Greatest keeper batsman - Gilchrist or Sangakkara?

[aussie]

Look at the Aus v Rest of World, RoW were woeful, their individual brillance on a paper ability didn't match Aus team in either 1 day or test.
As the saying goes, "A champion team will be beat a team of champions"
Any composite group wihtout some sort of cohesive glue will fall apart quickly IMHO.

That was just a one-off test TBF and many people reckoned at the time, the ROW team just didn't get enough time to blend as unit like AUS.

Although they weren't dominant teams like AUS in 2005, look how the ROW team were dominant vs England in 1970 or in AUS 71/72.

Barbados which was the spine of great 1960s WIndies team challenged ROW in 1967 - Barbados v Rest of the World XI at Barbados, 8-11 Mar 1967

 

[aussie]

If Bradman didn't exist, the playing field levels a lot. But Bradman did exist, which gives Australia a ridiculous advantage.

That if you believe Bradman would average 99 vs the WI 4-prong. Evidence of what he did in Bodyline 1932 shows he would score runs but not at that ridiculous advantage rate IMO.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Look at the Aus v Rest of World, RoW were woeful, their individual brillance on a paper ability didn't match Aus team in either 1 day or test.
As the saying goes, "A champion team will be beat a team of champions"
Any composite group wihtout some sort of cohesive glue will fall apart quickly IMHO.

No, I think you're completely wrong there.

2005 was a bit of a freak occurrence because that Australian team was just really, really ridiculously good

That if you believe Bradman would average 99 vs the WI 4-prong. Evidence of what he did in Bodyline 1932 shows he would score runs but not at that ridiculous advantage rate IMO.

irrelevant "evidence" as cricketing laws and attitudes have changed since then

And even if not, the one series would hardly be evidence

 

[Coronis]

Well if you adding up all of the great AUS test of test history in 95-2006, Chappell's 72-76 team, Bradman's 48 invincible's then they are have clearly had the most periods of any team in history as the dominant team.

But i tend towards giving West Indies a slightest of edges because when you put together their ATXI based on players from the invincible 76-91 period & 63-68 - plus throw in George Headley - that team looks unbelievable especially considering the 4 fast bowlers presence.

Til they get on a turning track and can't take a wicket.

 

[Dan]

Til they get on a turning track and can't take a wicket.

I can imagine the WI ATG side taking on the Indian ATG side. WI dominate them at home, with India's spin triumvirate being utterly useless. Then substitute fielder Rohit Sharma pops up out of nowhere: "Wait until you play us at home, LOL".

 

[Furball]

If Bradman didn't exist, the playing field levels a lot. But Bradman did exist, which gives Australia a ridiculous advantage.

Australia also have a better bowling attack IMO.

 

[OverratedSanity]

That if you believe Bradman would average 99 vs the WI 4-prong. Evidence of what he did in Bodyline 1932 shows he would score runs but not at that ridiculous advantage rate IMO.

The Windies quartet's short pitched stuff wasn't accompanied with 7 leg side fielders.

 

[Red]

The Windies quartet's short pitched stuff wasn't accompanied with 7 leg side fielders.

Exactly. Bradman would find it tough against the WIs like anyone, but he had a very good pull shot and if there's not 7 leg side fielders he's gonna score very quickly if they bowl short. He can wear a helmet too if he wants.