Which team's alltime XI is best?

[Matt79]

When I include Walcott as a keeper, its in the knowledge that in doing so, I'm crippling one of the greatest batsmen because the evidence showed his batting dramatically suffered when he had to keep wickets. That said, even at his reduced level of performance he is still much better than the next best option.

 

[Slifer]

And he also has a pretty decent record against Australia as well

 

[nightprowler10]

Well, it isn't the All-Time Windies vs All-Time Aussies we've all be salivating for, but I got Virtual Cricket 4 working on my computer and this was, absolutely no kidding, the result of the first match I simmed, between my personal All-Time XI, and my All-Time 2nd XI. I'd say it would easily be the greatest match never played.

Sorry - they're thumbnails - I'm not tech-savvy enough to get them online so I can do the IMG tag thing to them.

Anyway, match had a bit of everything - a duck from Bradman in the first innings, with Hadlee and Murali getting amongst it, then Marshall ripping the guts out of the 2nd XI, despite staunch resistence from Keith Miller and Weekes, before a Bradman ton in the second dig gave the 2nd XI a total that was always going to be challenging... And the result?

You must be joking. That is just amazing. My man Miller comes out ahead.

 

[Malleeboy]

When I include Walcott as a keeper, its in the knowledge that in doing so, I'm crippling one of the greatest batsmen because the evidence showed his batting dramatically suffered when he had to keep wickets. That said, even at his reduced level of performance he is still much better than the next best option.

Yes but when they run the simulation will it take the keeping verses not keeping into account? My beef is that it diminishes Gilchrist as a distinct advantage for Australia. He at one stage was averaging in the high 50's, if he had stopped keeping his finally batting average wouod be much higher. (Not to mention opening in the ODI's and keeping in both forms, it is a heavy work load.) I know that some point out that Andy Flowers has a better average but the Australian mindset is that the top can grind but the lower order has to get on with it, and no one gets on with scoring quickly like "Gillie".

 

[adharcric]

West Indies in Australia

Let's get started then ...

West Indies
Greenidge, Hunte, Haynes, Richards, Lara, Headley, Sobers, Weekes, Dujon, Walcott, Marshall, Ambrose, Garner, Holding, Walsh, Gibbs

Australia
Trumper, Hayden, Morris, Bradman, Ponting, Chappell, Waugh, Harvey, Miller, Gilchrist, McGrath, Lillee, Davidson, Lindwall, Warne, O'Reilly

Venues (with rough description of conditions)
1st Test: Gabba - pace and bounce
2nd Test: WACA - extreme bounce
3rd Test: MCG - balanced pitch
4th Test: SCG - spin
5th Test: Adelaide Oval - good batting pitch, some spin

I will simulate the 1st test asap, using the lineups suggested by you all. Garner in for Gibbs for the Gabba test.

 

[JBMAC]

Let's get started then ...

West Indies
Greenidge, Hunte, Haynes, Richards, Lara, Headley, Sobers, Weekes, Dujon, Walcott, Marshall, Ambrose, Garner, Holding, Walsh, Gibbs

Australia
Trumper, Hayden, Morris, Bradman, Ponting, Chappell, Waugh, Harvey, Miller, Gilchrist, McGrath, Lillee, Davidson, Lindwall, Warne, O'Reilly

Venues (with rough description of conditions)
1st Test: Gabba - pace and bounce
2nd Test: WACA - extreme bounce
3rd Test: MCG - balanced pitch
4th Test: SCG - spin
5th Test: Adelaide Oval - good batting pitch, some spin

I will simulate the 1st test asap, using the lineups suggested by you all. Garner in for Gibbs for the Gabba test.

Go for it...Looking forward to result

 

[honestbharani]

yes... finally!!!!!

 

[The Sean]

It's surely wrong that I'm looking forward to this as much or more than any real Test for a while...

 

[Matt79]

Let's get started then ...

West Indies
Greenidge, Hunte, Haynes, Richards, Lara, Headley, Sobers, Weekes, Dujon, Walcott, Marshall, Ambrose, Garner, Holding, Walsh, Gibbs

Australia
Trumper, Hayden, Morris, Bradman, Ponting, Chappell, Waugh, Harvey, Miller, Gilchrist, McGrath, Lillee, Davidson, Lindwall, Warne, O'Reilly

Venues (with rough description of conditions)
1st Test: Gabba - pace and bounce
2nd Test: WACA - extreme bounce
3rd Test: MCG - balanced pitch
4th Test: SCG - spin
5th Test: Adelaide Oval - good batting pitch, some spin

I will simulate the 1st test asap, using the lineups suggested by you all. Garner in for Gibbs for the Gabba test.

