WI all time XI vs Aus all time XI

[smash84]

True.

Though I personally think Dujon has absolutely zilch to contribute with the bat against such bowlers, still considering how good a keeper he was especially against the fast bowlers it seems rather common-sensical to keep him in the team.

Blame my inability to drop even one of those batsmen - Greenidge, Richards, Headley, Lara, Weekes, Sobers, Walcott - it'll be a tough job to decide whom to drop!

Easy. Just drop Kamran Akmal

 

[Howe_zat]

Easy. Just drop Kamran Akmal

He does enough of that himself really.

</obvious joke>

 

[smash84]

He does enough of that himself really.

</obvious joke>

I actually loled at that

 

[Top_Cat]

That's my point though, Bodyline Bradman, whilst still giving you an edge, doesn't give as great an edge as averaging 99.94 Bradman.

What made Bodyline so effective was the combination of pace, almost no protection as well as the leg-side field, though. Pace alone didn't (apparently) undo Bradman. Two of those things aren't a factor any more so if you give Bradman a helmet and play under current rules, that's a big help in playing the WI's quicks. Added to that, under current rules, the WI quicks couldn't bounce you every ball.

(not that they did bounce people every ball, was the threat of it which made them so intimidating)

Many former players rate the introduction of helmets the most significant post-war factor to change batting in cricket history, over and above bat technology. Bradman might not have a 99.94 edge but even as pie-in-the-sky as this whole exercise is, you'd think it'd be at least decisive.

 

[kyear2]

As much as Bradman, Warne and Gilchrist seems to hold an advantage over their conterparts, so does Marshall, Sobers and Lara over theirs.
AS far as units are concerned the openers seem to be equal with Greenidge and Trumper standing out.
The middle order goes to the W.I. despite Bradman, as Richards, Lara and Sobers are superior to Chappel, Border and Miller.
Keepers: Gilchrist is by far the better batsman, while Hendricks the better gloveman, but Gilly was no slouch behind the slumps either so Australia here.
The West Indies have the most feared fast bowlers ever, with Marshall being the best ever and who would you rather face, Mcgrath or whispering Death. Miller helps in this regard, but Windies here handily.
Spinners, no contest here, but at least Gibbs can hold an end tidy as he has the best economy rate of any bowler with over 300 wkts, but the Aussies here by a landslide.
I think that its too close to call, Lillee owned Greenidge, Richards and Sobers bothdominated Lillee and i shudder to think what they would do againts Mcgrath. Chandrasakar gave Viv problems so O'Reilly may also prove a handfull. Lara though was probably the best ever player of spin bowling and would relish the renewal of his rivalry with Warne. Headley too was a great player of spin. Chappel played the West Indies quicks as well as anyone though, but that too was only in one series.
Just too close, Bradman vs Marshall may well hold the key, with Gilchrist and Ambrose being wild cards. would be a fun series though. six tesr seris 3-3

 

[smash84]

welcome to CW kyear2.....great post

 

[hang on]

As much as Bradman, Warne and Gilchrist seems to hold an advantage over their conterparts, so does Marshall, Sobers and Lara over theirs.

not really. bradman just blows it all apart. for the others the advantage is marginal or a bit more. in bradman's case, it's like having an extra world class batsman in the lineup.


nice post, btw.

 

[Top_Cat]

The West Indies have the most feared fast bowlers ever, with Marshall being the best ever and who would you rather face, Mcgrath or whispering Death. Miller helps in this regard, but Windies here handily.

Getting into interesting territory here. It really depends on whether you're talking in the days before or after helmets became common. If you were in the oppo, Holding was obviously more likely to intimidate you, especially on a quick track, but McGrath was (slightly) more likely to get you out under most other conditions.

So, who would you rather face? Depends on whether you've got a lid on.

 

[Himannv]

Bradman vs Marshall may well hold the key, with Gilchrist and Ambrose being wild cards. would be a fun series though. six tesr seris 3-3

Good post kyear and this is probably the key part of the whole puzzle. Best batsman in the world against the best bowler in the world. Would be fascinating to watch a game with all these players in it. Unreal.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Good post kyear and this is probably the key part of the whole puzzle. Best batsman in the world against the best bowler in the world. Would be fascinating to watch a game with all these players in it. Unreal.

Bradman and McGrath are in the same team

 

[vcs]

Marshall > McGrath quite conclusively for me, equally good statistics in every way + better strike rate.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Except McGrath did it in the 00's where averaging 50 became the norm for batsmen.

 

[vcs]

Marshall had to compete with, on average, a stronger attack, through the course of his career (IMO) and stood out a level above guys as good as Garner, Holding, Ambrose, Walsh etc. He took big bags with great regularity considering how good those WI attacks were.

 

[G.I.Joe]

McGrath bowled in the 00's.

Either people accept that every batsmen averaging 50 in the 00's is on par with the likes of Richards and Gavaskar, or they accept that McGrath bowled in a far more batsman friendly era.

Can't have it both ways.

 

[GotSpin]

Marshall had to compete with, on average, a stronger attack, through the course of his career (IMO) and stood out a level above guys as good as Garner, Holding, Ambrose, Walsh etc. He took big bags with great regularity considering how good those WI attacks were.

Sorry mate. Walsh > Marshall

 

[vcs]

McGrath bowled in the 00's.

Either people accept that every batsmen averaging 50 in the 00's is on par with the likes of Richards and Gavaskar, or they accept that McGrath bowled in a far more batsman friendly era.

Can't have it both ways.

Half of McGrath's career was in the '90s TBH. Also, a couple of the 50 averaging batsmen are from his own team (Ponting, Hayden, Hussey) and he hardly played many Tests against Pakistan and SL in that era (that takes Yousuf, Younis, Mahela, Sanga, Samaraweera out of the picture). Australia play many Tests against England and not many of their batsmen crossed 50 when McGrath was around. Look at Cook and Bell making merry against Australia now that he is no longer around.

Overall, he may have bowled in an era with more batsmen averaging 50, and he indeed deserves credit for it, but not enough for me to overlook the difference in SRs.

 

[Himannv]

McGrath bowled in the 00's.

Either people accept that every batsmen averaging 50 in the 00's is on par with the likes of Richards and Gavaskar, or they accept that McGrath bowled in a far more batsman friendly era.

Can't have it both ways.

Good point and agree that he was a phenomenal bowler. Dont think he was better than Marshall though.

 

[smash84]

Good point and agree that he was a phenomenal bowler. Dont think he was better than Marshall though.

Was Marshall better than Lillee???? Lillee is seen by many to be the greatest fast bowler that ever played.

 

[Rush]

Was Marshall better than Lillee???? Lillee is seen by many to be the greatest fast bowler that ever played.

But Marshall is by many seen as the greatest bowler ever.

 

[Himannv]

Was Marshall better than Lillee???? Lillee is seen by many to be the greatest fast bowler that ever played.

While I think Lillee was a great bowler, I dont think he was better than Marshall. Haven't seen Lillee play live but caught a fair number of reruns of him bowling and based my opinion on that.