ICC Greatest Test Team

[smash84]

than his stats suggest!

You're only as good as what you actually did. What people think you were capable of means nothing once you retire.

actually now that you have youtube it does. Wasim's unplayable deliveries will be there for posterity to see which I think will only contribute to increase his legend. You don't get to see those kinds of deliveries anymore.

 

[smash84]

My team - I didn't get to vote in time.

1 Len HUTTON
2 Jack HOBBS
3 Don BRADMAN
4 Wally HAMMOND
5 Javed MIANDAD
6 Garry SOBERS
7 Adam GILCHRIST
8 Shane WARNE
9 Malcolm MARSHALL
10 Fred TRUEMAN
11 Curtly AMBROSE

nice to see Javed in a team for a change. Massively under rated I thought.

 

[centurymaker]

You're only as good as what you actually did. What people think you were capable of means nothing once you retire.

not really for bowling as picking up wickets can come down to luck at times.

finn's a good example- he just randomly picks up wickets. Most people would agree that he's Not a better bowler than broad.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I have McGrath over Wasim, but I certainly think Wasim was better than his statistics show him to be. This has nothing to do with what he looked like. He had a lesser fielding side to back him up, which impacted his statistics and put him at a comparative disadvantage.

 

[kyear2]

yeah overall average figure can be misleading

Not really, its not like in batting where different styles or indifference can play a part, like an attacking player (Richards) vs a defensive player (Barrington). Its about taking wickets.

Plus it just wasnt about average, it was also his strike rate and his relative # of wickets of the tail vs. the top order batsmen. It is also that compared to players from his own era and team, his stats still were not as good. Its the fact that he was never no. 1 in the world.

It could also be that people are drawn in by his odi work, and his unplayable deliveries, but in the end he just seems a tad over rated. A GREAT player, just not ALL TIME TEAM great.

 

[Cevno]

It could also be that people are drawn in by his odi work, and his unplayable deliveries, but in the end he just seems a tad over rated. A GREAT player, just not ALL TIME TEAM great.

Just taking this point for the time being,surely when you are picking a team you have to keep the balance and variety in mind too.

While he may have been slightly inferior to the other bowlers, there isn't a huge difference and he adds something which no one else does by being the greatest left arm bowler ever.
So When you have 3 right armers, that variety is good and a differentiator. Added to that he was a swing bowler and could reverse it too which adds to his repertoire and differentiating factors from some depending on what type of other bowlers you have.

Also added to that he could be a better number 8 than most of the other contenders for that slot.
Completely understandable if someone picks him in such a team even without debating whether stats did him justice or not(even though i think they fully don't) ...

 

[Prince EWS]

actually now that you have youtube it does. Wasim's unplayable deliveries will be there for posterity to see which I think will only contribute to increase his legend. You don't get to see those kinds of deliveries anymore.

That doesn't mean he was a more effective bowler though, at all.

 

[smash84]

That doesn't mean he was a more effective bowler though, at all.

of course it does not. However I was responding to this statement of yours

"You're only as good as what you actually did. What people think you were capable of means nothing once you retire."

Now with stuff like youtube people can go and see what kind of unplayable deliveries Wasim was throwing up and that only adds to his legends. They will probably end up believing that he was more capable than the stats show him to be.

 

[smash84]

It could also be that people are drawn in by his odi work, and his unplayable deliveries, but in the end he just seems a tad over rated. A GREAT player, just not ALL TIME TEAM great.

Yep. The part in bold plays a huge role indeed

Just taking this point for the time being,surely when you are picking a team you have to keep the balance and variety in mind too.

While he may have been slightly inferior to the other bowlers, there isn't a huge difference and he adds something which no one else does by being the greatest left arm bowler ever.
So When you have 3 right armers, that variety is good and a differentiator. Added to that he was a swing bowler and could reverse it too which adds to his repertoire and differentiating factors from some depending on what type of other bowlers you have.

Also added to that he could be a better number 8 than most of the other contenders for that slot.
Completely understandable if someone picks him in such a team even without debating whether stats did him justice or not(even though i think they fully don't) ...

Makes sense this variety sense. Just like having a spinner adds variety.

