Cricinfo All-time series "Eleven of the best"

[The Sean]

A bit on Langer, as we were discussing him here:

Langer breaks Bradman runs record | Australia Cricket News | Cricinfo.com

Came in here expecting this to have its own thread TBH. Well played JL, a fantastic achievement by a fantastic player.

 

[GIMH]

Does have its own thread tbh, not sure if you've seen it?

 

[The Sean]

Does have its own thread tbh, not sure if you've seen it?

There wasn't when I wrote that, but thanks mate have seen it now.

 

[aussie]

Its ENGLANDDDDDD....i cant wait till they get to Knott vs Stewart for the keeper spot hahaha

The hardest pick

They mean they making hard, WTH is Athers, Vaughan & Brearly even considered haa rass.

Hobbs/Hutton all the way...

 

[bagapath]

Hobbs/Hutton all the way...

yeah dude it is ridiculous to even mention those names with the likes of hobbs/hutton/ sutcliffe/boycott/gooch.

and yes... it has to be hobbs/ hutton

thinking of the following options for the rest of the team. i hope they make all those names available.

barrington/may
hammond
compton
botham
knott/ames
trueman
barnes
laker
peel/underwood/loahmann

 

[Trumpers_Ghost]

I was pretty disapointed in the Australian team, that I had to have 1 allrounder, 2 pacebowlers and 2 spinners. So I was unable to choose the team I actually wanted which was: Miller, Lillee, McGrath, Davidson, Warne. So I chose Grimmett instead of Davidson, under sufferrance. If possible I would also have chosen Benaud (allround option) instead of Grimmett and made him captain. But Richie could never be selected under this criteria, as it would leave you with 3 legspinners.

The team I voted on was:
Trumper
Hayden
Bradman
G.Chappell
Border
Miller
Gilly
Warne
Grimmett
Lillee
McGrath

This was quite simmilar to the "experts" pick apart from Hayden & Grimmett in for Morris & O'Reilly.

Just seen the England one. Voted Hutton and Hobbs (kinda obvious really). I was shocked to see Brearly (and to a lessor degree Atherton) in the list. No way does he deserve to be voted on. He was a hack. It would be the equivilant of Australia voting on Mathew Elliot (apologies to Elliot who was much superior to Brearly) as the best openner ever. The judges lost some respect from me on this one. By including Brearly, it is saying that apart from 4 or 5 blokes every other England oppener ever has been utterly useless and not worthy of test cricket. This is patently not true.

yeah dude it is ridiculous to even mention those names with the likes of hobbs/hutton/ sutcliffe/boycott/gooch.

and yes... it has to be hobbs/ hutton

thinking of the following options for the rest of the team. i hope they make all those names available.

barrington/may
hammond
compton
botham
knott/ames
trueman
barnes
laker
peel/underwood/loahmann/Tyson

Like your team, but added Tyson. They will probably force us to vote on an unworthy player/ unbalanced side though, much like the Australian team.

 

[Pigeon]

I kinda agree with you. Waugh of the 90s was amazing and, if anything, underrated. I would, for instance, take Waugh of the 90s vs Tendulkar of the 90s. That's how good he was then.

I have to agree. From 1993 to 2001, in 9 years, Steve Waugh scored 7309 runs from 98 tests at an amazing average of 58.01. The comparable numbers (peak) for Tendulkar are 5,705 runs from 59 test matches @ 63.39 (1997-2002). Steve Waugh's peak lasted 3 years more as compared to Tenudlkar.

 

[Ikki]

I have to agree. From 1993 to 2001, in 9 years, Steve Waugh scored 7309 runs from 98 tests at an amazing average of 58.01. The comparable numbers (peak) for Tendulkar are 5,705 runs from 59 test matches @ 63.39 (1997-2002). Steve Waugh's peak lasted 3 years more as compared to Tenudlkar.

And IIRC Waugh had more impressive records against the best attacks during that peak (other than his own; S.Africa, WIndies and Pakistan). He is unfairly marked as a back-up act to the Tendulkar/Lara show of the 90s.

 

[Pigeon]

And IIRC Waugh had more impressive records against the best attacks during that peak (other than his own; S.Africa, WIndies and Pakistan). He is unfairly marked as a back-up act to the Tendulkar/Lara show of the 90s.

I guess that is probably due to the lack of flair in his strokeplay. Waugh was more Collingwood kind of scrapper player. Also could be the fact that from his debut in 1985 till 1993, he was mediocre. He, according to me, was the best batsman in the world from 1994-1997 till Tendulkar started coming good. Excellent uniform record in his peak though.

TBF, Tendulkar's records and averages also looks impressive during his peak except for the 3 tests against Pakistan.

 

[Ikki]

I guess that is probably due to the lack of flair in his strokeplay. Waugh was more Collingwood kind of scrapper player. Also could be the fact that from his debut in 1985 till 1993, he was mediocre. He, according to me, was the best batsman in the world from 1994-1997 till Tendulkar started coming good. Excellent uniform record in his peak though.

