• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Best Team of 1970 to 1990 Vs Best Team of 1990 to 2010

watson

Banned
The West Indies attack actually showed better overall figures when they played 3 quicks plus a spinner like Harper.

In other words playing 4 fast bowlers didn’t improve their ability to win a Test match at all, and that it supposedly did is an a myth that endures to this day.

Imran-Hadlee-Marshall-Underwood or Imran-Marshall-Lillee-Qadir are better balanced and more potent attacks overall IMO.

Not only that but they would be more entertaining for the spectator to watch - which is the point of cricket.
 
Last edited:

Slifer

International Captain
Wi only played harper when the series was dusted. Otherwise, it was 4 fast bowlers. I'd like u to show me all the instances where a spinner made the wi of the 70s/80s more effective. Seriously, lillee, hadlee, imran, mm >> lillee, qadir, imran, mm. What part of qadir being mediocre and useless anywhere outside of Pakistan dont people get. Derek underwood however, is a completely different story. They don't call him deadly without reason.
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
If the umpiring was such a cause then why did Qasim do better, and Tauseef decently as well, if they had the same umpiring? And by all accounts that hadn't changed since the modern lbw law was introduced anyway.

I'm going on a limb here, but I'd say he was over-reliant on his googlies to take wickets, and was not quite accurate enough or good enough with his leg break to produce consistently good results, rather having those bursts of brilliance mixed with lots of mediocrity.
 

subshakerz

International Coach
To me, the equation is simple. Either you pick the four pacers in 70s/80s team or that team will lose against 90s/2000s.

The 90s/2000s already have advantages in a longer batting lineup with Gilchrist and an extra support pacer in Kallis. On top of that if you play a spinner like Qadir/Underwood against the likes of Lara, Tendulkar, Hayden, Sehwag, etc. that spinner will be nothing but a weak link unless you are playing on a spicy mamba. Those batsmen have gotten the better of Warne/Murali so these spinners will significantly let off pressure when facing fire from the other end.

On the other hand, four pacers of ATG quality will have such an intimidation factor, especially as several in that opposing lineup are not the best against high pace & swing. No let off, pure pressure. And to be honest, it would be more representative of that era as the dominating team itself had four pacers.
 
Last edited:

watson

Banned
If the umpiring was such a cause then why did Qasim do better, and Tauseef decently as well, if they had the same umpiring? And by all accounts that hadn't changed since the modern lbw law was introduced anyway.

I'm going on a limb here, but I'd say he was over-reliant on his googlies to take wickets, and was not quite accurate enough or good enough with his leg break to produce consistently good results, rather having those bursts of brilliance mixed with lots of mediocrity.
Because Qasim and Tauseef didn’t spin the ball massively side-ways like a leg-break googlie bowler.

But yes, despite admirers like Dickie Bird exclaiming his accuracy I don’t think he had any where near the same control as Warne.
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
There seems to be an obsession with trying to make out that Abdul Qadir was some sort of pie thrower. He was a damned good bowler. Accuracy was never a leg spinners forte, but they could win you matches or take vital wickets. Comparisons with Warne are ludicrous because he raised the bar a hundred notches when it comes to leg spin. That said I wouldn't have Qadir in the period XI.
 

Shri

Mr. Glass
1990 to 2010 - ODIs

Sachin Tendulkar
Matthew Hayden
Virat Kohli
MS Dhoni +*
Ab de Villiers
Michael Bevan
Lance Klusener
Wasim Akram
Curtly Ambrose
Muthiah Muralitharan
Glenn McGrath

1990 to 2010 - Tests

Matthew Hayden
Graeme Smith *
Kumar Sangakkara
Sachin Tendulkar
Brian Lara
Jacques Kallis
Adam Gilchrist +
Shane Warne
Wasim Akram
Muthiah Muralitharan
Glenn McGrath
 

Slifer

International Captain
To me, the equation is simple. Either you pick the four pacers in 70s/80s team or that team will lose against 90s/2000s.

The 90s/2000s already have advantages in a longer batting lineup with Gilchrist and an extra support pacer in Kallis. On top of that if you play a spinner like Qadir/Underwood against the likes of Lara, Tendulkar, Hayden, Sehwag, etc. that spinner will be nothing but a weak link unless you are playing on a spicy mamba. Those batsmen have gotten the better of Warne/Murali so these spinners will significantly let off pressure when facing fire from the other end.

On the other hand, four pacers of ATG quality will have such an intimidation factor, especially as several in that opposing lineup are not the best against high pace & swing. No let off, pure pressure. And to be honest, it would be more representative of that era as the dominating team itself had four pacers.
This. Not to mention Hayden, Sehwag, Lara and Co were suspect vs real pace.
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
[It makes sense to pick a spinner if this thing is a 4-5 test series. Would want to spread the workload around accordingly and a quality spinner would help.

This. Not to mention Hayden, Sehwag, Lara and Co were suspect vs real pace.
Hayden and Sehwag sucked against movement. Pace was never really the issue.
 

subshakerz

International Coach
[It makes sense to pick a spinner if this thing is a 4-5 test series. Would want to spread the workload around accordingly and a quality spinner would help.



Hayden and Sehwag sucked against movement. Pace was never really the issue.
Hayden didnt have much trouble against medium pace movement, but did have trouble when it was a quality bowler at over 90 mph. This was clear around the time of 2004-2005 when he struggled against Shoaib in Australia and the Ashes bowlers in England.
 

