CW All Time Country XI Discussion Thread

[Coronis]

Fair enough. I think the bowling lineup we have is quite probably the greatest. Maybe I'd have Davidson in over O'Reilly on some pitches. I find it interesting, you'd only have Warne or Murali in over one of the quicks, none of O'Reilly, Grimmett, Laker, Verity etc.?

 

[kyear2]

O'Reilly's strike rate was too high, Grimmett's was also high and he averaged 32 vs the only good team of the era (England), Laker was too dependant on wet or sticky wickets, Verity too was also better in wet conditions, though on unhelpful pitches he was probably better than Laker. Strike rate also too high though. Warne and Murali, also most importantly did what they did in modern conditions, especially Warne as he didn't have the made to order home pitches that Murali enjoyed.

 

[the big bambino]

O'Reilly's strike rate was too high, Grimmett's was also high and he averaged 32 vs the only good team of the era (England), Laker was too dependant on wet or sticky wickets, Verity too was also better in wet conditions, though on unhelpful pitches he was probably better than Laker. Strike rate also too high though. Warne and Murali, also most importantly did what they did in modern conditions, especially Warne as he didn't have the made to order home pitches that Murali enjoyed.

O'Reilly's sr as well as Grimmett is just fine. SR is over rated as cricket is a game played over time. Only recent times has there been an allocated no. of overs stipualted. This was done to thwart the WI tactic of bowling 72 overs a day which effectively meant they could control an innings by almost refusing to bowl at the batting side. It was also helpful in mainatining their bowler's fitness. Everyone else copied the slow over rate tactic so the administrators had to step in.

But back to SRs it has to be mentioned spinners bowl their overs twice as fast as pace bowlers. Effectively they can have SRs double pace bowlers and be as effective. All spinners mentioned are competitive against pace bowlers when we use this time based SR. O'Reilly, Grimmett and Verity also had superior records than Warne and Murali against each man's best opponent. I would also add that their records against SA are magnificent as that side was not weak (in batting atleast) when you consider whom they had representing them. Their batting was stronger than the SA sides Warne bowled at.

However Warne and Murali's record against India ranges from unimpressive to down right pathetic. In fact if it wasn't for Mendis' dynamic year where he enabled Murali to be competitive against India we could say that both men were pathetic against India. Then we get to Murali's record v Aus which is shocking. Warne's record in fc cricket in Oz is also bad. Under none of the criteria mentioned are Warne or Murali superior to Tiger, Scarlett or Verity. And it is the most important criteria of all; how do you perform against your strongest opponents.

 

[akilana]

O'Reilly's strike rate was too high, Grimmett's was also high and he averaged 32 vs the only good team of the era (England), Laker was too dependant on wet or sticky wickets, Verity too was also better in wet conditions, though on unhelpful pitches he was probably better than Laker. Strike rate also too high though. Warne and Murali, also most importantly did what they did in modern conditions, especially Warne as he didn't have the made to order home pitches that Murali enjoyed.

As usual, bull****

 

[akilana]

O'Reilly's sr as well as Grimmett is just fine. SR is over rated as cricket is a game played over time. Only recent times has there been an allocated no. of overs stipualted. This was done to thwart the WI tactic of bowling 72 overs a day which effectively meant they could control an innings by almost refusing to bowl at the batting side. It was also helpful in mainatining their bowler's fitness. Everyone else copied the slow over rate tactic so the administrators had to step in.

But back to SRs it has to be mentioned spinners bowl their overs twice as fast as pace bowlers. Effectively they can have SRs double pace bowlers and be as effective. All spinners mentioned are competitive against pace bowlers when we use this time based SR. O'Reilly, Grimmett and Verity also had superior records than Warne and Murali against each man's best opponent. I would also add that their records against SA are magnificent as that side was not weak (in batting atleast) when you consider whom they had representing them. Their batting was stronger than the SA sides Warne bowled at.

However Warne and Murali's record against India ranges from unimpressive to down right pathetic. In fact if it wasn't for Mendis' dynamic year where he enabled Murali to be competitive against India we could say that both men were pathetic against India. Then we get to Murali's record v Aus which is shocking. Warne's record in fc cricket in Oz is also bad. Under none of the criteria mentioned are Warne or Murali superior to Tiger, Scarlett or Verity. And it is the most important criteria of all; how do you perform against your strongest opponents.

How would you then rate Mcgrath? He never bowled against Australia.

 

[Red]

It was by design and inspired by facing Australia and suffering at the hands of Lillee and Thomson, "it was not lost on him that, in the course of a long series, the sheer weight and intimidatory reality of four pace bowlers had proved more than his talented array of young batting stars could handle" "Lloyd was convinced that if three fast bolwers were effective, then four could be devastating. He had witnessed and personally experienced the fire of sustained pace and quality. It had been indelibly imprinted in his mind that it is virtually impossible for any batting side to stand up to hour afterf hour of this type of attack. Sporadic counter attack is possible. Sustained response is not. The combined mental and physical effort required cannot be maintained indefinately."
From 1976 to 1991 they were virtually unbeatable and inspired rules to restrict their dominance not seen since the day of Sir Don, so no he wasn't looking for spinners, though a Warne would have phenominal with these guys.

