Which team was the greatest

[Michaelf7777777]

I'd of rated Marshall and Warne as even and McGrath as better than Roberts who is the worst bowler of that quartet but still better than all post-Lillee Aussie quicks apart from McGrath in my opinion.

 

[rivera213]

The fact that Hayden's scored the 2nd most runs & centuries in Test Cricket of this decade, completely puts that theory to rest. His arguably the best batsman of this generation after Tendulkar, Lara and Ponting.

Well whether you like it or not, both Hayden and Ponting have scored the majority of their runs on flat wickets- that's pretty much fact. I don't discredit them for cashing-in, but Tendulkar and Lara have done it in bowler friendly conditions as well as in batsmen friendly, so you can't hold the former 2 in the same regard as the latter IMO.

The tag "flat track bully" is pretty justified in Hayden's case. He was FAR from the quality of other 50 average openers of previous eras such as Gavaskar, B.Richards

With an era where Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Walsh, Donald and Pollock were at peak, I couldn't see Hayden even averaging 35 in Pakistan, West Indies and South Africa in the 90's. Not many people have, but he was especially bad against quality seam bowling and especially harsh against poor or mediocre seam bowling.

The fact he averaged 34.5 in England in 2 tours during the 00's kind of proves the "flat track bully" tag since we didn't have particularly great bowlers in 2001.

The Oval which is the flattest, most batsmen-friendly wicket we have is home to his 2 highest scores in England- 68 and 138, he didn't make even a half-century at any other ground in the other 16 innings.

Tendulkar has owned us, Lara has owned us. We've kept Ponting fairly quiet at home and have had the wood over Hayden at home.

Funny, how you said in the other thread that Ponting's success should be discreditted because he had Langer & Hayden as his openers.

Yes, because the majority of wickets during the 00's have been flat so Hayden has had a lot of success. I think the batsmen who've played all or the huge majority their career in the 00's should take 5 runs off of their average unless they are particularly bad at 1 type of bowling (such as Hayden against seam, Ponting against spin to use those 2 as examples).

We have a number of batsmen who, with current statistics average post-40. If you use my rule then the averages of our 40 average batsmen in contention for the 1st test look like so:

Cook- 40.02
Strauss- 38.96
Bell- 35.59
Bopara- 44.62
Pietersen- 45.49
Collingwood- 39.20

Strauss who is a 40+ average batsman and Pietersen who is a 50+ average batsman (in quality) are the only 2 I can argue with. Bopara's may come down- it's too early to tell just how good/bad he is.

 

[Slifer]

McGrath and Andy Roberts equal? Marshall better then Warne?

Roberts is definitely not equal to Mcgrath. But Marshall > Warne easily. Better average, SR, Econ. but most of all was consistently excellent against all comers (highest average is 22 against Australia).

 

[ret]

I'd of rated Marshall and Warne as even and McGrath as better than Roberts who is the worst bowler of that quartet but still better than all post-Lillee Aussie quicks apart from McGrath in my opinion.

how would you rate McGrath against Holding and Garner?

 

[wpdavid]

Yeah, they started wearing helmets after Holding, Garner & Roberts retired in the mid 80s.

No they didn't. Here's clip from the Adelaide test in 1980.

YouTube - Original fearsome foursome - Part 2

 

[Michaelf7777777]

In Tests McGrath better than Garner and slightly better than Holding while in ODI's McGrath being equal to Garner and better than Holding although in all honesty these matters will often depend on pitch conditions and the makeup of the rest of the bowling attack

 

[Slifer]

how would you rate McGrath against Holding and Garner?

I would say that Mcgrath was better than both. But the diff in effectiveness would be about the same as what exists between Mcgrath and an Ambrose for example (mcgrath > ambrose btw.) Garner and Holding still >> any other Aussie bowler of the Waugh era (except for maybe Shane Warne). Also I would say Mcgrath and Marshall are just about even and both clearly > than Warne.

 

[ret]

In Tests McGrath better than Garner and slightly better than Holding while in ODI's McGrath being equal to Garner and better than Holding although in all honesty these matters will often depend on pitch conditions and the makeup of the rest of the bowling attack

So based on your rating if we make it McGratg vs Holding, it would be even and then Roberts is better than either Lee or Gillispie

PS Thinking more abt Roberts vs McGrath, I would probably prefer Roberts. Say i need a couple of wkts and I have both McGrath and Roberts, I am more likely to throw the ball at Roberts

 

[Michaelf7777777]

Probably although I might call it for McGrath. In all honesty the bowling attack comparisons were done on bester seamer vs best seamer, 2nd best seamer vs 2nd best seamer, 3rd best seamer vs 3rd best seamer and spinner vs remaining seamer

 

[bagapath]

batsmen

richards>ponting>greenidge>gilchrist>s.waugh>hayden>lloyd>hussey>langer>richardson>m.waugh>haynes>gomes>dujon

bowlers

marshall>mcgrath>warne>ambrose>holding>garner>roberts>gillespie>lee

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Well whether you like it or not, both Hayden and Ponting have scored the majority of their runs on flat wickets- that's pretty much fact. I don't discredit them for cashing-in, but Tendulkar and Lara have done it in bowler friendly conditions as well as in batsmen friendly, so you can't hold the former 2 in the same regard as the latter IMO.

