Cricinfo Best Test 11 from last 25 years

[Mr Miyagi]

How do you get to the more wickets conclusion considering Hadlee was well ahead on strike rate considering the era and had a proven capacity for bowling a ton of overs?

80's (roughly 2/3 of Hadlees career) was also higher scoring than the 90's (roughly half of McGraths career)

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

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

 

[TheJediBrah]

How do you get to the more wickets conclusion considering Hadlee was well ahead on strike rate considering the era and had a proven capacity for bowling a ton of overs?

Seems to be like McGrath bowled to better players more often and less helpful bowling conditions more often. I just think he was simply a better bowler.

 

[cnerd123]

Why yes my face is indeed an emphatic win

Just like your posts?

 

[Daemon]

Just like your posts?

Exactly like my posts. Thanks everyone, feeling good about myself now.

 

[Bolo]

Seems to be like McGrath bowled to better players more often and less helpful bowling conditions more often. I just think he was simply a better bowler.

I agree with all of this. But it doesn't lead me to the conclusion that he was the better strike bowler

 

[trundler]

The difference in SR is marginal to begin with. McGrath's SR is over far more tests, too. Up until about his 90th test, McGrath's SR was about 50.4. I realise Hadlee's career wasn't shorter than McGrath but McGrath still maintained his SR (as well as average) over more tests though. I'll take that. If you just take SL out of Hadlee's record it evens out with McGrath's (both being about 52 whilst McGrath was over a longer duration). McGrath has a higher percentage of top-order wickets as well and that's how I'll use him. Get rid of the opposition's best batsman (#3 presumably) and opener with Marshall.

 

[trundler]

80's (roughly 2/3 of Hadlees career) was also higher scoring than the 90's (roughly half of McGraths career)

A decade of toil for bowlers | Cricket | ESPNcricinfo

The decade of the batsmen | Cricket | ESPNcricinfo

Wouldn't that mean the strike rates for that era would be higher too?

The difference in average between 80s and 90s is less than 1 whilst between 90s and 200s, it's over 2.

Edit: McGrath vs Hadlee isn't a debate I want to have. They both complete my top 3, respectively and I'll settle for either, even for a lesser bowler like Ambrose or Garner. Pick whoever suits your game plan

 

[Bolo]

The difference in SR is marginal to begin with. McGrath's SR is over far more tests, too. Up until about his 90th test, McGrath's SR was about 50.4. I realise Hadlee's career wasn't shorter than McGrath but McGrath still maintained his SR (as well as average) over more tests though. I'll take that. If you just take SL out of Hadlee's record it evens out with McGrath's (both being about 52 whilst McGrath was over a longer duration). McGrath has a higher percentage of top-order wickets as well and that's how I'll use him. Get rid of the opposition's best batsman (#3 presumably) and opener with Marshall.

The difference in sr is marginal. McGrath benefited from playing in an era of higher strike rates- Hadlees strike rate was phenomenal for his era, while McGraths was merely very good.

I'm not using this point to say Hadlee would necessarily strike quicker if they played in the same era, merely that I don't see a reason to believe McGrath would do so. Hadlee has the capacity for bowling at least as many overs as McGrath, so I think Hadlee would take at least as many wickets.

If McGraths only advantage lies in the average he is likely to pick wickets up for, I defer to Hadlee's batting.

 

[Engle]

There is no hard and fast line on this debate - very interesting though I must say.

Generally, if you're picking for an ATG team, then you pick your best bowlers regardless. You have the very best batsmen anyways. Thus picking bowlers who can bat a bit, is a slap in the face of the ATG batsmen. You're doubting their ability.

If you're picking for a non-ATG team (a national team), then you consider the bowlers batting ability. Cause you don't have the best of the best batsmen

My 2 cents

 

[Borges]

An ATG team would be bowling to another near ATG set of batsmen. What these discussions do not take into account is that the stats of these bowlers would be significantly poorer when they bowl to batsmen who are not like most of the run of the mill batsmen to whom they have bowled throughout their careers. If we take that into account, the difference between the strike rates of Steyn, and that of, say McGrath or Imran, is astronomical.

 

[Bolo]

There is no hard and fast line on this debate - very interesting though I must say.

Generally, if you're picking for an ATG team, then you pick your best bowlers regardless. You have the very best batsmen anyways. Thus picking bowlers who can bat a bit, is a slap in the face of the ATG batsmen. You're doubting their ability.

If you're picking for a non-ATG team (a national team), then you consider the bowlers batting ability. Cause you don't have the best of the best batsmen

My 2 cents

Your batsmen are sensitive snowflakes .

This argument would work for picking batmen who can bowl. But bowlers are going to be asked to bat in the vast majority of matches. The extra runs are handy.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

There is no hard and fast line on this debate - very interesting though I must say.

Generally, if you're picking for an ATG team, then you pick your best bowlers regardless. You have the very best batsmen anyways. Thus picking bowlers who can bat a bit, is a slap in the face of the ATG batsmen. You're doubting their ability.

If you're picking for a non-ATG team (a national team), then you consider the bowlers batting ability. Cause you don't have the best of the best batsmen

My 2 cents

No, the batsmen should not be offended because all players are given a batting order. Steve Waugh made McGrath his batting pupil not because anyone doubted Steve Waugh was a good batsman, but because tail end runs matter in matches.