In the sims I've run, I've included Walcott's batting average from the 15 tests he did keep wicket in, which is around 40, as opposed to the average of 62 he maintained in tests where he didn't keep wicket. This sim should probably do the same - the exact figures are in Walcott's Statsguru page.

And if Garner is in for Brisbane, he would surely stay in for the WACA test, before the worst performed quick gets dumped for Gibbs for the last three tests?

Bring it on otherwise

 

[The Sean]

In the sims I've run, I've included Walcott's batting average from the 15 tests he did keep wicket in, which is around 40, as opposed to the average of 62 he maintained in tests where he didn't keep wicket.

Fair call - Gilly's greatness in combining both deserves to register in some way I think.

 

[The Sean]

In the sims I've run, I've included Walcott's batting average from the 15 tests he did keep wicket in, which is around 40, as opposed to the average of 62 he maintained in tests where he didn't keep wicket. This sim should probably do the same - the exact figures are in Walcott's Statsguru page.

And if Garner is in for Brisbane, he would surely stay in for the WACA test, before the worst performed quick gets dumped for Gibbs for the last three tests?

Bring it on otherwise

Should we see how the quicks are performing before we automatically drop one for Melbourne? If they're all picking up 4-5 wickets per Test it might be worth giving them one more together before Lancelot gets a run.

 

[Matt79]

It's worth mentioning in the sims I've run on VC4, my all-time English team has had a distinct winning edge over both the Windies and Australian equivalents. VC4 doesn't model batting striking rates, so the Aussies and Windies may have been at a disadvantage compared to "reality", but even so its interesting given they've been somewhat underrated here.

The team I used was:
Hobbs
Hutton
Hammond
Compton
Grace
Ames+
Botham
Larwood
Trueman
Laker
Bedser

I'll post the cumulative averages for the 30 tests I've simmed between the English, Australian and West Indian alltime teams on VC4 when I get a minute.

 

[The Sean]

It's worth mentioning in the sims I've run on VC4, my all-time English team has had a distinct winning edge over both the Windies and Australian equivalents. VC4 doesn't model batting striking rates, so the Aussies and Windies may have been at a disadvantage compared to "reality", but even so its interesting given they've been somewhat underrated here.

The team I used was:
Hobbs
Hutton
Hammond
Compton
Grace
Ames+
Botham
Larwood
Trueman
Laker
Bedser

I'll post the cumulative averages for the 30 tests I've simmed between the English, Australian and West Indian alltime teams on VC4 when I get a minute.

That's interesting mate - as great a side as that is, I'm surprised they had a winning record over both Aus and WI, especially without Barnes in the attack. Were there any particular factors or players where that England team seemed to consistently have the advantage?

 

[nightprowler10]

It's surely wrong that I'm looking forward to this as much or more than any real Test for a while...

Haha, you're not alone.

 

[Matt79]

That's interesting mate - as great a side as that is, I'm surprised they had a winning record over both Aus and WI, especially without Barnes in the attack. Were there any particular factors or players where that England team seemed to consistently have the advantage?

I left out Barnes because his unadjusted bowling stats would have unbalanced the sim unrealistically in England's favour- its fairly simple and only works off batting average, and bowling strike rates and economy rates. I've seen some decent formulas to adjust those kinds of stats from one era to another, so I might try that next*. However, I included Grace's basic stats as they are.

The top three of the English team is easily the best out of any country's teams. They all average 56+. The consistent thing was Hutton and Hammond getting big scores and one of the English bowlers stepping up and taking a bag (either Larwood or Trueman usually, but Laker and Bedser on occasion). The Aussies were competitive but went down in the end, but without Bradman they would have got thumped, like the Windies did. Obviously Hobbs and Grace never faced an attack like the Windies quartet, but Hutton and Compton faced Miller and Lindwall in their prime.

