Worlds greatest team

[Hurricane]

Alltime Xi vs. Alltime XI I'd back ours most of the time. Our top order > theres, their middle order = ours, our seam attack >>>>>> theres, there Murali >>>>> ours.

I don't think this is a valid comparison we get to choose top players from over a much longer time period than they do. That is not fair. Also new zealand has always had 2 or 3 world class players in their team. But then weaker players to make up the XI this leads to us having a reasonable all time XI but not so great actual playing XIs except for the 80s.

I think comparing SLs all time XI to our best XI over the 80s until now would be fairer.

SL per cricinfo

Marvan Atapattu Avg 39.02
Sanath Jayasuriya Avg 40.07
Kumar Sangakkara Average 55
Aravinda de Silva Average 42.97
Mahela Jayawardene Average 53.96
Arjuna Ranatunga Average 35.69
Chaminda Vaas bowling Average 29.58
Rumesh Ratnayake bowling Average 35.10
Ashantha de Mel bowling Avg 36.94
Muttiah Muralitharan Bowling AVG 22.71
Somachandra de Silva bowling avg 36.40

New Zealand my choices

Glenn turner 44.64
John Wright 37.82
Fleming 40.06
Crowe 45.36
Jones 44.27
Astle 37.02
Chris Cairns bowling 29.40
Hadlee bowling 22.29
Vettori bowling 33.86
Ian Smith batting 25.56
Bond bowling 22.09

SL openers = NZ openers. Slight edge to NZ with Turner maybe.
Positions 3-6 SL > NZ even though Crowe might have averaged more in this era per posts I have seen in this forum that batting in the 80s was tougher.
Seam bowling NZ >>> SL
Spin bowling SL>>>>NZ

In a head to head match up SL would win 2 tests to 1 because of Murali and the middle order SL batting.

The only fly in my argument is Hadlee - if he decided to have a particularly good series then NZ would win.

 

[The Sean]

I don't think this is a valid comparison we get to choose top players from over a much longer time period than they do. That is not fair. Also new zealand has always had 2 or 3 world class players in their team. But then weaker players to make up the XI this leads to us having a reasonable all time XI but not so great actual playing XIs except for the 80s.

I think comparing SLs all time XI to our best XI over the 80s until now would be fairer.

Isn't that the point though? We're talking about the best teams through all of cricket history - if a team/country has been an established Test nation for longer then they've earned the right to be judged from the start. Otherwise we should all just be picking all-time XIs since 2000 to allow for Bangladesh.

 

[andyc]

Would put India above Pakistan in bagapath's list, but other than that I'd agree with it.

 

[Dissector]

Reckon NZ XI has a slight edge on SL XI. NZ would win easily at home and while SL would likely win at home , Hadlee and Vettori would give them a decent chance of pulling off an upset.

 

[Xuhaib]

Would put India above Pakistan in bagapath's list, but other than that I'd agree with it.

definate if we are placing greater weightage for the last 10 years but if we look overall they are both pretty even.

 

[Xuhaib]

Reckon NZ XI has a slight edge on SL XI. NZ would win easily at home and while SL would likely win at home , Hadlee and Vettori would give them a decent chance of pulling off an upset.

this. Hadlee would rip through SL batting more then Murali would do to NZL.

 

[Hurricane]

Isn't that the point though? We're talking about the best teams through all of cricket history - if a team/country has been an established Test nation for longer then they've earned the right to be judged from the start. Otherwise we should all just be picking all-time XIs since 2000 to allow for Bangladesh.

Athlai intrigued me with his post so I responded in like with a comparison of XIs. But you have pointed out some flaws in doing that.

On review technically to answer the best team of cricketing history I don't think we should be comparing all time XIs. Because 9 of your XI could come from one decade and you might have been weak every other decade.
To answer the question it should really be your average ranking decade by decade against all other test playing nations.

Your post about how to compare against Bangers raises questions.
What if Bangladesh had been ranked 3rd in the world since the year 2000 until now. Where would we rank them in this exercise. 3rd because that is the only data point we have for them?
Or last because they don't score any rankings points in all of the previous decades.

I don't think people would rank them last. They would either be 3rd or 4th or not included at all since they havn't been around long enough.

Where would you rank Bangers overall if they had been 3rd this decade the Sean.

