ICC Greatest Test Team

[Outswinger@Pace]

You can't call it a fair vote, there are more people in the sub-continent than anywhere else in the cricketing world.

I am of the opinion that such votes must be weighted in accordance with the overall population of each cricket playing nation. The nationality of most CWers is known (I assume ), so it shouldn't be that difficult.

 

[EnglishCricket]

I am of the opinion that such votes must be weighted in accordance with the overall population of each cricket playing nation. The nationality of most CWers is known (I assume ), so it shouldn't be that difficult.

Yes that would be a simple solution, or just put together a panel of experts and weight their votes at 50% and the public votes at 50%.

 

[abmk]

I would never pick him if Gavaskar and Hobbs were the choice and quite a few others itbt

To me it is unbelievable to choose Sehwag over Hobbs in any all time XI no matter where they play (Test cricket).

With all due respect you suggested Sehwag should be picked over Hobbs because the match was being played in the SC. I am saying Hobbs one of the best players of spin bowling in the history of cricket would on the flat decks in SC be chosen over every opener in Test history imo. To suggest otherwise is silly imo

no, absolutely no. sehwag has been brilliant in the SC . Its no way silly to suggest he should be picked ahead of hobbs there - logically.

Bradman did not play there leave him out as well Murali never bowled well in Aust. Still would be happy to choose him to play in an alltime match there

I wouldn't pick Murali in Aus ( though to be fair to him, none of the tests he played for SL in Aus were at his absolute peak )

Bradman is well, a special case, well above all the other batsmen .

 

[abmk]

on a somewhat related note, I have become a bit annoyed with Chappelli's articles on how viru is great, he is so destructive, he's a great matchwinner and all that stuff .

But I don't see how the hell picking him as an opener in the SC is silly ( especially considering Hobbs didn't play there and Gavaskar averaged a good 10 points lesser - not that averages show the whole picture, but they do mean something )

 

[smash84]

on a somewhat related note, I have become a bit annoyed with Chappelli's articles on how viru is great, he is so destructive, he's a great matchwinner and all that stuff .

But I don't see how the hell picking him as an opener in the SC is silly ( especially considering Hobbs didn't play there and Gavaskar averaged a good 10 points lesser - not that averages show the whole picture, but they do mean something )

I know that you have seen this video so Did Sehwag play anything remotely as menacing as this?

‪WEST INDIES FAST BOWLERS OF THE 80'S - BRUTAL COMPILATION!‬‏ - YouTube

Gavaskar was pretty good against the WI

 

[archie mac]

There is no point debating with you it seems, but Sehwag is one of the best players of spin ever too and probably the best attacking opener ever on Crumbling pitches.Besides, not all pitches in the subcontinent are flat. Seamers who bowl reverse and Spinners are bowlers too last time i checked.

And what kind of Logic is that Clarke did well in India on debut so should Hobbs?
By that Logic since Harbhajan singh took 32 wickets against Australia Warne should have taken 60? But it doesn't work that way.

Yes Hobbs and Gavaskar were great players and would have done well in the Sub Continent but Sehwag's record in the subcontinent is phenomenal. And more than that he just gives the team a different option and dimension by putting up runs before the ball reverses or turns and makes batting easier for the batsman playing with him too. He makes bowlers bowlers change their lengths and lines and has done it to the best of them. Plus added to that he is a decent Bowling option too as a spinner and has won India a test with the ball in Srilanka too.

Logic is if Clarke can score runs in SC than a batsman twice as good should be OK. Hobbs played on uncovered pitches and against a seaming ball in England. As for Sehwag the bowler

no, absolutely no. sehwag has been brilliant in the SC . Its no way silly to suggest he should be picked ahead of hobbs there - logically.



I wouldn't pick Murali in Aus ( though to be fair to him, none of the tests he played for SL in Aus were at his absolute peak )

Bradman is well, a special case, well above all the other batsmen .

Again people seem to suggest on this site that batting in the SC is a completely different sport. It spins more but the SCG for a period was a turner and as some have said it can also seem there. Hobbs scored runs everywhere he played including the SC.

on a somewhat related note, I have become a bit annoyed with Chappelli's articles on how viru is great, he is so destructive, he's a great matchwinner and all that stuff .