* - the formula is from Charles Davis' book "The Best of the Best", a fascinating read if you can find it. He applies statistical modelling techniques to "measure" the greatness of different cricketers by various means, including their deviation from the mean and standardised averages. To generate the standardised averages he considers three factors - the player's original averages, the strength of the opposition and the overall standard (pitch conditions, talent pool, etc) of the time. The last factor is summarised as:
Batting Averages:
1877-1897 - adjusted down 7%
1898-1915 - down 5%
1920-1949 - down 8%
1950-1959 - down 4%
1960-1980 - no adjustment
1980-89 - up 2%
1990-1999 - up 3% (book was published in 2000, but obviously he would have adjusted the scores down for the 2000-2007 period).
Bowling Averages:
1877-1897 - adjusted up 15%
1898-1915 - up 10%
1920-1959 - up 5%
1950-1959 - down 4%
1960-1969 - up 2%
1970-99 - no adjustment (again, you'd suspect he would have adjusted the bowling average of players in the 2000s down).
It's only one guy's effort at quantifying a very complex problem, but as a simple guide its not bad. Trumper's average moves from 39 to 45.5, reflecting the relative quality of the opposition (ie. all tests against England - then the best team in the world). Lara and Tendulkar's averages (at 2000 remember) both increase by 2-3 runs. Lohmann's bowling average increases from 10 to 24. etc...

 

[The Sean]

I left out Barnes because his unadjusted bowling stats would have unbalanced the sim - its fairly simple and only works off batting average, and bowling strike rates and economy rates. I've seen some decent formulas to adjust those kinds of stats from one era to another, so I might try that next. However, I included Grace's basic stats as they are.

The top three of the English team is easily the best out of any country's teams. They all average 56+. The consistent thing was Hutton and Hammond getting big scores and one of the English bowlers stepping up and taking a bag (either Larwood or Trueman usually, but Laker and Bedser on occasion). The Aussies were competitive but went down in the end, but without Bradman they would have got thumped, like the Windies did. Obviously Hobbs and Grace never faced an attack like the Windies quartet, but Hutton and Compton faced Miller and Lindwall in their prime.

Fair enough - perhaps grounds for an England all time XI to take on the winner of the Aus-WI series... suprised Larwood had so much success against either the Aus or WI batting line ups given that his Test stats aren't anything spectacular, particularly if the other two pace attacks (both of which contain more statistically successful bowlers than Larwood) didn't have similar degress of success against the England team. Goes to show just how good Hobbs-Hutton-Hammond were I suppose...

I'd say that think I need to get myself this sim so I can fully understand how it works, but me getting my hands on such an addictive piece of software may well be the end of my normal life as I know it.

 

[Matt79]

The other thing is that given its just a statistical model projecting from a few pieces of info, 30 games is probably not a big enough sample to be conclusive. I'd suspect that if I do more games, England might come back to the field a little as Larwood is unlikely to continue to outperform Marshall, for example. That said, it's suggested to me that Trueman is probably generally under-rated. He has a strike rate under 50, which puts him in pretty damn select company.

 

[The Sean]

Agree with that - an average of 21 and a SR of 49 puts him up with the very, very greatest of all fast bowlers. It's interesting that so many of their peers and writers from back in that era rate Lindwall above Trueman, yet Freddie's stats are clearly superior.

True that over a longer period of time it's hard to see Larwood maintaining that kind of dominance with an average of 28 and a SR (if I remember correctly) above 60, particularly against those kind of batsmen.

 

[Matt79]

Cumulative batting and bowling averages. Everyone's averages are worse than their career stats, no doubt reflecting the higher than normal standard of the opposition.

The other thing it shows is that I was wrong to include Gibbs at the expense of Holding - a mistake I've rectified in the teams I'm simming now - leaving Sobers and Richards to do the spinning for the Windies.

 

[The Sean]

Cumulative batting and bowling averages. Everyone's averages are worse than their career stats, no doubt reflecting the higher than normal standard of the opposition.

The other thing it shows is that I was wrong to include Gibbs at the expense of Holding - a mistake I've rectified in the teams I'm simming now - leaving Sobers and Richards to do the spinning for the Windies.

Fascinating - Bradman still averaging nearly 90 against those bowlers, and what an effort from Hutton to actually eclipse his career average! Hammond superb, and credit to Ponsford for not losing as much from his career average as most of the other greats.

Big surprises - Botham's lack of success with either bat or ball, Lillee and Warne both relatively underperforming (Warne particularly surprising given Laker's success). Marshall and Richards could both be considered disappointing as well.

I'm getting SO into this...