All-Time World XIs: Discussion Thread

[subshakerz]

Australia's attack was demolishing a very poor Indian batting lineup in the 1999 series and Warne still averaged 40+. The pitches shouldn't even have mattered.

And while his record in India wasn't great either, I'd give Murali the edge even there, because :

1) Unlike Warne, Murali had the misfortune of not touring India much in his peak period from 1998-2008 ish.
2) His 7fer in Delhi in the 2005 series is one of the ATG spells of bowling in India. Warne never managed anything of this caliber on any of his tours.

It really doesn't matter because overall both did miserable in India. Murali in that Nagpur spell was neutralised in the second innings and SL lost. Murali was then slaughtered in 2009.

In fact, I would say Warne had a more respectable series in 2004/5 than Murali in 2005 even though it wasn't anything remarkable. At least he owned Laxman.

 

[subshakerz]

He was wonderfully charming to the crowds in India but he was never really a threat against us. Murali pretty much always was. That is the difference, for me.

Murali was eviscerated in India in 97 and 2009.

 

[honestbharani]

salty trying hard to manufacture and erase history at the same time. Evisceration is what was done to Warne by our batters in 98 and 2001. And in 2001 he even had McGrath and Gillespie.

 

[subshakerz]

salty trying hard to manufacture and erase history at the same time. Evisceration is what was done to Warne by our batters in 98 and 2001. And in 2001 he even had McGrath and Gillespie.

Lol of course Warne was eviscerated too. I'm not denying that. You are the one misrepresenting Murali in India.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Murali was eviscerated in India in 97 and 2009.

Kinda I guess, but as I said he toured only once in his "great bowler" years and was part of a pretty flaccid attack. Warne was repeatedly getting obliterated when the rest of Australia's attack was destroying India. I can't stress enough how devastatingly awful Warne was in India in Chennai in 01. It's one of the worst series from a top tier ATG player. Every other bowler Australia had (including Colin Miller ffs) was giving India headaches.

I genuinely donot think a shallow reading of stats can convey it. Warne was dreadful in a very unique way vs India, Murali wasn't.

 

[Johan]

@ma1978 stop it, Ponting is no match for Smith.

 

[subshakerz]

Kinda I guess, but as I said he toured only once in his "great bowler" years and was part of a pretty flaccid attack. Warne was repeatedly getting obliterated when the rest of Australia's attack was destroying India. I can't stress enough how devastatingly awful Warne was in India in Chennai in 01. It's one of the worst series from a top tier ATG player. Every other bowler Australia had (including Colin Miller ffs) was giving India headaches.

I genuinely donot think a shallow reading of stats can convey it. Warne was dreadful in a very unique way vs India, Murali wasn't.

Warne wasn't dreadful in 2004/5. He had adjusted to becoming A

Kinda I guess, but as I said he toured only once in his "great bowler" years and was part of a pretty flaccid attack. Warne was repeatedly getting obliterated when the rest of Australia's attack was destroying India. I can't stress enough how devastatingly awful Warne was in India in Chennai in 01. It's one of the worst series from a top tier ATG player. Every other bowler Australia had (including Colin Miller ffs) was giving India headaches.

I genuinely donot think a shallow reading of stats can convey it. Warne was dreadful in a very unique way vs India, Murali wasn't.

Nobody is defending Warne in 2001 or 1998.

Warne is 2004/5 wasn't dreadful though. He had resigned to being a support bowler and bowled flat but nearly but still owned Laxman and could have gotten even more wickets if the 2nd test hadn't rained out.

 

[Johan]

It's one of the worst series from a top tier ATG player. Every other bowler Australia had (including Colin Miller ffs) was giving India headaches.

Kinda agreed, same way how match winning performance deserves more respect, match losing performance deserves more criticism.

 

[kyear2]

What? Then the quality of the 5th bowler is more important. Excellent argument for Miller, thanks.

Dear God.

Anyways, the covert anti Kallis agenda to not have him on the same team as Imran is just..... There are no words.

 

[kyear2]

You and I both know there are quite a bit of people from his era who would not agree with that statement.

Very true.

Hence I started with part from the obvious.

 

[kyear2]

I do not get the logic of selecting O’Reilly who played only against England & SouthAfrica in 1930s over Muralitharan(or Warne).

It's very much, like Barry btw, also based on his first class record in the flattest era of cricket, everywhere yes, but especially in Australia.

He was peerless and way ahead of everyone else.

 

[kyear2]

Barrington is not rated that highly because he never made a great hundred in England against the three true enemies of England in Australia, South Africa and the West Indies. His away serieses while great came in weird flat serieses and never really amounted to victories. That is literally it.

All of that.

It's not only the scores, but the circumstances, and that isn't always evident on the score cards. That's why peer rating is so wedded to the records, and so important, because we weren't there.

Did they come through in critical tests and innings or did they accumulate when things were easier or already decided, and boosted their averages...

Generally if you have one and not the other, there's something wrong or missing. And that applies to many players that we believe that we've discovered, who were not nearly as highly rated when they played or even afterwards.

Hutton was also slow, but he was seen to be in the upper echelon of English batting and way above the likes of said Barrington and Sutcliffe.

 

[subshakerz]

Dear God.

Anyways, the covert anti Kallis agenda to not have him on the same team as Imran is just..... There are no words.

It's not. It's pro Miller.

 

[Prince EWS]

@kyear2 wouldn't you agree that having Hammond drastically reduces the need for Kallis and even if you don't want Miller, you might as well vote the next best bat like Headley in the top 6?

I actually agree with this logic but I think Kallis is the next best batsman anyway.

 

[subshakerz]

I actually agree with this logic but I think Kallis is the next best batsman anyway.

Sure that's fine then. I think it's Headley.