Cricinfo Best Test 11 from last 25 years

[Mr Miyagi]

I talk more **** about me own team than anyone on here. I'm hardly patriotic in the slightest. I know you're obsessed with it though clearly think I am because you try and bring it up all the ****ing time. You try to turn every discussion around to "Australia is ****" lately, even when no one is discussing anything related to it. It took you one post to try to turn this into an Aus v NZ argument.

You're projecting your own obsession on to me.

Nah you got me all wrong - I like talking about NZC, CA being crap is a bonus.

 

[Jack1]

Excellent post, Australia is now in the era where the most misssed players are not Dean Jones, AB, McGrath or Warne but actually Symonds and Watson. The guys who were not appreciated at their time for being the awesome cricketers that they really really were. Even *Twatto. Because they're the guys that not every generation can replace so easily.

Great player Watson to be honest.

 

[trundler]

Excellent post, Australia is now in the era where the most misssed players are not Dean Jones, AB, McGrath or Warne but actually Symonds and Watson. The guys who were not appreciated at their time for being the awesome cricketers that they really really were. Even *Twatto. Because they're the guys that not every generation can replace so easily.

Nah, every team (even an ATXI) could use a McGrath, imo and they really need Border to tell those lazy ****s to get their **** together and git gud or **** off. But hey, I see your point. I just hate associating the word great with Twatto.

 

[TheJediBrah]

To be honest one could argue he's an ATG with those stats across all formats in such a bad team. Let's not forget he has less pressure from bowling at the other end when he bowls (As Bangladesh are generally weak in all three formats). And often batting under pressure. His stats are very good considering that in all the formats.

I understand this obvious argument, but it's largely speculation. We're speculating that he could have done better with more support but for all we know it could be the opposite.

If he was Indian and got a game I'd be surprised if his batting average was anywhere near where it is now. He benefits from getting time to an build innings not have to throw away his wicket almost every game. He also wouldn't have played half his games against minnows.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Shakib in tests has ATG level stats... in ODIs he's a straight up minnow basher

Not quite, but you have a case. As I said to Red Hill he is a top order batsman (or as I suggested put him in the tail as a back end in case of emergency).

Shakib is a fine cricketer who I have no doubt would skate off the coat tails in an England or Indian team. But he isn't afforded that luxury. Anyone who follows the IPL knows he can bowl undoubtedly and even then he isn't the worst bat - even more so as an allrounder.

 

[trundler]

Shakin is very difficult to rate. Overall, his numbers aren't bad but I'm not sure how to rate him in the individual disciplines

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Nah, every team (even an ATXI) could use a McGrath, imo and they really need Border to tell those lazy ****s to get their **** together and git gud or **** off. But hey, I see your point. I just hate associating the word great with Twatto.

I know you do. And I rate AB almost highly as Burgey does. But the fact remains, people now appreciate the allrounders more as every team seemingly has a Root/KW/Smith/Warner/ABdV/Amla/Kohli/Sharma/ but not every team has a Mathews/de Kock/Stokes/Woakes/ (is H Pandya on this already - I think not).

Straight up - I honestly believe this Australian side currently would benefit from a peak Watto and Symonds far more than a Warner/Smith or even a Jones/Hayden. I draw a grey area at Mark Waugh who was criminally underrated internationally and by Australians post Gilly.

 

[Jack1]

I understand this obvious argument, but it's largely speculation. We're speculating that he could have done better with more support but for all we know it could be the opposite.

If he was Indian and got a game I'd be surprised if his batting average was anywhere near where it is now. He benefits from getting time to an build innings not have to throw away his wicket almost every game. He also wouldn't have played half his games against minnows.

I agree his batting average would probably drop in a better side, but his SR would increase. I would have thought in a better side his bowling stats would be better however across all three formats.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

I agree his batting average would probably drop in a better side, but his SR would increase. I would have thought in a better side his bowling stats would be better however across all three formats.

Shakib can play - but he's not a power hitter. Any SRH fan will tell you this. I am a SRH fan (please don't ban me for following t20). -(I didn't want a t20 franchise - it is KW's fault goddammit)

 

[TheJediBrah]

I agree his batting average would probably drop in a better side, but his SR would increase. I would have thought in a better side his bowling stats would be better however across all three formats.

Not when you look at who he's played. Averages 40+ with the ball against India's biggest opponents for example.

His stats are minnow-padded to the max.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Not when you look at who he's played. Averages 40+ with the ball against India's biggest opponents for example.

His stats are minnow-padded to the max.

Averages are the dark ages. It is limited overs. What is his S/R and what is his E/R? Noone is looking to bowl anyone out anymore, and if they are - they're thick.