Days of Grace

International Captain
[It makes sense to pick a spinner if this thing is a 4-5 test series. Would want to spread the workload around accordingly and a quality spinner would help.
If we're talking a 5 match test series then we might as well pick 14 man squads which would make things a lot easier. And I'm not sure about including Underwood if the pitches are to be covered.
 

Days of Grace

International Captain
Gavaskar
Barry Richards
Viv Richards
Greg Chappell
Border
Mushtaq Mohammad
Imran Khan
Knott
Hadlee
Marshall
Lillee

You've got three spinners there, two of which can be match winners if the conditions are perfect. Otherwise, just play Sobers, who from 1970-1973 was still world-class.
 
Last edited:

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
1990 to 2010 - ODIs

Sachin Tendulkar
Matthew Hayden
Virat Kohli
MS Dhoni +*
Ab de Villiers
Michael Bevan
Lance Klusener
Wasim Akram
Curtly Ambrose
Muthiah Muralitharan
Glenn McGrath

1990 to 2010 - Tests

Matthew Hayden
Graeme Smith *
Kumar Sangakkara
Sachin Tendulkar
Brian Lara
Jacques Kallis
Adam Gilchrist +
Shane Warne
Wasim Akram
Muthiah Muralitharan
Glenn McGrath
Had Kohli really done enough by 2010 to overtake Ponting?
 

digiosmosis

Cricket Spectator
Best Team 1970 to 1990

Sunil Gavaskar
Barry Richards
Vivian Richards
Graeme Pollock
Greg Chappell
Mike Procter
Imran Khan (C)
Alan Knott
Malcolm Marshall
Dennis Lillee
Bishan Bedi

12th Man
Richard Hadlee


Best Team 1990 to 2010

Mathew Hayden
Virendra Sehwag
*Rahul Dravid/ Ricky Ponting
Sachin Tendulkar
Brian Lara
Jack Kallis
Adam Gilchrist
Wasim Akram
Shane Warne
Curtly Ambrose
Glenn McGrath

12th Man
Muttiah Muralitharan


Criteria for selection is nothing else but the fact that a player has to play a significant amount of cricket in that period, for example, selecting Garry Sobers was tempting option but he mostly belongs to the 60's, though played till 1974.

* that Dravid/ Ponting choice was toughest for me, though here and elsewhere Ponting would be rated higher I know, but if one observes their careers, there is absolutely nothing to choose from (in fact I have never seen two careers that are so similar) Ponting has significantly better strike rate (and probably that is the main reason why most would pick him ahead of Dravid) and Dravid has a significantly better overall record...who will I select in that final XI, would depend on where we are playing, if the match is going to be played in Australia, South Africa or Sri Lanka, it is Ponting, and if we are playing in India, Pakistan or England, surely Dravid. As far as West Indies and New Zealand are concerned both had marvelous performances, Dravid averages 65 in West Indies and 63 in New Zealand while Ponting's averages are 61 and 60 respectively...so basically no choices there...

anyway, for me, the older side looks slightly stronger, what do you think? Any changes?
I would prefer Shaun Pollock instead of Curtly Ambrose.
 

CricketFan90s

U19 Vice-Captain
Best Team 1970 to 1990

Sunil Gavaskar
Barry Richards
Vivian Richards
Graeme Pollock
Greg Chappell
Mike Procter
Imran Khan (C)
Alan Knott
Malcolm Marshall
Dennis Lillee
Bishan Bedi

12th Man
Richard Hadlee


Best Team 1990 to 2010

Mathew Hayden
Virendra Sehwag
*Rahul Dravid/ Ricky Ponting
Sachin Tendulkar
Brian Lara
Jack Kallis
Adam Gilchrist
Wasim Akram
Shane Warne
Curtly Ambrose
Glenn McGrath

12th Man
Muttiah Muralitharan


Criteria for selection is nothing else but the fact that a player has to play a significant amount of cricket in that period, for example, selecting Garry Sobers was tempting option but he mostly belongs to the 60's, though played till 1974.

* that Dravid/ Ponting choice was toughest for me, though here and elsewhere Ponting would be rated higher I know, but if one observes their careers, there is absolutely nothing to choose from (in fact I have never seen two careers that are so similar) Ponting has significantly better strike rate (and probably that is the main reason why most would pick him ahead of Dravid) and Dravid has a significantly better overall record...who will I select in that final XI, would depend on where we are playing, if the match is going to be played in Australia, South Africa or Sri Lanka, it is Ponting, and if we are playing in India, Pakistan or England, surely Dravid. As far as West Indies and New Zealand are concerned both had marvelous performances, Dravid averages 65 in West Indies and 63 in New Zealand while Ponting's averages are 61 and 60 respectively...so basically no choices there...

anyway, for me, the older side looks slightly stronger, what do you think? Any changes?
My XI for 1970-1989 1) Greenidge 2) Gavaskar 3) Richards 4) Chappell 5) Border 6) Imran* 7) Knott+ 8) Kapil 9) Hadlee 10) Marshall 11) Chandrasekhar. Did not include South African Greats as they did not play much of International Cricket. Took Kapil over Botham as he had better stats against West Indies and a long term consistency. Chandrasekhar was a good Leg Spinner with better overseas record compared to Bedi and Qadir. I didn’t take Underwood as his style of bowling will not suit all conditions. Chandrasekhar was the best Leg spinner in my opinion in 70s and 80s combined had a decent record against all nations.
 

Top