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

[vcs]

Smith would probably have a better record if Anderson and Broad were included TBF. Also did well against the Indian spinners (if he survived Zaheer) and Ajmal. But yeah, despite his technical deficiencies, Sehwag played lots of standout knocks against great bowlers when the ball wasn't moving around much.

 

[marc71178]

I subscribe to the notion of picking your best bowling attack. Which may entail picking a lesser bowler, yet one who complements the bowling attack such that the total is greater than the sum of it's parts. We're not picking the best batsmen + best bowlers (a computer could do that), but the best team combo.

Something that needs considering when picking 4 quicks is that only 2 of them can take the new ball so 2 have to come on as change bowlers. With that in mind, the 4th quick isn't necessarily going to be the better option if they're doing something they didn't usually do.

 

[sumantra]

Well that's the point though. If Smith was significantly worse than Sehwag against the best bowlers of their era, how is he meant to be a better option when playing against Lillee/Marshall/Hadlee etc. At least with Sehwag there are a bunch of standout performances like his 150 odd vs McGrath/Warne/Gillespie, 3 100s including a triple against Steyn, a couple of massive double 100s vs Murali, 2 hundreds vs Pollock, a match-winning triple against Akhtar along with a stellar overall record. Smith averages in the low 30s with just 2 hundreds in 38 innings with one of them being against a post 90s Waqar. Except for Asif, he fared far worse than Sehwag against almost all of these bowlers. The stats are filtered from 2002-07 for Smith because all the Tests that he played involving these bowlers were within this range.

When did I say that? May be I am getting something wrong here...

Anyway, coming to the argument, you have mentioned great knocks of Sehwag...let's dig them up a little bit, there are 9 knocks mentioned in there (correct me if I am wrong).

155 in Chennai, India vs Australia
319 in Chennai, India vs S.A
293 in Mumbai, India vs S.L
164 in Kanpur, India vs S.A
109 in Nagpur, India vs S.A
165 in Kolkata, India vs S.A
201 in Galle, S.L vs S.L
319 in Multan, Pakistan vs Pakistan
and
105 in Bloemfontein, S.A vs S.A

Now I believe in my post I had clearly stated that In the Indian sub continent and in Australia this Hayden-Sehwag combo is fine, elsewhere Smith has to get a look in...you are only making my point stronger with so many centuries

by the way, the only century that you mentioned outside sub-continent was that 105 in Bloemfontein, that came when Sehwag was batting at 6...

 

[bagapath]

if we get the second XIs to compete...

70-90

Haynes
Amiss
Gower
Crowe
Walters
Lloyd *
Kapil
Marsh (wk)
Roberts
Garner
Underwood

90-2010

Anwar
Jayasurya
M.Waugh
Younis Khan
Pietersen
Chanderpaul
Flintoff
Healy (wk)
Kumble
Walsh
Waqar

 

[sumantra]

if we get the second XIs to compete...

70-90

Haynes
Amiss
Gower
Crowe
Walters
Lloyd *
Kapil
Marsh (wk)
Roberts
Garner
Underwood

90-2010

Anwar
Jayasurya
M.Waugh
Younis Khan
Pietersen
Chanderpaul
Flintoff
Healy (wk)
Kumble
Walsh
Waqar

Dravid & Ponting do not make the second team either.

 

[Engle]

Something that needs considering when picking 4 quicks is that only 2 of them can take the new ball so 2 have to come on as change bowlers. With that in mind, the 4th quick isn't necessarily going to be the better option if they're doing something they didn't usually do.

Another good reason why one should never have 4 quicks in an AT XI.

When an ALL-Time XI is picked, it is to play under ALL types of conditions, ALL types of pitches, ALL countries, ALL types of opposition ...

Remember how Qadir got the W.Indies out for 53 (against Marshall, Walsh, Patterson, Gray). Or Hirwani, Holland, even Border, Greigy skittling them out.

