\\ Decade Squads //

[FaaipDeOiad]

didn't even notice that one, id go Gilly personally

Likewise. Anyway, I think AMZ is allergic to putting Warne in a team.

He didn't even put him in the 90s side.

 

[Scallywag]

didn't even notice that one, id go Gilly personally

You could but Gilly has said himself that Ponting makes a better captain.

 

[age_master]

meh, with Warne in the side he could capatin it too

 

[C_C]

Faaip-primrily because Holding played very little test cricket in the 70s...i think Thommo played the bulk of his test cricket ( 35 or so matchees) in the 70s and averaged 25 or so with the ball...holding played about 15 or so Test matches in the 70s and averaged 24 or so..
Holding isnt as experienced in the 70s as Thommo was.

 

[Sir Redman]

I would have thought Martin Crowe would rate a mention in the 80s side (he averaged over 50 from 1985 onwards), but looking at some of those teams its very hard to find a place for him

 

[honestbharani]

You could but Gilly has said himself that Ponting makes a better captain.

He is being humble.


I have nothing against Ponting and I still maintain that he needs to be given more time before we start judging him. Same applies for Gilly as well, I guess, but overall, he just looked like a better captain. Great moves like him coming in at 3 at Chennai..... IT was bold and it surprised India. He didn't do too much in that match, but he came in and took many singles without wasting too many deliveries and the scoreboard was kept moving and the Indians, by the time they realized what was going on, the score had already moved on by about 50 runs for no wickets... I still think that little innings played a vital role in Australia saving the game... Apart from Gillespie, Martyn and the rain, I guess.

 

[marc71178]

Botham has no business being in the 80s squad.

Yet you then pick Gooch...

 

[marc71178]

You could but Gilly has said himself that Ponting makes a better captain.

Only if Lehmann's there to make the decisions...

 

[C_C]

I picked Gooch over Greenidge or Haynes because i think that Gooch is an overall better batsman...sure, Greenidge averaged 45 for the 80s and Haynes somewhere around that with Gooch only 38 or so but most importantly, both Haynes and Greenidge were considerably worse than Gooch against Pakistan( the best attack they've faced in common) and Gooch had extremely decent figures against the most awesome bowling unit to take the field- the WI four prong- he averaged 40+ against them.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I picked Gooch over Greenidge or Haynes because i think that Gooch is an overall better batsman...sure, Greenidge averaged 45 for the 80s and Haynes somewhere around that with Gooch only 38 or so but most importantly, both Haynes and Greenidge were considerably worse than Gooch against Pakistan( the best attack they've faced in common) and Gooch had extremely decent figures against the most awesome bowling unit to take the field- the WI four prong- he averaged 40+ against them.

I'd say Marc was referring to the fact that for most of the 80s Gooch was a pretty average sort of a batsman. It wasn't until the end of the 80s that he really began to improve.

 

[C_C]

Well i am looking at the overall picture really.

 

[a massive zebra]

Likewise. Anyway, I think AMZ is allergic to putting Warne in a team.

He didn't even put him in the 90s side.

No point playing a spinner for the sake of variety if more effective bowlers are available, I say play the bowlers that are likely to bowl the opposition out for the lowest total.

And don't give me all that crap about how he reinvented the art of spin bowling - even if true it is totally irrelevant to whether he is better than the four bowlers I picked.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

No point playing a spinner for the sake of variety if more effective bowlers are available, I say play the bowlers that are likely to bowl the opposition out for the lowest total.

And don't give me all that crap about how he reinvented the art of spin bowling - even if true it is totally irrelevant to whether he is better than the four bowlers I picked.

Shane Warne was the best, most effective and most important bowler of the 1990s. By whatever criteria you use (excluding, I suppose, bowling average and strike rate) he should be in the team.

 

[badgerhair]

1900s
VT Trumper
RA Duff
C Hill
KS Ranjitsinhji
FS Jackson*
MA Noble
W Rhodes
AFA Lilley+
H Trumble
C Blythe
SF Barnes

1910s
JB Hobbs
VT Trumper
W Bardsley
C Hill*
CP Mead
GA Faulkner
H Carter+
FR Foster
HV Hordern
SF Barnes
AEE Vogler

A couple of very plausible teams, but I would pick different ones.

In the 1900s team, I wouldn't bother with Duff. My first thought wa Maclaren, but then I decided I'd have George Gunn instead. I also refuse to have a 1900-1909 team which doesn't include Gilbert Jessop, the problem being who to leave out to accommodate him. I suppose it has to be Noble, though that doesn't make me happy.

