All-time Northern vs. Southern Hemisphere

[bagapath]

Why Faulkner over Kallis? The support bowler, as you say, won't add much yet Kallis is clearly the better batsman, only a slight level below Sobers.

i believe in having two spinners in a test team. always helps on wearing wickets.
and i dont like kallis. it is a personal choice, thats all.
if you bring in kallis then SH team would be almost equal to NH team even without bradman i agree. but NH team will get my vote, in that case, because it is likely to play a more aggro game.

 

[Ikki]

i never said anything contrary

You said:

Despite the don's presence it iooks like it will be 50.05 for SH and 49.95 for NH. could be anybody's game honestly.

That would be to the contrary. You are implying it is close and "anybody's game". So how are you saying SH are clearly superior?

For me, practically any strong all-time XI side with Bradman will be the superior side. He tilts the scales far too much.

 

[bagapath]

No issue with those selections. I personally have Hobbs, Grace, Knott and Barnes, with Hammond 50-50 with Lara for one batting spot. It seems though that a lot of selections have only one or at most two English players, which (IMO of course) is a major under-representation of one of world cricket's historic Big 3.

since lara > sachin in my books, hammond would replace tendulkar and not brian.

and being an atheist, I have been advised by mods in the past to not discuss God in CC. thats why I didnt select WG.

 

[The Sean]

since lara > sachin in my books, hammond would replace tendulkar and not brian.

and being an atheist, I have been advise by mods in the past to not discuss God in CC. thats why I didnt select WG.

Fair enough.

 

[bagapath]

You said:



That would be to the contrary. You are implying it is close and "anybody's game". So how are you saying SH are clearly superior?

For me, practically any strong all-time XI side with Bradman will be the superior side. He tilts the scales far too much.

okay. i ignored the word "clearly" in your post. i believe SH would be better because of Don and even voted for it. but i dont think it will be by much, though.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

You said they have a considerable advantage. I don't think anyone would agree with you.

Also, Bradman is in it. So why did you vote NH>SH?

Bradman is in it which statistically gives the SH team quite a big statistical advantage but going by averages from the top of my head-I might be wrong-both the NH openers average 15-20 more than their SH counterparts.If that is the case that negates even the Bradman>>>Richards advantage.Then as aforementioned the NH middle order looks more aggresssive and scarier.That in addition to the slight advantage in bowling that NH IMO have was enough for me to give them the vote.

 

[Ikki]

Bradman is in it which statistically gives the SH team quite a big statistical advantage but going by averages from the top of my head-I might be wrong-both the NH openers average 15-20 more than their SH counterparts.If that is the case that negates even the Bradman>>>Richards advantage.Then as aforementioned the NH middle order looks more aggresssive and scarier.That in addition to the slight advantage in bowling that NH IMO have was enough for me to give them the vote.

The reason Trumper was put in was due to the fact that he was awesome, but in a completely different era where his average looked better. If you put someone like Simpson who averages 55 as opener there is no such advantage. And also Bradman is almost 50 points superior to Richards, that doesn't make up the difference at all.

The truth is, it's not even close.

 

[The Sean]

Bradman is in it which statistically gived the SH team quite a big statistical advantage but going by averages from the top of my head-I might be wrong-both the NH openers average 15-20 more than their SH counterparts.If that is the case that negates even the Bradman>>>Richards advantage.

Assuming you mean the SH openers are B Richards and Trumper then no they don't, though Richards' 4 Test sample is hard to draw any meaningful conclusions. Though it's worth noting that even if BOTH NH openers averaged 20 runs more than their SH counterparts, that still wouldn't negate Bradman's advantage over Viv Richards.

It's interesting looking at these debates too, because almost none of us are picking the exact same XI for both hemispheres, meaning we're all comparing slightly different lineups.

 

[Sir Alex]

Ponting averages 50.11 in matches against Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka. Even more if you include his matches against Saqlain where Sri Lanka was neutral location.

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cri...a-best-batsmen-modern-era-12.html#post2191858

 

[bagapath]

such awesome teams they both are. and full of wonderful cricketers. what a dream series it would be!

marshall vs trumper/ warne vs richards/ barnes vs don would all be box office gold!

 

[BoyBrumby]

Bradman? Pffft. Couldn't handle the gentle medium of Voce; Messers Trueman, Ambrose and Marshall woulld settle his hash. Would scarcely average 60...

 

[Ikki]

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cri...a-best-batsmen-modern-era-12.html#post2191858

So how is that a myth? Your reasoning is pathetic. Murali wasn't the finished product in 99 but Ponting was?

Even Murali himself has commented how Ponting is one of the best players of spin in the world. Ironically, Murali said the first time Ponting played him he was hopeless.

Seriously, I should put you on ignore. I don't know of a more disingenuous and annoying poster these days.