You must have at least 1 spinner in every AT XI team. Not just for winning but also to showcase the breadth of talent from that era.

 

[Slifer]

Another good reason why one should never have 4 quicks in an AT XI.

When an ALL-Time XI is picked, it is to play under ALL types of conditions, ALL types of pitches, ALL countries, ALL types of opposition ...

Remember how Qadir got the W.Indies out for 53 (against Marshall, Walsh, Patterson, Gray). Or Hirwani, Holland, even Border, Greigy skittling them out.

You must have at least 1 spinner in every AT XI team. Not just for winning but also to showcase the breadth of talent from that era.

Sigh. In an all time Xl you pick a spinner if they are at least at the same level or similar level of the fast bowlers. If that's not the case, it's point less picking a spinner for those very few moments when a spinner runs through a lineup. Qadir does not remotely qualify. If say a laker, Grimmet or oreilly were available then by all means. Underwood is available and as a matter of fact I included him in my team. But Qadir is just not good enough esp if the opposition has: Hayden, lara, sehwag and co

 

[Red]

Pitches have always deteriorated ; didn't stop Hadlee, MM or Imran from being successful. They were capable of greatness regardless of pitch conditions. Also, if the pitch offered any life whatsoever then it's a no Brainer. Lastly, the opposition has: Sehwag, Lara, Hayden, Sachin etc who ate spinners for breakfast. Who do you think they'd rather face??

I also assume the ball will deteriorate during the course of each innings.

You need a spinner, in almost every team selected.

 

[Engle]

During his time Qadir was rated one of the best bowlers alongside Barnes and Lindwall by Peter West and also highly rated by David Frith. Watch the last few seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI84uLwsfw

Not to belabor the point, but at AT XI, has to play in ALL types of situations, and Qadir played in extremely extenuating circumstances with not a single spinner of his time capturing 200 wkts.

So, if you're going to pick just one spinner, well then, he's the man. The solitary spinner who stood out much more from amongst his peers than the Bedi's, Prasanna's, Chandra's, Underwoods et al.

 

[Engle]

There's also very little Lillee can bring to the bowling table that Marshall, Hadlee and Imran cannot, and while we're at it, there's very little Imran can bring to the bowling table that Marshall, Lillee and Hadlee cannot,

Lillee is to fast bowling what Viv is to batting. Leadership and aggression.

FWIW, in Tests that Imran bowled against the trio, he bested Lillee and Hadlee and tied with Marshall on wkts taken, but with a lower average.

 

[watson]

Procter never gets any love on CW.

Not when he’s batting at No.6 as any team needs at least 6 proper batsman.

 

[watson]

70s & 80s
01. Gordon Greenidge
02. Sunil Gavaskar
03. Viv Richards
04. Greg Chappell
05. Allan Border
06. Clive Lloyd *
07. Alan Knott +
08. Imran Khan
09. Richard Hadlee
10. Malcolm Marshall
11. Derek Underwood


90s & 00s
01. Graeme Smith *
02. Virender Sehwag
03. Kumar Sangakkara
04. Sachin Tendulkar
05. Brian Lara
06. Jacques Kallis
07. Adam Gilchrist +
08. Shane Warne
09. Wasim Akram
10. Curtly Ambrose
11. Glenn McGrath


70s & 80s
Would like to pick Boycott but he is too similar to Gavaskar so the innings is likely to get bogged down. Greenidge adds that needed aggression.

Since the team lacks a batting allrounder like Kallis a reliable spinner who can bowl longer spells is needed. So Underwood over the more attacking Qadir, Bedi or Prasanna. Not that they weren’t accurate it’s just that Underwood seems to fit the team more.

90 & 00s
Nothing fundamentally wrong with Sehwag’s technique so he’s into the team as a quick 50+ runs from would take the pressure off the other top order batsman.

Smith shades Hayden because of his captaincy skills and Sangakkara’s allround batting skills are just a little bit better than Ponting’s.

