Cricinfo Best Test 11 from last 25 years

[trundler]

West Indies of the 80s didn't have an all-rounder either. It was the 2nd greatest opening partnership, King Viv, excellent middle order bats, Dujon, and the greatest fast bowling quartet ever assembled. No all-rounder and they were head and shoulders above the rest for a good decade.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

West Indies of the 80s didn't have an all-rounder either. It was the 2nd greatest opening partnership, King Viv, excellent middle order bats, Dujon, and the greatest fast bowling quartet ever assembled. No all-rounder and they were head and shoulders above the rest for a good decade.

It was meant to be Marshall.

He has 7 first class centuries to his name and was invited to the 1980's allrounder comps with Hadlee, Khan, Dev, Botham and Rice.

Marshall played some important knocks, and came up short more often than the rest too.

Many did not think of him as an all-rounder, but he took particular pride in his batting. Invariably, when playing for Barbados against Guyana in the regional competitions, he would greet me as he came in to bat with; "Crofty boy, you are bowling fast today. Today, I am going to lash you and that pace around the boundaries!!" He would then smile disarmingly afterwards.

A teammate's thoughts on Malcolm Marshall | Cricket | ESPNcricinfo

 

[Bolo]

West Indies of the 80s didn't have an all-rounder either. It was the 2nd greatest opening partnership, King Viv, excellent middle order bats, Dujon, and the greatest fast bowling quartet ever assembled. No all-rounder and they were head and shoulders above the rest for a good decade.

That's partly a result of every team (other than Pakistan, who gave Windies some serious competition) who had an allrounder having nothing but that allrounder.

 

[trundler]

It was meant to be Marshall.

He has 7 first class centuries to his name and was invited to the 1980's allrounder comps with Hadlee, Khan, Dev, Botham and Rice.

Marshall played some important knocks, and came up short more often than the rest too.

Yeah but even with him they only batted to 8. Marshall did contribute useful runs, yes. I'll say his batting was closer to Warne or Mitchell Johnson than say Khan or Botham. An all-time XI's going to have Marshall anyway so just pick the best bowlers, which is where the discussion originated from.

 

[trundler]

That's partly a result of every team (other than Pakistan, who gave Windies some serious competition) who had an allrounder having nothing but that allrounder.

Still, batting deep isn't as necessary as having a strong bowling unit.

 

[smash84]

Still, batting deep isn't as necessary as having a strong bowling unit.

Ugh, you're going in circles. The point is that bowlers being picked such as hadlee are in contention for greatest bowler ever. You Don't lose anything by having him over McG in terms of bowling

 

[trundler]

Not saying exclude all-rounders. An all-time XI needs Sobers at 6 and a bowling all-rounder of your choice at 8, Marshall at 9 and then pick the best bowling unit you can. I'm just saying batting to 11 isn't needed.

 

[TheJediBrah]

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.

No one's saying that batting deep is meaningless. Just that it's not preferential. SA batting deep worked for them, but part of the reason for this is they simply didn't have the better specialists as an option. A lot of their best players happened to be all-rounders.

Ugh, you're going in circles. The point is that bowlers being picked such as hadlee are in contention for greatest bowler ever. You Don't lose anything by having him over McG in terms of bowling

Not everyone would agree with that though

 

[trundler]

Ugh, you're going in circles. The point is that bowlers being picked such as hadlee are in contention for greatest bowler ever. You Don't lose anything by having him over McG in terms of bowling

I'm not saying picking Hadlee over McGrath is ridiculous. I literally said he's in the highest echelon of fast bowlers ever. It's not the McGrath vs Hadlee I'm contentious about. It's batting deep over the strongest bowling unit possible. I don't see the problem with Hadlee over McGrath.

 

[trundler]

IMO, the slight gain in bowling with McGrath is worth it. Others can have a different outlook, fair enough.

 

[Bolo]

Still, batting deep isn't as necessary as having a strong bowling unit.

Bowling quality is infinitely more important than batting quality if it's a binary choice. But with a number of the allrounders it's a small sacrifice in bowling quality for a big gain in batting quality, and this makes balancing trickier.

Windies were a much stronger batting unit than anyone else in spite of not batting deep. It didn't make much difference to them. But their lack of a 5th bowler did.

 

[trundler]

It really just depends on what you consider a significant gain in batting or a significant gain in bowling, or put another way what trade-off you think is worth it and that's subjective.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Bowling quality is infinitely more important than batting quality if it's a binary choice. But with a number of the allrounders it's a small sacrifice in bowling quality for a big gain in batting quality, and this makes balancing trickier.

