Test XI for The Last Quarter Century

[Burgey]

Lol you think I read your posts.

 

[trundler]

I mentioned him

It's Burgey, cut him some slack. You should know of all

 

[Burgey]

Another blow-in, another misguided attempt at familiarity.

Or is it?

 

[cnerd123]

Lol you think I read your posts.

I believe you sit down every night and memorize them

Will cut you some slack for forgetting this due to your old age

 

[Bolo]

Included McGrath, Lee and Akram because I remember them being really good on the boundaries with really strong arms. Included Hogg because when he was younger he was a gun fieldsman. Not sure if there are other bowlers I've missed. I remember Heath Streak being an excellent outfielder.

Donald and Lee the strongest arms I can remember.

These days though, the most athletic and best catchers tend to go on the rope. Not sure how you factor that in.

Anyway, here's a statistic to back up the fact that Viv was a matchwinner like no other. He has a MotM every 6 games. Better ratio than anyone else

Part of this is due to factors external to his ability. He batted top order (more run potential) in a team that won a crazy percentage of games. It was a better bowling unit than batting, so he had less bats likely to deny him a motm.

All the other ATGs had at least one of these cutting down his motm awards. AB had all 4.

Anyway, there's always a rebuttal like this that nitpicks any achievement. The fact remains that only he actually achieved it.

Aside from the man of the match thing, Viv has a RPI of 40, ABDV has 44. ABDV comes in at 5 and Viv at 3 or 4 so the not-outs help ABDV a lot. The difference in RPI isn't that big. Both are striking are striking more quickly than their peers considerably, more so for Viv.

Now moving on to stellar performances. How does one compare Viv's 189 and WC final 100 to AB's fastest 100 and fastest 150?

RPI is not something to hold against AB. If RSA win, job done, and almost all his not out come in wins.

You can't really compare ABs best to Viv's- ABs were meaningless in both context and challenge. They were greater innings than anything Viv produced, but Viv's were innings that contribute to him being a greater batsman.

 

[trundler]

Donald and Lee the strongest arms I can remember.

These days though, the most athletic and best catchers tend to go on the rope. Not sure how you factor that in.



Part of this is due to factors external to his ability. He batted top order (more run potential) in a team that won a crazy percentage of games. It was a better bowling unit than batting, so he had less bats likely to deny him a motm.

All the other ATGs had at least one of these cutting down his motm awards. AB had all 4.

Anyway, there's always a rebuttal like this that nitpicks any achievement. The fact remains that only he actually achieved it.



RPI is not something to hold against AB. If RSA win, job done, and almost all his not out come in wins.

You can't really compare ABs best to Viv's- ABs were meaningless in both context and challenge. They were greater innings than anything Viv produced, but Viv's were innings that contribute to him being a greater batsman.

Wasn't holding RPI against AB but it's not a direct comparison anyway since batting today is a lot easier. Both in terms of conditions and quality of bowlers than it was in Viv's day. Viv's MOTM match ratio is still great all things consider as it is well clear of anyone else. Sachin has one every 7 games. That's a lot over a big sample size.

Agreed on the last point. WI were essentially minnows in terms of bowling qualuty whereas Viv's best came at the big stage against a higher quality opposition.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It bugs me how much better (or easier) batting has gotten over the last 3 WCs alone. I mean, look at child prodigies, naturally talented, and dominant batsmen like Ponting and Lara in ODIs and they look like nothing players now. Is Kohli really that much better compared to his peers or does a lot of that have to do with the way the game is played now? Ponting was really ****ing awesome in ODIs and if era adjustment is taken into account, he cant be much worse now can he? Also, Saqlain was better than Warne in ODIs, imo. He had the highest WPM in ODIs which is incredible for a spinner since spinners usually have lower strike rates.

2015 World Cup had only 4 fielders outside the circle instead of 5 for most of the innings, that made a huge difference to the scores.

 

[cnerd123]

2015 World Cup had only 4 fielders outside the circle instead of 5 for most of the innings, that made a huge difference to the scores.

I think this is a big key behind modern ODI batsmen's success too tbh. Guys like Virat excel at clearing the infield, and with just 4 men outside the circle now there is a lot more space for them to hit the ball into. I feel a lot of modern batsmen are going that route now, go aerial into the gaps.

One ball from each end is a big factor as well - ball retains it's hardness throughout the innings, makes it easier to hit around.

 

[trundler]

Yeah, it's just ridiculous now. Top edges and mishits going for sixes all the time. It's unfair. The game is more enjoyable when there's equal competition between bat and ball, or ball dominating bat imo.