 

[stephen]

Since the most contentious points of the picks are the bowling attack of the 70s-90 team and the openers for the 90s-10 team I'll throw in my 2c.

Bowlers:
Imran
Marshall
Lillee
Qadir

You need a spinner or you're at a huge disadvantage on many tracks and in the 4th innings. You're also at risk of over rate penalties and you can be less reliant on your part time bowlers.

Imran is amazing and needs to be in the team. He plays as bowler for mine. Marshall ams Lillee pick themselves (Lillee was the bowler of the 70s).

Openers

IMO you pick specialists for the position. Hayden as the aggressor and Smith add the more defensive. We've been over the wrong arguments about Hayden being a FTB enough times I'm not going to bother. But he did well against the best fast bowlers in the world after his recall including a century vs Donald and Pollock and being Australia's best bat on his final series in SA which was a bowler-dominated series.

I am struggling as to why you'd pick Kallis over Waugh when you have Warne, McGrath, Ambrose and Donald in your attack.

 

[stephen]

Substitute Donald for Wasim if you like.

 

[Slifer]

Since the most contentious points of the picks are the bowling attack of the 70s-90 team and the openers for the 90s-10 team I'll throw in my 2c.

Bowlers:
Imran
Marshall
Lillee
Qadir

You need a spinner or you're at a huge disadvantage on many tracks and in the 4th innings. You're also at risk of over rate penalties and you can be less reliant on your part time bowlers.

Imran is amazing and needs to be in the team. He plays as bowler for mine. Marshall ams Lillee pick themselves (Lillee was the bowler of the 70s).

Openers

IMO you pick specialists for the position. Hayden as the aggressor and Smith add the more defensive. We've been over the wrong arguments about Hayden being a FTB enough times I'm not going to bother. But he did well against the best fast bowlers in the world after his recall including a century vs Donald and Pollock and being Australia's best bat on his final series in SA which was a bowler-dominated series.

I am struggling as to why you'd pick Kallis over Waugh when you have Warne, McGrath, Ambrose and Donald in your attack.

It's all good and well picking a spinner for the 70s/80s team but I don't get this obsession with Qadir. For the umpteenth time, the opposition potentially has Hayden, Lara, Tendulkar, Sehwag who all ate spinners for breakfast. At the very least, Derek Underwood offers some variety being a lefty, plus he was virtually unplayable on certain wickets. Plus their Sr are similar but Deadly averaged 7 runs less.Then u also have the Indian spinners from the 70s several of whom were also better than Qadir. Last but not least, Hadlee over Lillee any day of the week. Hadlee, MM and Imran are three bowlers who have proven themselves worldwide regardless of wicket conditions + each could bat a bit. Lillee played the majority of his tests in 3 countries and was the supposed bowler of the 70s because he had very little competition for that crown. Hadlee, Imran, MM had each other + Holding, Garner, Wasim etc

 

[Starfighter]

You need a spinner or you're at a huge disadvantage on many tracks and in the 4th innings.

Sorry to burst your bubble here, but Qadir won't help there. He only took ten last innings wickets in his whole career (at 38.8 in nine innings) and his third innings record is an unspectacular 75 wickets at 33.2. He actually did best in the first match innings, believe it or not.

Marshall averaged best in the fourth match innings (17.65), and Hadlee was even better (15.62), Lillee was worst then but still managed a respectable 26. Imran was actually the worst in the forth innings of the four mentioned here, averaging 42.

I know stats don't always tell the whole story but it's very hard to make a case for Qadir, especially considering that his record away from home was appalling, his 7/96 notwithstanding.
By the numbers it's debatable that he was even the best spinner Pakistan had at the time - Iqbal Qasim's record is better in most aspects, and Qadir is ahead in some only marginally.

Perhaps this judgement comes from me being too young to see him play, but there's no way he gets in a world AT XI for that era for me, or any era.

