed the runs McGrath saves with the ball.

That's funny because I think the opposite. You pick your best bowlers in an ATG side, having a no. 9 who can bat a bit more isn't going to help as much as having a better bowler, even if the difference is slight.

Depends on the type of game we're playing I guess. If we're fighting out close low-scoring games then a handy lower order batter can make all the difference, if you're forcing a result in handy batting conditions lower order batting can be irrelevant.

Ultimately it is an efficiency argument:

A bowler's greater benefit in bowling ability to a rival is amplified by how many balls they bowl, and typically they bowl more balls than bat. But those runs they sacrifice in batting still add up every-time they bat.

Lets say player A will bat 1.5 times per game, and averages 30 never not out - he's worth 45 with the bat per match. Lets say he averages 25 with the ball and takes 4 wickets per match. That's 100 runs given away, 45 scored = cost of wickets for him is 55/4 is 13.75.
Lets say player B will bat the same number of times as his rival and averages 10 never not out - he's worth 15 with the bat. Lets say he averages 20 with the ball and also takes 4 wickets per match. That's 80 runs given away, 15 scored = 65/4 is 16.25.

Player A with a 25 bowling average and 30 run batting average is giving a better balance on the runs difference per match than Player B, the difference in this case is 10 runs per wicket.

Now - if you up it to 5 wickets per match:

125-45 = 80/5 = 16 Player A
100-15 = 85/5 = 17 Player B

And at 6 wickets per game
150-45 = 105/6 = 17.5 Player A
120-15 = 105/6 = 17.5 Player B dead even.
That's dead even.

Keep increasing the wickets and player B the better bowler will start leading with better overall output, alternatively decrease the number of times they bat to also favour player B.

I like the bat deep philosophy for most fits, it is tainted as being a targeted strategy of many weaker teams (yes NZ has been one at times and I still don't want to see Tim Southee batting at 8) struggling to climb the totem pole, but SA, England and India in recent years of strength have made it more palatable to those who disliked it instinctively before in both odi and tests as being a sign of weakness. It isn't. It is strategy. Some countries seem to focus more on all rounders as against specialists, some more specialists as against all rounders.

I'm not the biggest fans of forced allrounders at 6 neither as necessarily being the best team for any one game (maybe a whole summer on road pitches to prevent injury to key bowlers where the reserves are unthinkable, but even then it needs to be thought through).

 

[cnerd123]

I think it also depends on selection ideology. Am I picking the best players in each stated role, or am I trying to pick the strongest team.

If the strongest team, then I have to factor in things like fielding (need a strong slip cordon, a dedicated bat/pad or two, and some decent boundary riders) and batting depth as well. Oh and a good captain - you could argue none of the best XI players ever were great captains.

Usually I go for Warne over Murali because of the 'team' selection ideology. A slip fielder and useful number 8. Many a time I've wondered about picking all three of Imran, Hadlee and Dev for the same reason

 

[harsh.ag]

Hadlee over McGrath is an upgrade for a team imo. Will take it.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

I think it also depends on selection ideology. Am I picking the best players in each stated role, or am I trying to pick the strongest team.

Exactly

If the strongest team, then I have to factor in things like fielding (need a strong slip cordon, a dedicated bat/pad or two, and some decent boundary riders) and batting depth as well. Oh and a good captain - you could argue none of the best XI players ever were great captains.

Usually I go for Warne over Murali because of the 'team' selection ideology. A slip fielder and useful number 8. Many a time I've wondered about picking all three of Imran, Hadlee and Dev for the same reason

I like that tail. I'd probably go with Marshall over Dev, (unless there's a useful spinner in the top 6 and you get both) - but I like the way you're thinking here, even if it is Warne at 11.

 

[cnerd123]

Also I prefer to select sides thinking I get to pick this player at their peak, but I never do the hard work of defining a minimum requirement for duration of that peak, analysing the career record of players who are ATVGs or less within that requirement - for example, Mike Hussey has a 30 Test Peak of averaging 70 odd in Tests right? Does Peak Mike Hussey make an ATG test team?