LangleyburyCCPlayer
International 12th Man
Yeah, surely on a flat pitch picking bowlers who can get anything out of the pitch is important?I'm not sure to take advantage of what tbh. Ensuring a draw and not taking 20 wickets?
Yeah, surely on a flat pitch picking bowlers who can get anything out of the pitch is important?I'm not sure to take advantage of what tbh. Ensuring a draw and not taking 20 wickets?
I would think so.Yeah, surely on a flat pitch picking bowlers who can get anything out of the pitch is important?
This is where we get caught up in useless stats due to running up scores.Yeah, surely on a flat pitch picking bowlers who can get anything out of the pitch is important?
The first one.Which would you rather?
Knott+
Steyn
Ambrose
McGrath
Gilchrist+
Imran
Wasim
Lindwall
Which would you rather?
Knott+
Steyn
Ambrose
McGrath
Gilchrist+
Imran
Wasim
Lindwall
In that Australian team, you don’t worry about having a ‘proper’ all-rounder at 8 when 9 and 10 are so capable! History is kind of repeating itself now, Starc averages a tick over 20, coming in after Cummins, who averages about 17, although Lyon, the fraud that he is, is yet to hit a Test double ton!So without player overlap, I've tried to figure out what were the arguably the top 10 teams of all time.
Trying to rank them, but also not claiming the list is perfect or the lineups are the absolute best, but tried to use the best lineups that actually took the field.
2002 Australia
Hayden | Langer | Ponting | Waugh | Martyn | Waugh | Gilchrist | Warne | Lee | Gillespie | McGrath
1984 West Indies
Greenidge | Haynes | Richardson | Richards | Rowe | Lloyd | Dujon | Marshall | Holding | Garner | Walsh
1948 Australia
Barnes | Morris | Bradman | Hassett | Miller | Harvey | Loxton | Lindwall | Tallon | Ring | Johnston
1953 England
Hutton | Edrich | May | Compton | Graveney | Bailey | Evans | Laker | Lock | Trueman | Bedser
08 South Africa
Smith | McKenzie | Amla | Kallis | de Villiers | Prince | Boucher | Morkel | Harris | Steyn | Ntini
28 England
Hobbs | Sutcliffe | Hammond | Jardine | Hendren | Chapman | Larwood | Geary | Tate | Duckworth | White
63 West Indies
Hunte | Carew | Kanhai | Sobers | Butcher | Solomon | Worrell | Murray | Hall | Griffith | Gibbs
70 South Africa
Richards | Goddard | Bacher | Pollock | Barlow | Irvine | Lance | Lindsay | Procter | Pollock | Traicos
75 Australia
McCosker | Turner | Chappell| Chappell | Redpath | Marsh | Gilmour | Walker | Lillee | Thompson | Mallett
18 India
Dharwan | Rahul | Pujara | Kohli | Rahane | Pant | Jadeja | Ashwin | Sharma | Shami | Bumrah
Outside of that 1970 SA team, none of them had a high volume no. 8, with the 63 WI and 18 Indian squads also in the discussion.
All of those teams have had various contributions from the no. 8, some even in critical situations. But it's never been a primary determinant and clearly behind some other secondary factors.
Yes, they and SA are the outliers from the perspective of the ones with actual depth.In that Australian team, you don’t worry about having a ‘proper’ all-rounder at 8 when 9 and 10 are so capable! History is kind of repeating itself now, Starc averages a tick over 20, coming in after Cummins, who averages about 17, although Lyon, the fraud that he is, is yet to hit a Test double ton!
The first part was obvious, as has been noted by everyone in the thread this far.This is not an in a vacuum type of question.
If Vernon Philander is the one getting you runs at number 8, you should pick him. If you have to pick Ashley Giles to get those runs, you probably shouldn't.
Also, kyear, your list is a masterclass in selective bias.
Looking at SA alone you're missing their ATG best team circa 2015, so don't know what else bad faith cherrypicking you've been doing in the rest of the list.
2012-14 then, when they were number 1 ranked. Sorry I forgot the exact year, but the point stands. That team was the only SA team (other than the current one) to hold undisputed number 1 status, and you conveniently ignore it.2. The 2015 squad was roundly and comprehensively beaten by India and England. And I mean comprehensively.