The tag "flat track bully" is pretty justified in Hayden's case. He was FAR from the quality of other 50 average openers of previous eras such as Gavaskar, B.Richards

With an era where Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Walsh, Donald and Pollock were at peak, I couldn't see Hayden even averaging 35 in Pakistan, West Indies and South Africa in the 90's. Not many people have, but he was especially bad against quality seam bowling and especially harsh against poor or mediocre seam bowling.

The fact he averaged 34.5 in England in 2 tours during the 00's kind of proves the "flat track bully" tag since we didn't have particularly great bowlers in 2001.

The Oval which is the flattest, most batsmen-friendly wicket we have is home to his 2 highest scores in England- 68 and 138, he didn't make even a half-century at any other ground in the other 16 innings.

Tendulkar has owned us, Lara has owned us. We've kept Ponting fairly quiet at home and have had the wood over Hayden at home.

I've been over this arguement before. Hayden has made plenty of runs in difficult conditions. India in 2001, was a complete dustbowl, Hayden averaged 109, South Africa 2002 was seam-friendly and Hayden averaged mid 60's. Most pitches in Australia are difficult for Opening Batsman early on, but flatten out after the first session, once the ball has been roughened up. Many people overlook this, because Australia's middle-order cashed in on demolarized attacks once Hayden had made a ton. They also overlook Hayden's record at the MCG, one of the few venues in Australia were the ball does do a bit.

Your little crack at Hayden's success at the Oval is laughable, you do realise that Hayden's innings was constantly halted by rain interruptions, hence bowler-friendly conditions? Or the fact that he was playing for his career?

Not of the quality of Gavaskar or Richards? Gavaskar cashed in against quality teams when they were missing quality bowlers (Australia & West Indies) and Hayden was better then Richards. I've seen clips of Barry Richards in English domestic cricket, particulary on youtube, where he murdered 3 medium pacers bowling at 115kph. Do some research on Gavaskar, because as an opening batsman against the 4 man West Indies attack, Gavaskar averaged in the 20's.

Yes, because the majority of wickets during the 00's have been flat so Hayden has had a lot of success. I think the batsmen who've played all or the huge majority their career in the 00's should take 5 runs off of their average unless they are particularly bad at 1 type of bowling (such as Hayden against seam, Ponting against spin to use those 2 as examples).

We have a number of batsmen who, with current statistics average post-40. If you use my rule then the averages of our 40 average batsmen in contention for the 1st test look like so:

Cook- 40.02
Strauss- 38.96
Bell- 35.59
Bopara- 44.62
Pietersen- 45.49
Collingwood- 39.20

Strauss who is a 40+ average batsman and Pietersen who is a 50+ average batsman (in quality) are the only 2 I can argue with. Bopara's may come down- it's too early to tell just how good/bad he is.

Why would you deduct the averages of the Opening Batsman? The most difficult and important place to bat. Opening the batting in the modern-era would be no different to batting middle-order in a more bowler-friendly era. You also forget that players nowadays don't get "Days off" in the middle of a Test Match.

How is Marshall not better than Warne?

I'd rate them equal, although a quality spinner is more valuable then a quality seamer.

 

[zaremba]

he started wearing a helmet in the early 90s after playing without one for 6 seasons or so. in fact, steve waugh says it was the first sign of west indies losing its dominance in world cricket.

but only richards and gavaskar (except the ill-advised skull cap for series or two) played throughout their careers without a helmet.

EDIT: since i have written about only the 80s, you are correct. richardson played throughout the decade in his white hat.

I remember it being maroon...

Anyhow although I agree with the point you're making, I'd add Ian Botham to the list. He was wearing a helmet by 1991 v the Windies but went through the whole, or at least most, of the 1980s without one.

 

[subshakerz]

Australian team was better.

Australia had better competition like South Africa, India, etc, and the subcontient teams during the West Indies era were fairly weak compared to nowadays.

Um, Waugh's team lost both of his series in the subcontinent, to Sri Lanka in 99 and India in 2001. West Indies had no such problems, even with teams containing Imran, Miandad, Kapil Dev, and Gavaskar.