Well, ironically, he was probably more flamboyant but that was in the period where he was mediocre. I don't really agree with him being a scrapper. He was just not like your Laras or Tendulkars who exuded a high level of natural ability. The latter two were born all-time greate batsmen, Steve Waugh made himself into one. He was a leader and was dominant so I don't particularly agree with him being a scrapper.

TBF, Tendulkar's records and averages also looks impressive during his peak except for the 3 tests against Pakistan.

His record against S.Africa isn't good and that's more than 3 tests. Also, when he played Australia it was regularly not against their best line-up. This is why I hold my original point - that I'd take Waugh of the 90s over Tendulkar of the 90s. Overall, it's Tendulkar.

 

[bagapath]

He was just not like your Laras or Tendulkars who exuded a high level of natural ability. The latter two were born all-time greate batsmen, Steve Waugh made himself into one.

yeah he really did. he kind of symbolized grit and determination to a generation of cricket lovers, pretty much like allan border before him.

His record against S.Africa isn't good and that's more than 3 tests. Also, when he played Australia it was regularly not against their best line-up. This is why I hold my original point - that I'd take Waugh of the 90s over Tendulkar of the 90s. Overall, it's Tendulkar.

sachin played mcgrath and warne together in 1999-00, 2001-02 and in 2004-5. he was the man of the series in the first one. scored a century and two cracking fifties in the second one. was struggling with a career altering injury during the last one. so it is unfair to say he didnt play well against the best australian attacks. in fact, he was top notch in the first two series. the fact that india lost the first one 3-0, laxman scored 281 to overshadow everthing else during the second one and sachin's personal best turns out to be the 97-98 series (which didn't feature mcgrath) gives the illusion that he didn't play the best aussie attacks well. it is untrue. also, since we are discussing 90s, reid, mcdermott, hughes and warne in 91-92 series was a kick ass attack, except the newbie shane. sachin did well against them too.

his performance against SA, on the other hand, is below par especially in india.

 

[Pigeon]

Well, ironically, he was probably more flamboyant but that was in the period where he was mediocre. I don't really agree with him being a scrapper. He was just not like your Laras or Tendulkars who exuded a high level of natural ability. The latter two were born all-time greate batsmen, Steve Waugh made himself into one. He was a leader and was dominant so I don't particularly agree with him being a scrapper.



His record against S.Africa isn't good and that's more than 3 tests. Also, when he played Australia it was regularly not against their best line-up. This is why I hold my original point - that I'd take Waugh of the 90s over Tendulkar of the 90s. Overall, it's Tendulkar.

By scrapper I wanted to describe his batting style than ability or effectiveness. He had severe deficiencies but had an iron will to counter those. He perhaps was the most gutsy and mentally strong player I've ever watched. And there is no doubt regarding his captaincy abilities. He was always game for knuckling down and had the defensive game for all occasions.

Regarding Tendulkar, his average during the peak against SA is pretty good, it is above 50, and that is really something considering Donald, Pollock etc were at their peak during Tendulkar's peak.

The Australia he played during this period had McGrath and Warne in them and yet he managed a good average of above 50 against them. So I am not sure what you exactly meant by "not playing against the best". Agreed, he also made runs against Gillespie, Lee and Kaspa, but they weren't bottom of the barrell stuff either. During their time, they were fit to be in the top 5 or 10 in the world.

 

[Pigeon]

yeah he really did. he kind of symbolized grit and determination to a generation of cricket lovers, pretty much like allan border before him.



sachin played mcgrath and warne together in 1999-00, 2001-02 and in 2004-5. he was the man of the series in the first one. scored a century and two cracking fifties in the second one. was struggling with a career altering injury during the last one. so it is unfair to say he didnt play well against the best australian attacks. in fact, he was top notch in the first two series. the fact that india lost the first one 3-0, laxman scored 281 to overshadow everthing else during the second one and sachin's personal best turns out to be the 97-98 series (which didn't feature mcgrath) gives the illusion that he didn't play the best aussie attacks well. it is untrue. also, since we are discussing 90s, reid, mcdermott, hughes and warne in 91-92 series was a kick ass attack, except the newbie shane. sachin did well against them too.

his performance against SA, on the other hand, is below par especially in india.

His performances against SA in India has more to do with the fact that he played during his non-peak phase of his career. He played 9 tests against them even before he turned 24, and played another bunch during 04 and 06 during the direst periods of his career (affected to a great extent by injuries). But then, that is no excuse for his performances and it can safely be concluded SA was indeed a bogey team for Sachin.

 

[bagapath]

But then, that is no excuse for his performances and it can safely be concluded SA was indeed a bogey team for Sachin.

yes it was. just like england was gavaskar's, new zealand was sobers' and india was ponting's

 

[Pigeon]

yes it was. just like england was gavaskar's, new zealand was sobers' and india was ponting's

India was not exactly Ponting's bogey "team" but "venue". He scored aplenty against them IN Australia.