 

[GIMH]

We should be 2nd by virtue of having beaten Australia more than anyone else

 

[honestbharani]

definate if we are placing greater weightage for the last 10 years but if we look overall they are both pretty even.

Pakistan all time > India all time.. We just never had enough quality bowlers...

 

[Teja.]

Pakistan all time > India all time.. We just never had enough quality bowlers...

Spin quartet at home, we'd have a more than good chance, I reckon'.

 

[The Sean]

Athlai intrigued me with his post so I responded in like with a comparison of XIs. But you have pointed out some flaws in doing that.

On review technically to answer the best team of cricketing history I don't think we should be comparing all time XIs. Because 9 of your XI could come from one decade and you might have been weak every other decade.
To answer the question it should really be your average ranking decade by decade against all other test playing nations.

Your post about how to compare against Bangers raises questions.
What if Bangladesh had been ranked 3rd in the world since the year 2000 until now. Where would we rank them in this exercise. 3rd because that is the only data point we have for them?
Or last because they don't score any rankings points in all of the previous decades.

I don't think people would rank them last. They would either be 3rd or 4th or not included at all since they havn't been around long enough.

Where would you rank Bangers overall if they had been 3rd this decade the Sean.

Yeah you're right, it does raise an interesting question - Australia v WI is a case in point too. Over all of cricket history Australia have been far more consistently successful and outstanding than WI have, but when WI were dominant they were so ridiculously good that many would claim that their all time XI is better than Australia's and thus they deserve the all time number 1 ranking. I suppose it depends on where you put your weighting and I'm not really sure what the answer would be.

As to your Bangladesh question - if they'd been the third best team of this past decade then I'd certainly place them above Zimbabwe but probably no higher as they've really not had the time to achieve any more than that, though a further 10 years as one of the world's top 3 teams would elevate them up the rankings considerably in my mind. And if they have been good enough to be one of the world's top three teams in their first decade of international cricket then there's no reason they shouldn't continue such form...though it would raise the question as to why they hadn't been granted Test status long before if that was the case.

 

[honestbharani]

Spin quartet at home, we'd have a more than good chance, I reckon'.

Unfortunately, MIanded, Hanif, Inzy and Co were excellent players of any type of spin.

 

[Xuhaib]

Spin quartet at home, we'd have a more than good chance, I reckon'.

Yup i do feel indian spinners do get underated a bit but then i would always prefer quality seamers to quality spinners in my side.

 

[Zinzan]

Would put India above Pakistan in bagapath's list, but other than that I'd agree with it.

If we're judging the teams based on their history at International level in both forms of the games then Pakistan > India quite comfortably.

Interested in your rationale for having India > Pakistan

 

[zaremba]

Reckon NZ XI has a slight edge on SL XI. NZ would win easily at home and while SL would likely win at home , Hadlee and Vettori would give them a decent chance of pulling off an upset.

AWTA.
Not sure I agree with cricinfo about SL's best team, mind you.

 

[analyst]

Australia by a country mile, is there any doubt. I mean you only have to look at the different eras of dominance in test cricket/odi cricket to make this judgment. the only format they haven't dominated to date is 20/20 and its only a matter of time before they make it happen.

 

[Athlai]

Isn't that the point though? We're talking about the best teams through all of cricket history - if a team/country has been an established Test nation for longer then they've earned the right to be judged from the start. Otherwise we should all just be picking all-time XIs since 2000 to allow for Bangladesh.

Yeah I mean if Sri Lanka had played Tests as long as New Zealand I wouldn't be at all surprised if they fielded a far superior team. The team they can field NOW considering how long they've played is excellent besides a poorish alltime seam attack.

 

[Zinzan]

Australia by a country mile, is there any doubt. I mean you only have to look at the different eras of dominance in test cricket/odi cricket to make this judgment. the only format they haven't dominated to date is 20/20 and its only a matter of time before they make it happen.

Agree, I think their mini re-building phase (where they actually seemed to lack their usual depth for about 6 months there) is well & truly over. They're going to have so many bowling options once everyone's fit.

 

[Migara]

this. Hadlee would rip through SL batting more then Murali would do to NZL.

de Silva was no fluke. He tore apart Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose and Donald at their best. I find no reason why he cannot do it to Hadlee.

 

[Athlai]

de Silva was no fluke. He tore apart Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose and Donald at their best. I find no reason why he cannot do it to Hadlee.

How'd de Silva go against McGrath out of interest?