* quotes fron History of West Indies cricket by Michael Manley (A decade of Dominance)

Warne and O'Reilly both demand selection in the Australia team. Watch them destroy your batting line up on day 4 and 5...

 

[Slifer]

Warne and O'Reilly both demand selection in the Australia team. Watch them destroy your batting line up on day 4 and 5...

Highly unlikely and especially so in the WI for reasons i stated earlier in this topic. Alan Davidson is the bowler I'd b most concerned about (had he been selected tbh). Two leggies bowling to Sobers and Lara with the ball spinning in( for example) is a recipe for disaster.

 

[Coronis]

O'Reilly's strike rate was too high, Grimmett's was also high and he averaged 32 vs the only good team of the era (England), Laker was too dependant on wet or sticky wickets, Verity too was also better in wet conditions, though on unhelpful pitches he was probably better than Laker. Strike rate also too high though. Warne and Murali, also most importantly did what they did in modern conditions, especially Warne as he didn't have the made to order home pitches that Murali enjoyed.

Ah, so modern players are automatically better than older players? South Africa was really that pathetic? Tiger and Grum bowled much longer and took more wickets per match, in addition to significantly lower economy rates, and of course, better averages. Particularly moreso than Warne. Haven't done as much research on Laker and Verity, in regards to your claims about wet pitches. Honestly, its ridiculous to not want a spinner of their calibre on your team, if they were available.

 

[Slifer]

Ah, so modern players are automatically better than older players? South Africa was really that pathetic? Tiger and Grum bowled much longer and took more wickets per match, in addition to significantly lower economy rates, and of course, better averages. Particularly moreso than Warne. Haven't done as much research on Laker and Verity, in regards to your claims about wet pitches. Honestly, its ridiculous to not want a spinner of their calibre on your team, if they were available.

\

Me personally, if I had to have a spinner in my team it would have to be one from the top shelf and one whose tradeoff (over a pacemen) would at least break even. AFAIC the only spinners IMO who meet this criteria are: Murali, Warne, Oreilly, GRimmet, Verity, Laker and maybe a handful more. Regarding Oreilly, I havent seen him bowl but based on my own research of him, he seems like one hell of a bowler !! Makes me wonder (awaiting the inevitable fallout) why Warne is always automatically chosen as the greatest leg spinner (longetivity notwithstanding)

 

[watson]

It was by design and inspired by facing Australia and suffering at the hands of Lillee and Thomson, "it was not lost on him that, in the course of a long series, the sheer weight and intimidatory reality of four pace bowlers had proved more than his talented array of young batting stars could handle" "Lloyd was convinced that if three fast bolwers were effective, then four could be devastating. He had witnessed and personally experienced the fire of sustained pace and quality. It had been indelibly imprinted in his mind that it is virtually impossible for any batting side to stand up to hour afterf hour of this type of attack. Sporadic counter attack is possible. Sustained response is not. The combined mental and physical effort required cannot be maintained indefinately."
From 1976 to 1991 they were virtually unbeatable and inspired rules to restrict their dominance not seen since the day of Sir Don, so no he wasn't looking for spinners, though a Warne would have phenominal with these guys.

* quotes fron History of West Indies cricket by Michael Manley (A decade of Dominance)

It is interesting that Clive Lloyd should formulate his theory after 'suffering' the onslaught of only TWO Australian fast bowlers - Lillee and Thompson. The other two seam-bowlers in the 75/76 series were Gilmour and Walker and they were barely fast-medium. It is also significant that Ashley Mallett played in every Test match and that the Australian attack in the 1st Test at Brisbane contained two spinners - Mallett and Jenner. Between them they picked up 5 wickets for the match (including Lloyd himself) and Chappell's team got off to a flyer by winning easily on the 4th Day.

So basically, Clive Lloyd was wrong. Two fast bowlers in supreme form at the same time is all that is required to smash the opposition's batting line-up, provided that they are supported by talented, accurate, and competent medium-pace/spin bowling. If we assume that it is inevitable that one of those two fast-bowlers will eventually lose form, then having three top-notch fast-bowlers is the best formula for winning series consistently over the long-term. However, assuming that a battery of 4 fast-bowlers is the pinnacle of bowling attacks is sheer nonsense. There is no evidence that four fast bowlers is inherently superior to three fast bowlers in the side.

Ergo (Monk likes that word) - Lillee, McGrath, and Miller are sufficient. Warne and O'Reilly can then knock-over those batsman who are a bit lead footed.

 

[the big bambino]

I can see why people want to pick an all pace attack for the WI though. It makes sense from the perspective of their overwhelming success. I saw Gilmour in the series Watson refers to and I've never seen anyone so thoroughly smash all 3 stumps as one of his yorkers did to Kallicharan's furniture one say. One of my abiding cricket memories. He was slippery enough.

 

[the big bambino]

How would you then rate Mcgrath? He never bowled against Australia.