 

[smash84]

There is no hard and fast line on this debate - very interesting though I must say.

Generally, if you're picking for an ATG team, then you pick your best bowlers regardless. You have the very best batsmen anyways. Thus picking bowlers who can bat a bit, is a slap in the face of the ATG batsmen. You're doubting their ability.

If you're picking for a non-ATG team (a national team), then you consider the bowlers batting ability. Cause you don't have the best of the best batsmen

My 2 cents

What slap in the face? You're picking ATG bowlers who were competent batsmen. You're not filling your team up with the likes of Azhar Mahmood and Jimmy Adams.

Plus the assumption is that the ATG team will play another ATG team. Not that they will be sent to thrash Bangladesh or Zimbabwe.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Okay, so Bolo, Smalish84 and myself are not buying the slap in the face argument to the top order at all it would seem.

 

[trundler]

Yeah, that's hyperbole. I'm picking the best bowler according to my ideal bowling unit, and I don't think my #11's batting is something to consider when doing that. Personal opinion, of course.

 

[smash84]

Yeah, that's hyperbole. I'm picking the best bowler according to my ideal bowling unit, and I don't think my #11's batting is something to consider when doing that. Personal opinion, of course.

yes, when your AT XI comes up against another AT XI is when the number 11 batting will count.

It was far far easier to dislodge McGrath than it was to dislodge Imran or Hadlee. The effect is not just limited to the batsmen themselves but also that they would be able to build partnerships and hold up one end while the batsmen at the other end score runs.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Yeah, that's hyperbole. I'm picking the best bowler according to my ideal bowling unit, and I don't think my #11's batting is something to consider when doing that. Personal opinion, of course.

Which is why I may take Murali over Warne, but for numbers 8 and 9, and 10 maybe, I think batting is crucial. Given the hyperbolical choice of Warne vs Murali to be consistent, I'll take Warne every day with Imran at 8, Hadlee at 9 and Marshall at 11 after Warne and not before Murali.

I cringe if a team I am supporting has a weak number 8 every single time I see the team list and I like a strong number 9 too. We've all seen or know of many tests where the runs of Pollock, Imran, Hadlee, Warne, Jadeja, Dev, Botham, Streak even Holder (as poor a bowler as he is) et al mattered and made a real difference. Even the tail end fight where the game is the balance. Even Wasim for that matter, a few lusty blows in the first or third innings can totally change the result in the fourth.

A strong 10 is a bonus, but in an ATG side, I'm taking that bonus if the opportunity cost is minimal.

Batting matters for all test cricketers, even when its only their secondary and not primary role. Just look at Nathan Lyon's innings at Adelaide in 2015.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...d-test-new-zealand-tour-of-australia-2015-16/

Hazelwood may have been motm, but I distinctly remember Lyon being the one who won it for Australia being him with the bat (and a useful 3 wickets showing with the ball too).

 

[Engle]

Ok, so everyone's focused on my ' slap in the face ' comment - to the exclusion of everything else. That was not the salient point of my post ( it was more rhetorical than anything )

My point is for an ATG team, you're picking the best of the best batsmen. So too should you pick the best of the best bowlers.

For a non-ATG team, then yes, S.Waugh as captain will pupil McGrath to improve his batting.
But if it was at ATG team led by Don Bradman (with the likes of Hobbs, Gavaskar, V.Richards in tow), do you think he would pupil McGrath to improve his batting ?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Ok, so everyone's focused on my ' slap in the face ' comment - to the exclusion of everything else. That was not the salient point of my post ( it was more rhetorical than anything )

My point is for an ATG team, you're picking the best of the best batsmen. So too should you pick the best of the best bowlers.

Why? Bowlers have to bat more times than batsmen have to bowl.

For a non-ATG team, then yes, S.Waugh as captain will pupil McGrath to improve his batting.
But if it was at ATG team led by Don Bradman (with the likes of Hobbs, Gavaskar, V.Richards in tow), do you think he would pupil McGrath to improve his batting ?

Yes. Given how successful Australia was as as one of the greatest sides ever, and yet, there Steve Waugh was, helping McGrath with his batting. It isn't just the bowler's runs, it is increasing the runs of a not out batsman too by batting longer when required. Bradman not out on 80 is much different to Bradman making over 200.

 

[Bolo]

Ok, so everyone's focused on my ' slap in the face ' comment - to the exclusion of everything else. That was not the salient point of my post ( it was more rhetorical than anything )

My point is for an ATG team, you're picking the best of the best batsmen. So too should you pick the best of the best bowlers.

For a non-ATG team, then yes, S.Waugh as captain will pupil McGrath to improve his batting.
But if it was at ATG team led by Don Bradman (with the likes of Hobbs, Gavaskar, V.Richards in tow), do you think he would pupil McGrath to improve his batting ?

You only need 5 bowlers if 4 of them are ATGs. There will be a tiny advantage to picking a 6th bowler, but they really aren't going to be doing much beyond the 5th- they simply aren't going to be bowling at all in many matches. Compare to bowlers who will be batting at least once in the majority of matches.

Sobers is available, who you don't have to make any sacrifice at all on the batting to get the 5th bowler. If he didn't exist, I would happily take a small knock in batting strength to get Kallis in the team unless the choice of best bats coincidentally provides some otherwise solid bowling options