 

[bagapath]

India was not exactly Ponting's bogey "team" but "venue". He scored aplenty against them IN Australia.

fair point.

before the last series in SA, sachin averaged 42 in SA with 3 centuries which is not too bad either. in fact it was as good as ponting's record in england before the current ashes.

so i guess SA in india is sachin's problem, just like india as a venue is ponting's problem.

 

[Pigeon]

fair point.

before the last series in SA, sachin averaged 42 in SA with 3 centuries which is not too bad either. in fact it was as good as ponting's record in england before the current ashes.

so i guess SA in india is sachin's problem, just like india as a venue is ponting's problem.

Yep. And the last Ind series was a good opportunity for Sachin to make the records look a bit better as :

SA bowlers barring Steyn were raw
Flat decks
Tendulkar's good form preceding it (in Aus and CB series)

Unfortunately he got injured and scored a duck in the only innings he batted in that series.

 

[Ikki]

sachin played mcgrath and warne together in 1999-00, 2001-02 and in 2004-5. he was the man of the series in the first one. scored a century and two cracking fifties in the second one. was struggling with a career altering injury during the last one. so it is unfair to say he didnt play well against the best australian attacks. in fact, he was top notch in the first two series. the fact that india lost the first one 3-0, laxman scored 281 to overshadow everthing else during the second one and sachin's personal best turns out to be the 97-98 series (which didn't feature mcgrath) gives the illusion that he didn't play the best aussie attacks well. it is untrue. also, since we are discussing 90s, reid, mcdermott, hughes and warne in 91-92 series was a kick ass attack, except the newbie shane. sachin did well against them too.

his performance against SA, on the other hand, is below par especially in india.

In the 90s when we talk of the Aussie attack we're not really referring to Reid, Mcdermott, etc who also had their ups and downs and injury woes. Sachin's success in that period was mostly when McGrath wasn't there and even when Warne was he was at his absolute worst. I am not saying Sachin would have failed or that he did bad, but the fact is that the grand majority of his tests against Australia didn't feature them. So one must look a bit closer than his overall average as it stands. And so, with respect to that, I think Waugh of the 90s was the superior player.

Regarding Tendulkar, his average during the peak against SA is pretty good, it is above 50, and that is really something considering Donald, Pollock etc were at their peak during Tendulkar's peak.

Yes, but look at the bowlers and how they were doing then. Throughout the 90s, he failed pretty badly against S.Africa. He only started rectifying that in the 2000s when the S.African attack was slowly changing and no longer at their best. Yet he still averages sub-40 both home and away. His record against the good Pakistani bowlers isn't very good either and only started getting better as Waqar and Wasim left.

 

[bagapath]

Sachin's success in that period was mostly when McGrath wasn't there and even when Warne was he was at his absolute worst. I am not saying Sachin would have failed or that he did bad, but the fact is that the grand majority of his tests against Australia didn't feature them.

i disagree. sachin played mcgrath and warne together in 1999-00, 2001-02 and in 2004-5. he was the man of the series in the first one. scored a century and two cracking fifties in the second one. sounds good enough to me.

their batting stats from the 1990s (minus minnows)

SR Tendulkar (India) 1990-1999 66 105 12 5523 217 59.38 22 20 6
SR Waugh (Aus) 1990-1999 88 142 25 6062 200 51.81 17 28 11

against everyone
SR Tendulkar (India) 1990-1999 69 109 12 5626 217 58.00 22 21 7
SR Waugh (Aus) 1990-1999 89 143 26 6213 200 53.10 18 28 11

waugh had a great decade. sachin had an even better one.

i dont want to sound like a blind sachin worshipper because i am from india. but i truly believe he was the best batter of the 1990s while lara, s.waugh, gooch and de silva had some fab times as well. just like dravid, yousuff, pietersen, kallis and hussey have had great years this decade but ponting has dominated it overall.

 

[Pigeon]

In the 90s when we talk of the Aussie attack we're not really referring to Reid, Mcdermott, etc who also had their ups and downs and injury woes. Sachin's success in that period was mostly when McGrath wasn't there and even when Warne was he was at his absolute worst. I am not saying Sachin would have failed or that he did bad, but the fact is that the grand majority of his tests against Australia didn't feature them. So one must look a bit closer than his overall average as it stands. And so, with respect to that, I think Waugh of the 90s was the superior player.

He was hardly mediocre when McGrath and Warne both featured right?

Yes, but look at the bowlers and how they were doing then. Throughout the 90s, he failed pretty badly against S.Africa. He only started rectifying that in the 2000s when the S.African attack was slowly changing and no longer at their best. Yet he still averages sub-40 both home and away. His record against the good Pakistani bowlers isn't very good either and only started getting better as Waqar and Wasim left.

I thought we were looking only at their respective peaks. Sachin played SA during his peak between 97-02 and did pretty well, considering both Pollock and Donald were at their peaks. Overall record of Tendulkar is bad against SA and Pakistan mainly because he played most of the tests either when he was very young (96 and before) or when he was at his worst following injuries (03 & 06-07). He featured in just 3 tests against Pakistan during his peak.

If non peak periods are also to be considered, Waugh was terrible before 1993, his averages against WI against whom subsequently he did well was terrible before that.