Like saying how do I rate Richards coz he never faced his fast attack. I rate both highly and McGrath's record v India is vastly superior to Warne's.

 

[watson]

I can see why people want to pick an all pace attack for the WI though. It makes sense from the perspective of their overwhelming success. I saw Gilmour in the series Watson refers to and I've never seen anyone so thoroughly smash all 3 stumps as one of his yorkers did to Kallicharan's furniture one say. One of my abiding cricket memories. He was slippery enough.

Yes, Gilmour had excellent figures for the series, but Richards, Cozier, and Lloyd all reckon that Jeff Thomson was the "big difference" between the sides;

West Indies vs Australia 1975-76 - YouTube

 

[Red]

Just as an added thought...

Warne and O'Reilly are so different to each other in style that simply saying "they're both leg spinners, so why bother having both of them?" is a bit simplistic. I'm sure everyone knows enough about Warne, but here's a bit of stuff on O'Reilly from Wisden's obituary (keeping in mind he died in 1992)...

Bill O'Reilly, who died in a Sydney hospital on October 6, 1992, aged 86, was probably the greatest spin bowler the game has ever produced. Bill Tiger O'Reilly was unquestionably one of cricket's great figures: as a player, as a character and later as a writer on the game. His cricket was proof that spin bowling was not necessarily a gentle art. He was 6ft 2in tall, gripped the ball in his enormous right hand and released it at a pace that could be almost fast-medium. It would then bounce ferociously on the hard pitches of his time and, on occasion, knock wicket-keepers off their feet. He bowled leg-breaks and, especially, top-spinners and googlies, backed up by an intimidating manner. Jack Fingleton said he was a flurry of limbs, fire and steel-edged temper. It has been suggested that his action and the general commotion before delivery were born of a deep sense of frustration at not being able to bowl fast enough to knock the batsman down. Off the field, his gruffness was mitigated by his intelligence, erudition, wit and twinkling eyes.

He played 27 Test matches and took 144 wickets - 102 of them Englishmen and the vital wicket of Walter Hammond ten times - averaging 22.59. But his figures have to be judged by the fact that all but one of his Tests came in the 1930s, when other bowlers were dominated by batsmen to an unprecedented extent. No one ever dominated O'Reilly.

tldnr? Was seriously formidable.

 

[the big bambino]

And yet the global averages of the 30s were no better or worse than any other decade. Real domination by the bat occurred in the 00s making McGrath a special. No doubting O'Reilly's individual pre eminence in our attack though, as fine a bowler as Grimmett notwithstanding. McGrath though just becomes more and more impressive whenever there is a new way to analyse his figures.

 

[kyear2]

Highly unlikely and especially so in the WI for reasons i stated earlier in this topic. Alan Davidson is the bowler I'd b most concerned about (had he been selected tbh). Two leggies bowling to Sobers and Lara with the ball spinning in( for example) is a recipe for disaster.

What I was thinking as well. Headley also played spin bowling really well. Scored hundreds againts Verity, Grimmett, Ironmonger and Rhodes (though not at his best).

 

[the big bambino]

You'd be inclined to think that abt Rhodes, based purely on his age, but he was still bloody decent even then. He won an ashes just 3 yrs before and bowled with remarkable economy on those true West Indian pitches. Rhodes also bowled well to Bradman on his incredible 1930 tour.

Hutton tells a story of facing him in the nets when he was in his late 50s. He called the experience a revelation as no bowler, before or since, had caused to misjudge the length of the ball as often as Rhodes. Rhodes definately had periods in his career when he let his bowling suffered and I'm guessing these periods coincided when concentrated on his batting. By this late stage in his career he was back to being a bowler and a particularly hard one to face.

 

[kyear2]

You'd be inclined to think that abt Rhodes, based purely on his age, but he was still bloody decent even then. He won an ashes just 3 yrs before and bowled with remarkable economy on those true West Indian pitches. Rhodes also bowled well to Bradman on his incredible 1930 tour.

Hutton tells a story of facing him in the nets when he was in his late 50s. He called the experience a revelation as no bowler, before or since, had caused to misjudge the length of the ball as often as Rhodes. Rhodes definately had periods in his career when he let his bowling suffered and I'm guessing these periods coincided when concentrated on his batting. By this late stage in his career he was back to being a bowler and a particularly hard one to face.

Enhances Atlas's reputation even more. Even with what relatively small amount of footage one see's of him, he was a damm good batsman. Equal to Sobers, Richards and Lara IMHO.

 

[kyear2]

A composite team made up of the best unit from each country I imagine would look something like

Openers: England
First Drop: Australia
Middle Order: West Indies
All Rounder: West Indies
Keeper: Australia
Fast Bowlers: West Indies
Spinner: Australia

Jack Hobbs
Len Hutton
Don Bradman
Viv Richards
Brian Lara
Garry Sobers
Adam Gilchrist
Malcolm Marshall
Shane Warne
Curtly Ambrose
Michael Holding

 

[Coronis]

Thought #3 was generally considered part of the middle order. Guess you just wanted Viv and Lara in there though :P Not much between Richards/Lara and Chappell/Border imo.