 

[Howe_zat]

You're only as good as what you actually did. What people think you were capable of means nothing once you retire.

Not strictly true, because success is often just as dependant on the opposition. That isn't particularly relevant here, though.

 

[ankitj]

I have McGrath over Wasim, but I certainly think Wasim was better than his statistics show him to be. This has nothing to do with what he looked like. He had a lesser fielding side to back him up, which impacted his statistics and put him at a comparative disadvantage.

Which could explain a relatively lower average, but it doesn't explain the wicket mix. He has a significantly higher percentage of tail in his wickets than most great bowlers.

 

[vcs]

Which could explain a relatively lower average, but it doesn't explain the wicket mix. He has a significantly higher percentage of tail in his wickets than most great bowlers.

Same goes for Waqar to a slightly lesser extent. I guess their yorkers worked best when cleaning up the tail, and that's your best chance of taking fielders out of the equation.

 

[smash84]

I think Waqar has a pretty standard 35 (1-3) 36 (4-7) 29 (8-11) mix. Wasim has 35% in the 8-11 part

 

[G.I.Joe]

Which could explain a relatively lower average, but it doesn't explain the wicket mix. He has a significantly higher percentage of tail in his wickets than most great bowlers.

What vcs said. You have a greater chance of taking the fielders out of the equation trying to dismiss the tailenders than against the top order batsmen.

 

[kyear2]

That argument doest hold water for two reasons. One Waqar played with the same fielding team and took a significantly higher amount of top order wickets that Akram. two, Wasim and Waqar both had an extraordinary amount of lbw dismissals in their careers, cause they both pitched up the ball and relied on reverse/conventional swing and the generous pakistan umpires.

 

[G.I.Joe]

That argument doest hold water for two reasons. One Waqar played with the same fielding team and took a significantly higher amount of top order wickets that Akram. two, Wasim and Waqar both had an extraordinary amount of lbw dismissals in their careers, cause they both pitched up the ball and relied on reverse/conventional swing and the generous pakistan umpires.

Maybe they both pitched up the ball and relied on reverse/conventional swing and the generous pakistan umpires because they quickly realised that they couldn't rely on their fielders. You can criticise Wasim for a lower percentage of top order wickets, but that still isn't a counter-argument by itself for him picking up fewer wickets overall due to an inferior fielding side.

 

[smash84]

, cause they both pitched up the ball and relied on reverse/conventional swing and the generous pakistan umpires.

quite convenient to forget that those two have some of the highest percentage of batsmen bowled out too.........of course the pakistani umpires were helping them to bowl the batsmen out as well

 

[smash84]

Also Wasim is rated very highly because fast bowling is also about skill and wasim was a very skilled practitioner of the art. He could do with the ball what most bowlers would dream of (despite the fact that those skills did not get him as many wickets) and hence his peers like Ambrose and Donald rated him very highly as well.

 

[kyear2]

Back to topic though. When Bradman selected his all-time team he made a list of three players for each position as a short list and then narrowed it down. here's mine.
Openers
Len Hutton, Jack Hobbs, Barry Richards, Sunil Gavaskar, Virender Sehwag, Gordon Greenidge (Victor Trumper)
Middle Order
Donald Bradman, Greg Chappel, Ricky Ponting, George Headley, Vivian Richards, Brian Lara, Sachin Tendulkar, Wally Hammond, Greame Pollock.
All Rounder
Garfield Sobers, Imran Khan, Keith Miller, Jacques Kallis
Wicket Keeper
Alan Knott, Les Ames, Adam Gilchrist
Fast Bowler
Malcolm Marshall, Curtly Ambrose, Michael Holding, Glen Mcgrath, Denis Lillee, Richard Hadlee, Alan Donald, Fred Trueman, Waqar Younis/Wasim Akram, (Syd Barnes)
Spin Bowlers
Shane Warne, Bill O'Reilly, Muttiah Muralitharan, Jim Laker.
There is my to 38

 

[Howe_zat]

Les Ames strikes me as a player picked by fans almost entirely because of his record. He does seem seriously ahead of his time at first glance, does anyone know why he's usually left out by the experts?