 

[The Sean]

such awesome teams they both are. and full of wonderful cricketers. what a dream series it would be!

marshall vs trumper/ warne vs richards/ barnes vs don would all be box office gold!

Ha ha so true mate, it would be the ultimate cricketing spectacle. I love discussing these sort of matchups and hypothetical scenarios. Sure, we'll never know the answer definitively but that's part of the fun.

 

[bagapath]

Ha ha so true mate, it would be the ultimate cricketing spectacle. I love discussing these sort of matchups and hypothetical scenarios. Sure, we'll never know the answer definitively but that's part of the fun.

hope virtual reality programmers do something within our life times and grab existing video footage of these players to simulate a match-up. wonder why they are wasting too much time on less important fields like medicine, aviation and missile technology. i prefer watching trumper hooking marshall any day over abdominal surgeries

 

[Avada Kedavra]

The reason Trumper was put in was due to the fact that he was awesome, but in a completely different era where his average looked better. If you put someone like Simpson who averages 55 as opener there is no such advantage. And also Bradman is almost 50 points superior to Richards, that doesn't make up the difference at all.The truth is, it's not even close.

'the whole he played in a diifferent argument makes this whole exercise futile.Either we use stats or we do not.Just checked - Trumper averages 39..that is about 18 less than Hobbs.As I mentioned I do not rate people on a few tests for whatever the reason,so Gavaskar IMO is better than Barry.Sure that still leaves about 30 runs gap between Bradman and Viv who I thought averaged closer to 60 but even that can be made up in bits and pieces if you include someone like Hammond with a near 60 average compared to Chappell's 52..that is 8 points...then Sangakkara gets a near 8-9 point advantage over Gilchrist too....I willl give you that SH batting is perhaps still slightly better - I feel that even the remaining statistical difference can be made up - but SH make up for that with the ball.

 

[Ikki]

'the whole he played in a diifferent argument makes this whole exercise futile.Either we use stats or we do not.Just checked - Trumper averages 39..that is about 18 less than Hobbs.As I mentioned I do not rate people on a few tests for whatever the reason,so Gavaskar IMO is better than Barry.Sure that still leaves about 30 runs gap between Bradman and Viv who I thought averaged closer to 60 but even that can be made up in bits and pieces if you include someone like Hammond with a near 60 average compared to Chappell's 52..that is 8 points...then Sangakkara gets a near 8-9 point advantage over Gilchrist too....I willl give you that SH batting is perhaps still slightly better - I feel that even the remaining statistical difference can be made up - but SH make up for that with the ball.

Did you completely ignore what I said? If you are worried about averages, take Bob Simpson. He averages 56 as an opener. There's also Hayden.

Sangakkara averages 40 IIRC as a keeper/batsman. That means Gilchrist is 7 superior even on that count - not even figuring in the SR.

And despite all that, it's still stupid, frankly, to take players who played in different eras and compare averages exactly to the point as you have, using them as a +- equation. If people cared about exact averages they'd be picking guys like Blythe or Spofforth as bowlers.

 

[The Sean]

'the whole he played in a diifferent argument makes this whole exercise futile.Either we use stats or we do not. Just checked - Trumper averages 39..that is about 18 less than Hobbs.As I mentioned I do not rate people on a few tests for whatever the reason,so Gavaskar IMO is better than Barry.Sure that still leaves about 30 runs gap between Bradman and Viv who I thought averaged closer to 60 but even that can be made up in bits and pieces if you include someone like Hammond with a near 60 average compared to Chappell's 52..that is 8 points...then Sangakkara gets a near 8-9 point advantage over Gilchrist too....I willl give you that SH batting is perhaps still slightly better - I feel that even the remaining statistical difference can be made up - but SH make up for that with the ball.

Almost every sentence of this post is a) contradictory and/or b) factually wrong.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Did you completely ignore what I said? If you are worried about averages, take Bob Simpson. He averages 56 as an opener. There's also Hayden.

Sangakkara averages 40 IIRC as a keeper/batsman. That means Gilchrist is 7 superior even on that count - not even figuring in the SR.

And despite all that, it's still stupid, frankly, to take players who played in different eras and compare averages exactly to the point as you have, using them as a +- equation. If people cared about exact averages they'd be picking guys like Blythe or Spofforth as bowlers.

Listen mate - if you cannot tolerate others' opinions,please piss off.There is no need for that tone of yours - it seems to me that you feel you alone are always right and everyone else is wrong. I used averages because there is no other way I can possibly compare someone who played 5 deacades ago to a player like Lara or someone. Besides most people are picking Bradman only for his average as majority have not seen him bat.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Almost every sentence of this post is a) contradictory and/or b) factually wrong.

How?

 

[L Trumper]

How?

Taking only averages to distinct teams is kinda pointless, when talking about teams that are spread over a century.