What is their score in 50 overs, what do they score in 50 overs. It is the age of enlightenment.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

I'm serious btw, give me peak:

Mark Waugh, Andrew Symonds, Shane Watson and Adam Gilchrist - I can solve with current players the Aus ODI team:

Give me Punter, Jones/Bevan, McGrath and Warne - I am unable to. Seriously.

 

[Jack1]

Not when you look at who he's played. Averages 40+ with the ball against India's biggest opponents for example.

His stats are minnow-padded to the max.

He isn't playing for India though, he's playing for Bangladesh. His average would improve against all teams with the ball I'd imagine. His bowling average is terrible against Sri Lanka in Odis I can see that, but the economy rate is 4.73 which is ok. Lots to consider, I can see your argument here

 

[Cow]

Mark Waugh, Andrew Symonds, Shane Watson and Adam Gilchrist -

4 immensely overrated players

 

[Mr Miyagi]

He isn't playing for India though, he's playing for Bangladesh. His average would improve against all teams with the ball I'd imagine. His bowling average is terrible against Sri Lanka in Odis I can see that, but the economy rate is 4.73 which is ok. Lots to consider, I can see your argument here

I have watched far too much IPL of late. No true Indian cricket fan would call Shakib an E/R liability. They know their IPL and who leaks runs. Shakib is not one.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

4 immensely overrated players

Gilchrist, maybe. The reamining three are criminally underrated even by Australians - because cricket fans seem to think all rounders (good in the field as well) grow on trees. But they really don't.

In Eng, NZ and SA we prioritise all-rounders, but those that make the team on one bow, are worth even more, those that compete on two bows - possibly even more again.

My hypothesis is this - Eng knew when they had Flintoff they had a good thing. NZ knew the same in Cairns. SA less in Kleusner but they got it. Aus never got it but now they know they're missing something. I can tell them what it is!

 

[cnerd123]

Shakin is very difficult to rate. Overall, his numbers aren't bad but I'm not sure how to rate him in the individual disciplines

Thing with Shakib, to me, is that he has one of those skillsets that looks much better when in a stronger team.

As a tight but un-threatening finger spinner he benefits by having bowlers who can take wickets at the other end, or atleast build pressure so he can get batsmen out when they're on the attack. Without support he just gets milked around and ends up with 0/48 kinda figures.

As a flamboyant strokemaker without a great big-hitting game, he works much better in a middle order when he has a top order who can set a platform and a lower order than can finish. Enables him to be carefree and aggressive in the middle overs, which is where he really shines tbh. Not in rebuilding after a top order collapse, or attempting to pick up the pace in the last 10 overs.

He's got a good skillset - I think his Test performances and occasional cameos in ODIs, plus his IPL performances, is evidence that he does have the skills to be considered a world-class player. But I think he suffers from not having a team around him that enables him to play the role that fits him best - and this is reflected in his stats. He's much better when playing at home or against lesser nations - situations where the rest of the team performs better, thus letting him play the role that fits him best. But understandably that comes off as minnow bashing and such.

The inherent struggles of trying to analyse individual performances within the context of a team sport I suppose.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Some serious mental gymnastics there ***** but i respect that

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Some serious mental gymnastics there ***** but i respect that

I'm more interested in which Olympic medal winning Australia team gymnastics members you do respect seriously? Has there ever been one? Google is failing me if so.

 

[trundler]

Thing with Shakib, to me, is that he has one of those skillsets that looks much better when in a stronger team.

As a tight but un-threatening finger spinner he benefits by having bowlers who can take wickets at the other end, or atleast build pressure so he can get batsmen out when they're on the attack. Without support he just gets milked around and ends up with 0/48 kinda figures.

As a flamboyant strokemaker without a great big-hitting game, he works much better in a middle order when he has a top order who can set a platform and a lower order than can finish. Enables him to be carefree and aggressive in the middle overs, which is where he really shines tbh. Not in rebuilding after a top order collapse, or attempting to pick up the pace in the last 10 overs.

He's got a good skillset - I think his Test performances and occasional cameos in ODIs, plus his IPL performances, is evidence that he does have the skills to be considered a world-class player. But I think he suffers from not having a team around him that enables him to play the role that fits him best - and this is reflected in his stats. He's much better when playing at home or against lesser nations - situations where the rest of the team performs better, thus letting him play the role that fits him best. But understandably that comes off as minnow bashing and such.

The inherent struggles of trying to analyse individual performances within the context of a team sport I suppose.

Good points but I'm not going to take the word of someone with that avatar on this!