They'd probably win if they played in a match aswell, as I don't believe the West Indies attack wouldn't be all that fearsome with the batsman wearing helmets.

Really? I find it hard to believe that when guys like Shane Bond and Shoaib Akhtar have ripped through the Aussie side on their lonesome, Australia will somehow overcome an attack containing four worldclass fast bowlers.

 

[andyc]

Yes, because the majority of wickets during the 00's have been flat so Hayden has had a lot of success. I think the batsmen who've played all or the huge majority their career in the 00's should take 5 runs off of their average unless they are particularly bad at 1 type of bowling (such as Hayden against seam, Ponting against spin to use those 2 as examples).
/QUOTE]

Ponting particularly bad against spin? I'll give you particularly bad against Harbhajan, but to extend that to all spin bowlers is very, very misleading.

 

[Pratters]

I'd rate them equal, although a quality spinner is more valuable then a quality seamer.

Marshall has much the better average and S/R and while Warne is one of the greatest spinners the game has produced, he is no match for Marshall who was phenomenal to say the least.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Marshall has much the better average and S/R and while Warne is one of the greatest spinners the game has produced, he is no match for Marshall who was phenomenal to say the least.

No match for Marshall? It could go either way, but it's definately a close comparison. Mohammad Yousuf has a much better average then Sir Viv Richards, does that make him better?

Um, Waugh's team lost both of his series in the subcontinent, to Sri Lanka in 99 and India in 2001. West Indies had no such problems, even with teams containing Imran, Miandad, Kapil Dev, and Gavaskar.

None of those bowlers were spinners though, were they?

Really? I find it hard to believe that when guys like Shane Bond and Shoaib Akhtar have ripped through the Aussie side on their lonesome, Australia will somehow overcome an attack containing four worldclass fast bowlers.

Allan Border ripped through the West Indies batting lineup, just imagine how much Warne would torment them.

But nevertheless, Bond and Akhtar were as good as any bowler that's ever lived when they were at their best and they probably would've ended up as alltime greats had one been more fortunate with injuries and the other been more motivated and would've been held in higher esteem then any West Indies bowler, barring Ambrose or Marshall, had they lived up to their full potential.

 

[Manee]

Allan Border ripped through the West Indies batting lineup, just imagine how much Warne would torment them.

Michael Clarke ripped through the Indian batting lineup, just imagine how much Warne would torment them.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Hayden was better then Richards. I've seen clips of Barry Richards in English domestic cricket, particulary on youtube, where he murdered 3 medium pacers bowling at 115kph.

It's a shame that there isn't readily available footage of Richards taking Lillee, Thomson, Holding, Roberts etc to the cleaners during the Packer years. While some people's belittling of Hayden is absurd, it's equally absurd to suggest he's superior to Barry Richards.

 

[Craig]

I've been over this arguement before. Hayden has made plenty of runs in difficult conditions. India in 2001, was a complete dustbowl, Hayden averaged 109, South Africa 2002 was seam-friendly and Hayden averaged mid 60's. Most pitches in Australia are difficult for Opening Batsman early on, but flatten out after the first session, once the ball has been roughened up. Many people overlook this, because Australia's middle-order cashed in on demolarized attacks once Hayden had made a ton. They also overlook Hayden's record at the MCG, one of the few venues in Australia were the ball does do a bit.

Your little crack at Hayden's success at the Oval is laughable, you do realise that Hayden's innings was constantly halted by rain interruptions, hence bowler-friendly conditions? Or the fact that he was playing for his career?

Not of the quality of Gavaskar or Richards? Gavaskar cashed in against quality teams when they were missing quality bowlers (Australia & West Indies) and Hayden was better then Richards. I've seen clips of Barry Richards in English domestic cricket, particulary on youtube, where he murdered 3 medium pacers bowling at 115kph. Do some research on Gavaskar, because as an opening batsman against the 4 man West Indies attack, Gavaskar averaged in the 20's.


Why would you deduct the averages of the Opening Batsman? The most difficult and important place to bat. Opening the batting in the modern-era would be no different to batting middle-order in a more bowler-friendly era. You also forget that players nowadays don't get "Days off" in the middle of a Test Match.


I'd rate them equal, although a quality spinner is more valuable then a quality seamer.

Looking forward to Manan's response (SS).

It's a shame that there isn't readily available footage of Richards taking Lillee, Thomson, Holding, Roberts etc to the cleaners during the Packer years. While some people's belittling of Hayden is absurd, it's equally absurd to suggest he's superior to Barry Richards.

AWTA. Not just the fact that they batted in different positions and played in different era's etc.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

AWTA. Not just the fact that they batted in different positions and played in different era's etc.

They were both openers, unless by different positions you mean one of them batted in the Lotus Position.