Windies were a much stronger batting unit than anyone else in spite of not batting deep. It didn't make much difference to them. But their lack of a 5th bowler did.

For their era, a specialist batsman at 6 (until Hooper - who was barely a good bowler anyway in tests) Dujon at 7 and Marshall at 8 was fairly deep if not deeper as against most opposition.

India started to really push it with Probhakar, Dev and Shastri by the end of the 80's into the 90's though.

Pakistan had glimpses of Akram with Imran, (there was Mudassar Nazar up the top too - so Pakistan were doing it - he even opened the bowling 11 times, including in NZ of all places).

The funny thing about the 1980's is it was higher batting averages and bowling averages than the 1990's. How much of this was teams batting deep is debatable.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/424455.html

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/423412.html

 

[Bolo]

No one's saying that batting deep is meaningless. Just that it's not preferential. SA batting deep worked for them, but part of the reason for this is they simply didn't have the better specialists as an option. A lot of their best players happened to be all-rounders.

You said batting deep hardly ever works in practice. I'm saying you are understimating the effect because of visibility, for which I gave a hypothetical team wherein batting deep would triple the win/loss ratio.

I also gave the RSA example where it worked in the real world. There was too much batting deep there. They were fielding spinners averaging in the 40s from time to time. This is simply a rubbish player, and obviously a good specialist (if available) is better. But batting deep by picking good bowlers is definitely an effective strategy

 

[Bolo]

For their era, a specialist batsman at 6 (until Hooper - who was barely a good bowler anyway in tests) Dujon at 7 and Marshall at 8 was fairly deep if not deeper as against most opposition.

India started to really push it with Probhakar, Dev and Shastri by the end of the 80's into the 90's though.

Pakistan had glimpses of Akram with Imran, (there was Mudassar Nazar up the top too - so Pakistan were doing it - he even opened the bowling 11 times, including in NZ of all places).

The funny thing about the 1980's is it was higher batting averages and bowling averages than the 1990's. How much of this was teams batting deep is debatable.

A decade of toil for bowlers | Cricket | ESPNcricinfo

The decade of the batsmen | Cricket | ESPNcricinfo

Their bottom 4 were pretty consistently 3 rubbish bats followed by Marshall, who could just bat a bit. That tail was long, even for the era.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Their bottom 4 were pretty consistently 3 rubbish bats followed by Marshall, who could just bat a bit. That tail was long, even for the era.

You reckon? I reckon Dujon was right up there, if not the benchmark post Knott, in an era where many sides had wicket keepers batting 8 or 9.

We now seemingly expect wicket keepers to bat in the top 7, but not all were doing so when Dujon was.

 

[Bolo]

You reckon? I reckon Dujon was right up there, if not the benchmark post Knott, in an era where many sides had wicket keepers batting 8 or 9.

We now seemingly expect wicket keepers to bat int he top 7, but not all were doing so when Dujon was.

Dijon would have been a good bat as keeper at any time but current. I'm referring to the bowlers though.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You said batting deep hardly ever works in practice. I'm saying you are understimating the effect because of visibility, for which I gave a hypothetical team wherein batting deep would triple the win/loss ratio.

I also gave the RSA example where it worked in the real world. There was too much batting deep there. They were fielding spinners averaging in the 40s from time to time. This is simply a rubbish player, and obviously a good specialist (if available) is better. But batting deep by picking good bowlers is definitely an effective strategy

Yes, compared to the alternative. If batting deep is the result of picking your best players as in 90s-00s SA of course it's going to be your best choice, but that's because there was no other choice. They didn't have the specialists. Bad example.

But batting deep by picking good bowlers is definitely an effective strategy

No one disagrees with this.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Dijon would have been a good bat as keeper at any time but current. I'm referring to the bowlers though.

I get that, but batting deep effects more than just the bowlers, it effects the choice to have a batting all rounder in the top 6, or not. It effects what you expect or want from a wicket keeper. And it influences bowling choices.

For me it is all part of the mix to find the best team for most scenarios. At some points sacrifices have to be made for batting and bowling, at some points they don't.

It is simply a pursuit of maximising the gap between how runs a team scores being more than what they bowl the opposition out for.

 

[Bolo]

Yes, compared to the alternative. If batting deep is the result of picking your best players as in 90s-00s SA of course it's going to be your best choice, but that's because there was no other choice. They didn't have the specialists. Bad example.



No one disagrees with this.

The alternative being picking significantly weaker bowlers in order to bat deep? I don't think anyone is arguing in favour of it.

The RSA example is there to demonstrate how much of a difference batting deep can make to results. The point is the results came in spite of not having players who would typically be preferred had they existed.