Cricinfo Best Test 11 from last 25 years

[smash84]

Thank you Daemon, eid Mubarak to you and the forum too

 

[trundler]

The only difference being that we are talking elite all rounders. Hadlee's bowling was every bit as good as McG. The batting just becomes the icing on the cake (fmd, I hope no more icing and cake jokes coming)

Yeah but I'm going to take the slight advantage in bowling because when I'm already batting till 9 or 10, I want the best possible bowling combination I can get.

Anyway, arguments like this make one lose perspective. Hadlee was ****ing awesome. The bastard carried 8 useless ****s (excluding Chatfield, Crowe and himself) for god knows how-long and he belongs in the highest tier of fast bowling ever. I have massive respect for him.

I just happen to prefer McGrath based on my game plan. Marshall and McGrath destroy the top-order, Imran reverses his way through the middle order with the old ball, Warne spins me to victory on day 5.

Even Marshall isn't definitively the greatest by a huge margin. If someone's going to pick Lillee ahead of him, go for it. It's nitpicking at this level.

 

[trundler]

Thank you Daemon, eid Mubarak to you and the forum too

Don't tell me you're skipping the 30th with Popalzai

Eid Mubarak, anyhow.

 

[Bolo]

The problem with the batting deep theory is that it almost never actually works in practice. If it did then no one would ever pick specialist bowlers. McGrath would never have played a single Test match, Australia would have just picked Ian Harvey instead because the differences in the batting averages more than makes up for the differences in bowling, in theory. You pick your best bowlers, that's what wins games. Having a bit of a stronger batsman at no. 9 or 10 does **** all in practice for helping you win matches.

It's a visibility problem. Take an allrounder who plays 100 games. They win 2 games with the bat that their team would have lost and salvage 2 draws. This isn't exactly Ian Botham and the effects sound negligible. Take a team that plays 100, winning, drawing and losing equally. Put 4 of these players in the team and you take this team from a win:loss ratio of 1:1 to a win loss ratio of almost 3:1 (wins up nearly 25% and losses down nearly 50%). The side goes from mediocre to the best in the world. And this is really just players who chip in with the bat- batting or genuine allrounders would contribute with the bat a lot more frequently than this.

You don't see this in practice because teams don't have this level of resources in practice. It happened with RSA in the late 90s and early 2000s though. At least one of the bowlers in that side contributed with the bat in virtually every game, and were very frequently the difference in results. And that team, despite having mediocre specialist bats had some spectacular results. In nearly 5 years to 2003 they lost two series (against AUS), drew one and won everything else.

Batting deep works, as long as you don't sacrifice too much firepower to do it.

 

[smash84]

Don't tell me you're skipping the 30th with Popalzai

Eid Mubarak, anyhow.

Haha,I don't know. We'll find out soon enough here in Chicagoland.

 

[trundler]

It's a visibility problem. Take an allrounder who plays 100 games. They win 2 games with the bat that their team would have lost and salvage 2 draws. This isn't exactly Ian Botham and the effects sound negligible. Take a team that plays 100, winning, drawing and losing equally. Put 4 of these players in the team and you take this team from a win:loss ratio of 1:1 to a win loss ratio of almost 3:1 (wins up nearly 25% and losses down nearly 50%). The side goes from mediocre to the best in the world. And this is really just players who chip in with the bat- batting or genuine allrounders would contribute with the bat a lot more frequently than this.

You don't see this in practice because teams don't have this level of resources in practice. It happened with RSA in the late 90s and early 2000s though. At least one of the bowlers in that side contributed with the bat in virtually every game, and were very frequently the difference in results. And that team, despite having mediocre specialist bats had some spectacular results. In nearly 5 years to 2003 they lost two series (against AUS), drew one and won everything else.

Batting deep works, as long as you don't sacrifice too much firepower to do it.