 

[Starfighter]

I think this is a big key behind modern ODI batsmen's success too tbh. Guys like Virat excel at clearing the infield, and with just 4 men outside the circle now there is a lot more space for them to hit the ball into. I feel a lot of modern batsmen are going that route now, go aerial into the gaps.

One ball from each end is a big factor as well - ball retains it's hardness throughout the innings, makes it easier to hit around.

New ball from each end means less opportunity for reverse swing too, which makes yorkers much less effective.

And not only have boundaries gotten smaller, but before 2000 the boundary was the top of the barrier. Fielders could be up against the fence or rope without it being four or six and you actually had to clear the fence or rope on the full.

 

[jimmy101]

Yeah, it's just ridiculous now. Top edges and mishits going for sixes all the time. It's unfair. The game is more enjoyable when there's equal competition between bat and ball, or ball dominating bat imo.

Yeah, I lost the majority of my interest in pyjama cricket sometime shortly after the 2011 CWC tbh.

You'd think watching teams make 350+ regularly in ODIs would be interesting. But it just isn't for me, for a multitude of reasons.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah, it's just ridiculous now. Top edges and mishits going for sixes all the time. It's unfair. The game is more enjoyable when there's equal competition between bat and ball, or ball dominating bat imo.

That's been the biggest change that cricket has gone through while I've been watching. Back in the day the occasional top edge might go for 6 over the keeper's head on a small ground, but it was pretty rare. These days if you bowl a fast bouncer or short and wide ball and the batsman gets anything other than a really thick edge on it you can pretty much be assured that it's going somewhere for 6. And the mishits too . . . my god just swing at the ball as long as it gets within a foot and a half of the middle of the bat it's going.

 

[Bolo]

And not only have boundaries gotten smaller, but before 2000 the boundary was the top of the barrier. Fielders could be up against the fence or rope without it being four or six and you actually had to clear the fence or rope on the full.

Can you rephrase this pls

 

[CricAddict]

Completely forgot about Saqlain. Great one day bowler. If someone takes him over Warne/Murali in the ATG ODI team, I won't complain.

 

[Starfighter]

Can you rephrase this pls

Before the 2000 version of the laws in cricket, to get a six the ball actually had to be grounded beyond the fence or rope. You know when they do replays to see if the ball landed on the rope or if it landed before it, to see if it's four or six? Under the pre-2000 laws both would have been four, as would have a ball hitting the fence on the full. Fielders were actually allowed to touch the rope or lean against the fence - you could prop yourself against the fence, lean back and take a catch that was otherwise heading into the crowd. If you happened to touch the rope when fielding it wasn't a boundary (this would save a lot of time wasting replays). If you trod on the rope while taking a catch it was out, not six like it is these days. For it to be six you actually had to have grounded your foot over the rope.

This small but significant change has reduced the area in which the fielder can work, I think particularly with respect to stopping boundaries.

 

[CricAddict]

Before the 2000 version of the laws in cricket, to get a six the ball actually had to be grounded beyond the fence or rope. You know when they do replays to see if the ball landed on the rope or if it landed before it, to see if it's four or six? Under the pre-2000 laws both would have been four, as would have a ball hitting the fence on the full. Fielders were actually allowed to touch the rope or lean against the fence - you could prop yourself against the fence, lean back and take a catch that was otherwise heading into the crowd. If you happened to touch the rope when fielding it wasn't a boundary (this would save a lot of time wasting replays). If you trod on the rope while taking a catch it was out, not six like it is these days. For it to be six you actually had to have grounded your foot over the rope.

This small but significant change has reduced the area in which the fielder can work, I think particularly with respect to stopping boundaries.

Is it? I have been watching cricket since the 90s and I don't remember this rule or any catch being taken trodding on the rope/fence. Always thought it was a boundary when the ball touches the rope/ad board.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Completely forgot about Saqlain. Great one day bowler. If someone takes him over Warne/Murali in the ATG ODI team, I won't complain.

I agree, Saqlain should probably be ahead of both them IMO anyway, in ODIs

 

[Bolo]

Gotcha. We haven't had fences in international cricket for some time, and the ball striking the rope directly is rare.

Touching the rope happens fairly often though. I can't actually remember this not being a boundary. Just kinda assumed this rule had always been there.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I remember there being an occasion or 2 where the ball actually went way over the fence, but was still called as only a 4 because it hit a sightscreen or advertising board or something?

May need clarification as I was very young at the time but I remember people going on about how stupid it was.

 

[cnerd123]

Yea I can't remember if the fielder could ever touch the ropes when fielding the ball and get away with it. The fence thing sounds right tho.