You're also at risk of over rate penalties

Pretty much the only reason I can think of to pick him, but others could do the job better.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Qadir was a class above all other leg spinners of his era and England used to play him worse than anyone. It was really because the art was dying out and the batsman rarely came across one.

 

[Slifer]

During his time Qadir was rated one of the best bowlers alongside Barnes and Lindwall by Peter West and also highly rated by David Frith. Watch the last few seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI84uLwsfw

Not to belabor the point, but at AT XI, has to play in ALL types of situations, and Qadir played in extremely extenuating circumstances with not a single spinner of his time capturing 200 wkts.

So, if you're going to pick just one spinner, well then, he's the man. The solitary spinner who stood out much more from amongst his peers than the Bedi's, Prasanna's, Chandra's, Underwoods et al.

Just saw this little beauty. Qadir standing out in his time was just a product of him being pretty much the only decent spinner in the 80s. Had he been a contemporary of say: Deadly or chandra or bedi he'd be over shadowed. And rightly so. It seems some of u lot on here greatly exaggerate how good Qadir was.

 

[subshakerz]

Since the most contentious points of the picks are the bowling attack of the 70s-90 team and the openers for the 90s-10 team I'll throw in my 2c.

Bowlers:
Imran
Marshall
Lillee
Qadir

You need a spinner or you're at a huge disadvantage on many tracks and in the 4th innings. You're also at risk of over rate penalties and you can be less reliant on your part time bowlers.

Imran is amazing and needs to be in the team. He plays as bowler for mine. Marshall ams Lillee pick themselves (Lillee was the bowler of the 70s).

Openers

IMO you pick specialists for the position. Hayden as the aggressor and Smith add the more defensive. We've been over the wrong arguments about Hayden being a FTB enough times I'm not going to bother. But he did well against the best fast bowlers in the world after his recall including a century vs Donald and Pollock and being Australia's best bat on his final series in SA which was a bowler-dominated series.

I am struggling as to why you'd pick Kallis over Waugh when you have Warne, McGrath, Ambrose and Donald in your attack.

The problem is that we are talking about facing an ATG XI with players who are top drawer against spin. Unless your spinner is near Warne/Murali ATG level, the benefit in having Qadir/Underwood for spinning wickets/4th innings is outweighed by that spinner being exposed in most of the other conditions.

Yes, your team may lose on specific wickets that are spin-friendly but will win on most other wickets. But I dont think you need to pick a team that 'cover all bases' if it means you accept cricketers that are simply below the ATG class of the others in the team and lower the overall quality. Imran, Marshall, Lillee and Hadlee were the four best bowlers of the period, and no spinner is close to their level, so they should go in, even if it is not perfect. Having four worldclass pacers didnt stop West Indies from winning in India and Pakistan in the 80s.

 

[bagapath]

I remember the 80s very well, and I remember how Qadir bowled and how he was rated. He was, obviously, bloody good. I think his run up and delivery are aesthetically joint best along with Shane Warne's for a leg spinner (Imran FTW among pacers).

Having said that he was not this genius that some cricket experts, including Benaud, make him out to be post his retirement.

It is true that he kept the embers of spin bowling alive in a world of fast men. But during his playing days the Indians treated him like a club bowler, like they always treat spinners. He was not a threat to Sri Lankans as well. In fact he was not a threat anywhere outside of Pakistan. He was probably as good a bowler and match winner as Harbhajan would be 15+ years later.

On his days he would get bucket loads of wickets. But those days were not regular. Just because the Englishmen could not handle spin bowling, they made him out to be a mystical genius. He was not. Definitely not good enough to replace Hadlee in the team.

From the 70s I would rate Chandra, Bedi, Prasanna, Gibbs and Underwood way above him. I think his own teammate Iqbal Qasim can be considered superior to him. By the mid 80s when he had only Tauseef and Ray Bright and Yadav and Harper to compete with, he was the best spinner in the world. That's the story.