My main objection to your 1910s team is the inclusion of Hanson Carter and Frank Foster. If you want Foster, then you have to have Tiger Smith as your keeper, because he was about the only person who could keep successfully to him. It's inconceivable to me that you could omit Warwick Armstrong, so if you were desperate for Carter you could replace Foster with Armstrong. But, despite the success of the South African quartet in 1905, I think three googly bowlers is too many, so I'd keep Foster and Smith and drop either Hordern or Vogler for Armstrong. Vogler probably.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[C_C]

Perhaps it would be better to say that Shane Warne was the best/most effective/mots important spin bowler of the 90s....i dont think it is fair comparing spinners to pacers and vice versa and there really is no way of comparing spinners to pacers.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Perhaps it would be better to say that Shane Warne was the best/most effective/mots important spin bowler of the 90s....i dont think it is fair comparing spinners to pacers and vice versa and there really is no way of comparing spinners to pacers.

I agree, but at a certain point you have to compare them in order to decide whether or not one needs to be in the team. I didn't pick a spinner in my 80s squad, because I didn't think there was one who deserved to make it ahead of Imran/Marshall/Lillee/Hadlee/Botham. Warne is in my opinion the best bowler of the 90s, ahead of Ambrose, McGrath, Wasim, Donald and Waqar, in that order. Leaving him out of the team for that decade in favour of 4 pacers is a joke.

 

[C_C]

Well..
I dont know really.
If the objective is to concede the least amount of runs for 20 wickets taken, a lineup of the 4 best pacers would do it better than 4 best spinners...simply because spinners tend to go for more than pacers.
As such, spinners lose out.
But having a spinner is imperative, as it not only adds variety, it gives the team the kind of balance it needs to exploit all pitches to the hilt.

PS: if you look at decades in the sense i have ( as in screw career performance, only performance for that decade matters), then Donald is ahead of McGrath.

 

[a massive zebra]

A couple of very plausible teams, but I would pick different ones.

In the 1900s team, I wouldn't bother with Duff. My first thought wa Maclaren, but then I decided I'd have George Gunn instead. I also refuse to have a 1900-1909 team which doesn't include Gilbert Jessop, the problem being who to leave out to accommodate him. I suppose it has to be Noble, though that doesn't make me happy.

Jessop may have been one of the most exciting batsman ever seen but his uninhibited strokeplay was found wanting at the highest level, with an average of barely 20 he only ever played a couple of quality Test innings and was not even a regular in the England side of the 1900s. Even in county cricket, more often than not Jessop was out before he had reached 20. Admittedly the Englishman's fielding was far superior to that of Noble but this alone cannot be considered a valid case for dropping the proven world class allrounder in favour of Jessop. A statistical bowling comparison is equally one-sided and dropping Noble for Jessop would be like dropping a pre-2004 Jacques Kallis for Shahid Afridi.

My main objection to your 1910s team is the inclusion of Hanson Carter and Frank Foster. If you want Foster, then you have to have Tiger Smith as your keeper, because he was about the only person who could keep successfully to him.

I did not consider Tiger Smith because he played very little Test cricket and his mediocre batting abilities would be a weak link when the decade XIs played eachother as all the other keepers could bat. Fair point though.

It's inconceivable to me that you could omit Warwick Armstrong, so if you were desperate for Carter you could replace Foster with Armstrong.

Yes - Armstrong could probably make the team almost as a batsman alone, and he probably should be included. However, the Big Ship's bowling was mediocre and replacing Foster with Armstrong would leave us with almost non-existent pace bowling options, so your next sentence smacks of hypocrisy.

But, despite the success of the South African quartet in 1905, I think three googly bowlers is too many, so I'd keep Foster and Smith and drop either Hordern or Vogler for Armstrong. Vogler probably.

Thats a fair call, my attack does lack variety but I tried to focus on selecting the best bowlers of the period rather than balancing the team out. Armstrong would add considerable batting depth to our team but his leg-break bowling is not all that different to the bowler he would replace, and far from adding variety to our team his inclusion would actually reduce the penetration of our bowlers.

 

[Jono]

You could but Gilly has said himself that Ponting makes a better captain.

Evident through his fantastic decisions lately.

 

[Adamc]

You could but Gilly has said himself that Ponting makes a better captain.

What do you expect him to say? "I'm a better captain than Ponting"? I don't think that will go down to well with Ponting, or the press.