Now let's look at the team that beat them and didn't even have an all-rounder for the most part:
Great opening partnership
Greatest specialist number 3 since Viv
Great middle order bats
Greatest wicketkeeper batsmen
Greatest legspinner
A couple of good quicks
Greatest specialist fast bowler since Marshall

 

[trundler]

Now I hope no one's going to argue that Symonds counts as a test-class all-rounder!
I think the team should bat till at least 9 or the tail becomes too long. You need a bowling all rounder and Marshall to strengthen the tail. Now you can just pick whom you consider the best for the next 2 spots.

 

[Bolo]

Now let's look at the team that beat them and didn't even have an all-rounder for the most part:
Great opening partnership
Greatest specialist number 3 since Viv
Great middle order bats
Greatest wicketkeeper batsmen
Greatest legspinner
A couple of good quicks
Greatest specialist fast bowler since Marshall

Ya. 1 specialist (Donald) from RSA would have made that AUS team. But RSA actually went past AUS to number one ranked team in the world twice in this time.

 

[trundler]

Ya. 1 specialist (Donald) from RSA would have made that AUS team. But RSA actually went past AUS to number one ranked team in the world twice in this time.

Well Pollock could have replaced Gillespie, to be fair. Australia were the better team for the most part, still. I'd rather have the strongest possible bowling unit than bat to 11. Gotta bowl the opposition out twice to win a test match.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Now I hope no one's going to argue that Symonds counts as a test-class all-rounder!
I think the team should bat till at least 9 or the tail becomes too long. You need a bowling all rounder and Marshall to strengthen the tail. Now you can just pick whom you consider the best for the next 2 spots.

In all seriousness Symonds could have been a Test great in any other country or era. More of a batting all-rounder than a genuine all rounder (though a bowling average of ~37 in the few Tests he did play at the end of his career is far from terrible). Could have played 100 Tests if Aus weren't such a strong side.

One of my all-time favourite players. Love the story of him in England rocking up for the morning warm-up of an ODI against Bangladesh pissed of his face trying to stretch on a garbage bin and falling face first over it.

Ya. 1 specialist (Donald) from RSA would have made that AUS team. But RSA actually went past AUS to number one ranked team in the world twice in this time.

May have "went past" them in rankings but the rankings could (and can) be very temperamental. They were never as good a side let alone better than Aus during that time period. Not even close. About 2008ish they started being competitive, and even better at times.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Well Pollock could have replaced Gillespie, to be fair. Australia were the better team for the most part, still. I'd rather have the strongest possible bowling unit than bat to 11. Gotta bowl the opposition out twice to win a test match.

Yeah it's always going to be a matter of preference. Even just a few years ago I would have been all over the "bat deep" theory, I'd love to pack a team with All rounders and bowlers who can bat, but my view has changed since then. I'm always going to lean toward picking your best 3-4 bowlers at least.

Can't really fault anyone choosing Hadlee over McGrath for this reason if it's really important to them. I just wouldn't do it myself.

 

[trundler]

In all seriousness Symonds could have been a Test great in any other country or era. More of a batting all-rounder than a genuine all rounder (though a bowling average of ~37 in the few Tests he did play at the end of his career is far from terrible). Could have played 100 Tests if Aus weren't such a strong side.

One of my all-time favourite players. Love the story of him in England rocking up for the morning warm-up of an ODI against Bangladesh pissed of his face trying to stretch on a garbage bin and falling face first over it.

Australia could have fielded 2 top-notch sides in that time. They never really stuck with Bevan too. Then there's all the other guys that failed to break into the side. Ridiculous. Bizarre how West Indies had several ATG quicks at one time and no matter who was injured, they could field 4 good enough to bowl a team out twice and win and then look at them recently.

 

[trundler]

Yeah it's always going to be a matter of preference. Even just a few years ago I would have been all over the "bat deep" theory, I'd love to pack a team with All rounders and bowlers who can bat, but my view has changed since then. I'm always going to lean toward picking your best 3-4 bowlers at least.

Can't really fault anyone choosing Hadlee over McGrath for this reason if it's really important to them. I just wouldn't do it myself.

Yeah, it all boils down to personal preference. Hadlee over McGrath is fair enough since they're both in the same tier.

 

[Bolo]

May have "went past" them in rankings but the rankings could (and can) be very temperamental. They were never as good a side let alone better than Aus during that time period. Not even close. About 2008ish they started being competitive, and even better at times.