But I don't see how the hell picking him as an opener in the SC is silly ( especially considering Hobbs didn't play there and Gavaskar averaged a good 10 points lesser - not that averages show the whole picture, but they do mean something )

I took offence that Hobbs should be left out for Sehwag, there is no need Hobbs clearly the better batsman. Can someone show me someone with a knowledge of the history of cricket picking Sehwag over Hobbs

 

[GIMH]

Hobbs V Sehwag is like a toned down Bradman V Tendulkar debate, not quite as ridiculous but still blows my mind a little (although I acknowledge that no-one seems to have outright suggested Sehwag is better...I think)

But anyway, archie. You don't seem to post a lot these days. Let me tell you, there are a lot of people here who believe that achievements in the subcontinent are worth double anything else. Be it player or team, you can't be great until you achieve anything there. Of course, no-one in their right mind tries to claim that Sangakarra isn't a modern great despite his piss record in England. But there you go.

 

[Cevno]

Hobbs V Sehwag is like a toned down Bradman V Tendulkar debate, not quite as ridiculous but still blows my mind a little (although I acknowledge that no-one seems to have outright suggested Sehwag is better...I think)

But anyway, archie. You don't seem to post a lot these days. Let me tell you, there are a lot of people here who believe that achievements in the subcontinent are worth double anything else. Be it player or team, you can't be great until you achieve anything there. Of course, no-one in their right mind tries to claim that Sangakarra isn't a modern great despite his piss record in England. But there you go.

Massively DWTA.

Actually the opposite happens a lot more on here where performance on seaming tracks against top seamers is used in every debate as some sort of final deciding criteria.
Spinners and crumbling abrasive surfaces are completely ignored for some reason.

And are you seriously suggesting no one has claimed that and more about Sangakkara,Samaraweera,Jayawardene or even Sehwag?

 

[Cevno]

I know that you have seen this video so Did Sehwag play anything remotely as menacing as this?

‪WEST INDIES FAST BOWLERS OF THE 80'S - BRUTAL COMPILATION!‬‏ - YouTube

Gavaskar was pretty good against the WI

Can turn it around and say, Did Gavaskar have to face Murali or Warne on crumbling surfaces and we can go and on and on?

And GIMH here is your example about what i was saying above in a way. Though i don't think Smalisah meant it that way.

 

[GIMH]

I probably should have written a bit more in my post. It wasn't meant as a sweeping generalisation, because some of the more ardent India fans (such as yourself, I'm sure you won't take offence to that) don't seem to hold such a standard, although I do think you personally overstate certain things, like Sharma V Broad etc, but anyway.

I am sure people have used it against Sanga...but it's never been a long ongoing thing that becomes ingrained in you as a CW way of life, like, say, Lillee V Pakistan. The general consensus was that Sanga's failures in England proved nothing about him as a player. It wasn't a technical deficiency.

Sehwag is a bit different as he does (IMO) have issues against the moving ball, but that doesn't take away from what he has achieved.

On the other hand, players who haven't yet played in the subcontinent are often treated like their record doesn't count for jack**** until they go there. And if they happen to have an okay record in India, this will be ignored in favour of their 'Asia' record, ignoring the fact that said player has at times proved that they CAN play in the subcontinent (I have one player in mind specifically for that example but I think you can see my general point)

At the end of a player's career (or during if they've been everywhere, I suppose), it's absolutely fair enough to look at where they were successful and where they weren't, and analyse why you think that was, what it tells us about them etc. What irritates me is that I think a lot of people place Asia on a higher pedestal. I admit, a lot of the time this comes from posters I don't recognise, there are a lot these days, and I'd imagine most new signups to this place are India fans, it seems likely after all. But I do think there's a strong 'subcontinent means everything' attitude that prevails a lot of the time.

Hell, it's been rolled out already during the current England-India series, "well it'd be a different story on the subcontinent." Yeah, cool, so what? This is our home series and we're carving it up, is that somehow worth less than if it's India's?

I don't wanna butt heads over this or go round in circles, I'm sure you'll disagree, so I'm just warning you that I'm about to go to bed and not in this for the long haul tonight

 

[Cevno]

Disagree completely tbh.

I think you are seeing it from the perspective of a English player which might give more sense to what you are saying, but for all Asian players it is completely opposite.
And on a general level seamers are mentioned more than spinners, and knocks on seaming surfaces are generally given more importance for some reason than one played on a quick turner or a absolute crumbling pitch.
Take for example SJS post on Gavaskar against the west indies, or Donald,Pollock,Mcgrath against Lara and Tendulkar debate or say as you are saying yourself Sehwag in SA and maybe England (because he has done well everywhere else almost where he has toured for a decent amount of time)

Also wrt to the India England series, i don't know what you are talking about specifically but i think the teams are compared wrt their performance home and away equally and both are equally important,so they should be.