Rankings are a function of results. It means they were winning more than AUS. The comment is based on how good their results were in spite of the enormous difference in quality of specialists- batting deep was working.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

It's a visibility problem. Take an allrounder who plays 100 games. They win 2 games with the bat that their team would have lost and salvage 2 draws. This isn't exactly Ian Botham and the effects sound negligible. Take a team that plays 100, winning, drawing and losing equally. Put 4 of these players in the team and you take this team from a win:loss ratio of 1:1 to a win loss ratio of almost 3:1 (wins up nearly 25% and losses down nearly 50%). The side goes from mediocre to the best in the world. And this is really just players who chip in with the bat- batting or genuine allrounders would contribute with the bat a lot more frequently than this.

You don't see this in practice because teams don't have this level of resources in practice. It happened with RSA in the late 90s and early 2000s though. At least one of the bowlers in that side contributed with the bat in virtually every game, and were very frequently the difference in results. And that team, despite having mediocre specialist bats had some spectacular results. In nearly 5 years to 2003 they lost two series (against AUS), drew one and won everything else.

Batting deep works, as long as you don't sacrifice too much firepower to do it.

I think its happening right now with India. India is averaging over 25 for batsmen 8,9,10 and 11 since 2016. There have been times in this period where Jadeja or Ashwin have walked in with the game in the balance, and either of them have left the batting crease with India on top, I can think of one in Australia's last tour to India alone with Jadeja. Even BK has been making useful contributions as seen by India's test win in SA.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

England did it when they went to number 1 with Bresnan, Swann, Broad (pre bouncer hitting him) providing batting to 10 with Anderson at 11.

It does seem to favour teams in conditions where batting is difficult (by virtue these guys are batting twice instead of once) more than on the roads.

Of course it worked last week for the Windies too.

It is actually my favourite moment of test matches, in any innings, will 150 get to 250, 200 to 300, even in scores of over 400 it matters, that battle to gain the ascendancy or limit the oppositions. Can the lead be 80 and a loss, or 200 and anyone's game in the 4th. Will Sodhi defend out Anderson for the draw and the series win.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Rankings are a function of results. It means they were winning more than AUS. The comment is based on how good their results were in spite of the enormous difference in quality of specialists- batting deep was working.

Not really. Results/rankings isn't a perfect representation of a teams ability or quality. Scheduling & luck play a huge part.

South Africa from 90s-2007/08 were never as good as Aus were in the time period. Every time they came up against each other it was a rout.

 

[Bolo]

I think its happening right now with India. India is averaging over 25 for batsmen 8,9,10 and 11 since 2016. There have been times in this period where Jadeja or Ashwin have walked in with the game in the balance, and either of them have left the batting crease with India on top, I can think of one in Australia's last tour to India alone with Jadeja. Even BK has been making useful contributions.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

England did it when they went to number 1 with Bresnan, Swann, Broad (pre bouncer hitting him) providing batting to 10 with Anderson at 11.

It does seem to favour teams in conditions where batting is difficult (by virtue these guys are batting twice instead of once) more than on the roads.

I thought India had a pretty strong tail, but 25 is excellent.

Good point on batting conditions.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'm not saying "batting deep" didn't work for them. Aus had slightly better specialists. The difference in the sides could literally just have been Warne. But it was a big difference.

edit: and Gilchrist

 

[Bolo]

Not really. Results/rankings isn't a perfect representation of a teams ability or quality. Scheduling & luck play a huge part.

South Africa from 90s-2007/08 were never as good as Aus were in the time period. Every time they came up against each other it was a rout.

Nobody is arguing that RSA were of the same quality, or that they ever 'deserved' a number one ranking. The point is that they were winning so frequently in spite of being an inferior team that they got there- rankings only care about results.

 

[trundler]

I'm not saying "batting deep" didn't work for them. Aus had slightly better specialists. The difference in the sides could literally just have been Warne. But it was a big difference.

edit: and Gilchrist

I'd say Warne and McGrath's partnership as a package along with GIlchrist were the most important things