 

[kyear2]

I think that it matters to a bowlers resume to have performed well in the subcontiment, especially fast bolwers, than batsmen. India is a easier place to bat than Australia or South Africa, so as a batsman, its not that essential to have ruled the SC on your track record. Just my opinion though.

 

[Cevno]

And here is another example again.

India is a easier place to bat than Australia if you completely ignore the spinners or reverse swing on abrasive surfaces or a a slow dead pitch where it it tough to score quick.

 

[smash84]

But I do think there's a strong 'subcontinent means everything' attitude that prevails a lot of the time.

I also dwta. I always got the impression it was the other way around. It seems that performance in SC matters **** to a lot of the posters on here. Batting on spinning tracks is not seen as any art at all. Turners are seen as useless pitches. The guy who does well in the SC but fails on bouncy or seaming track is labeled a "flat track bully" or such and his achievements count for little.

 

[abmk]

I know that you have seen this video so Did Sehwag play anything remotely as menacing as this?

‪WEST INDIES FAST BOWLERS OF THE 80'S - BRUTAL COMPILATION!‬‏ - YouTube

Gavaskar was pretty good against the WI

well yeah, not as menacing as this, but neither did Hobbs.

Sehwag has torn apart almost every quality bowler there is in the SC - the likes of Steyn,,Morkel, Mcgrath,Gillespie,Warne,,Akhthar, Murali, Mendis ( debut series )

 

[abmk]

I took offence that Hobbs should be left out for Sehwag, there is no need Hobbs clearly the better batsman. Can someone show me someone with a knowledge of the history of cricket picking Sehwag over Hobbs

It was for a specific set of conditions - the SC - where sehwag has been phenomenal . not overall. Overall no doubt Hobbs is the better opener . I could understand if someone said picking Sehwag over Hobbs in a general all time XI is silly, but not in the SC

I take offence at you suggesting that picking Sehwag over Hobbs in the SC is silly

 

[abmk]

I also dwta. I always got the impression it was the other way around. It seems that performance in SC matters **** to a lot of the posters on here. Batting on spinning tracks is not seen as any art at all. Turners are seen as useless pitches. The guy who does well in the SC but fails on bouncy or seaming track is labeled a "flat track bully" or such and his achievements count for little.

agreed .....

 

[ankitj]

Hobbs V Sehwag is like a toned down Bradman V Tendulkar debate, not quite as ridiculous but still blows my mind a little (although I acknowledge that no-one seems to have outright suggested Sehwag is better...I think)

But anyway, archie. You don't seem to post a lot these days. Let me tell you, there are a lot of people here who believe that achievements in the subcontinent are worth double anything else. Be it player or team, you can't be great until you achieve anything there. Of course, no-one in their right mind tries to claim that Sangakarra isn't a modern great despite his piss record in England. But there you go.

The bolded part partially salvaged an otherwise dire post.

And get over your, erm, "victim mentality"

 

[ankitj]

I also dwta. I always got the impression it was the other way around. It seems that performance in SC matters **** to a lot of the posters on here. Batting on spinning tracks is not seen as any art at all. Turners are seen as useless pitches. The guy who does well in the SC but fails on bouncy or seaming track is labeled a "flat track bully" or such and his achievements count for little.

Yeah. Don't know how in hell can anyone think otherwise. Heck, even the "awful" Indian fans give more weight to performances outside subcontinent. I have had quite a few friends arguing that Sehwag is no good outside subcontinent when comparing him with Dravid or Laxman. Same goes for Kumble. In any casual discussions, performance outside SC come into question because of India's poor record there until recently.

On a separate note, I am also quite intrigued by how some members of this forum spend so much time and mental bandwidth figuring out the psyche of Indian fans. It's as hilarious as it is ridiculous. Half the time they have no clue, of course. Yet they will go on telling us what Indian fans are like not giving any consideration to those who live amongst them 24x7.

 

[archie mac]

It was for a specific set of conditions - the SC - where sehwag has been phenomenal . not overall. Overall no doubt Hobbs is the better opener . I could understand if someone said picking Sehwag over Hobbs in a general all time XI is silly, but not in the SC

I take offence at you suggesting that picking Sehwag over Hobbs in the SC is silly

And I will say it again

I don't think it makes any real difference if Sehwag scored runs in the SC still no need for him to replace Hobbs in a team in the SC. Hobbs would have made runs there, is there any doubt? He scored runs on uncovered pitches against some of the greatest spin bowlers in the history of the game. He faced some great seamers. He did it with a bat with half the power and longer boundaries.

You would think that scoring runs in SC is a different sport

If Sehwag is not needed to replace Hobbs in anyother country there is no need to even consider replacing him in the SC