CW Decides The XI of the Decade

[Burgey]

Ya, doesn't matter how strong England were. Cook and Anderson are two of the 4 players I would consider least acceptable to leave out of this team (with Steyn and Smith). Everyone else is practically drawing names out of a hat.

Stokes a bit lucky, because Herath was a mistake that made balancing the side tough. Should have been Ashwin and Shakib.

I reiterate, if you’re naming two spinners in a “best of” or AT side, you’re doing it wrong.

 

[Spark]

Agree with this. In the end, we get a near SENA only outfit with an Indian and Sri Lankan thrown in there to have some subcontinental representation England should not have 3 players in any decade team in the last 50 years let alone this decade.

FWIW, here is the summary of how teams have performed in this decade.

Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

This is such an utterly grim lens through which to view sport.

 

[h_hurricane]

Australia were better at winning, South Africa were more cautious and better at not losing.

Yeah, Australia just had 26% drawn matches, SA had 36%.

For once, I remember Ind-SA series in 1992-93 (SA's first at home after readmission). Both sides were scoring runs at 1 run per over from the start,gradually upping the scoring rate to 1.5-1.6, crawling towards 2. Ravi Shastri was the star of this show with the likes of Wessels reciprocating brilliantly from the opposition. Kapil Dev's 129 at Port Elizabeth was a refreshing change to the proceedings.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

How about a best of the rest XI (and I know the openers aren't specialists):

Pujara
Amla
Sangakkara
Younis K
Taylor/Root?
ABDV (wk)
Shakib/Holder depending on conditions
Ashwin
Cummins
Rabada
Wagner

I reckon this side could beat the other one. It would be more equipped at taking wickets in tough bowling conditions.

 

[h_hurricane]

This is such an utterly grim lens through which to view sport.

Which part of the post you didn't like ? I did agree with OS's post that this is a collection of best individual performers and not the best teams. Stokes was indeed lucky to make it ahead of Shakib or Ashwin not just because they were better but also because he has only played 6 years in this decade.
Cook and Anderson probably deserved it more because of their longevity and lack of competition, simply not because they had irrepressible ATG records(more so in the case of Anderson who had gaping holes).
Also, if you go through the last 50 years, there simply hasn't been a decade where 3 Englishmen would be in a decade ATG team.

 

[vcs]

Except SA never won a series between them

Which would make Pakistan a better side than England this past decade

 

[h_hurricane]

I reiterate, if you’re naming two spinners in a “best of” or AT side, you’re doing it wrong.

They are not just spinners. They add a lot in terms of lower order batting. Add Philander to it, batting until 9 becomes pretty damn good. The fast bowling options through this decade are not exactly earth shattering with the glorious exception of Steyn.

I would go with the below order

7.Shakib
8.Ashwin
9.Philander
10.Steyn
11.Anderson(hate to pick him, but there isn't much choice)

 

[harsh.ag]

There is zero reason to pick Philander over Rabada. 216 wickets for Philander, 183 for Rabada. They both sucked equally in India.

 

[CricAddict]

Cummins, Rabada and Shakib/Ashwin/Jadeja over Stokes, Philander and Herath will make this a very good team.

 

[h_hurricane]

Rabada hardly played 4-5 years though. He is only 24,his best is ahead of him and should be a pick for the next decade.

With Philander, at least you get 7-8 years of sample size though Rabada is a better bowler objectively.

 

[h_hurricane]

Really looking forward to see the upcoming decade for the promise it holds for fast bowlers. Cummins, Rabada, Bumrah and some young Pak bowlers.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Rabada hardly played 4-5 years though. He is only 24,his best is ahead of him and should be a pick for the next decade.

With Philander, at least you get 7-8 years of sample size though Rabada is a better bowler objectively.

Despite the sample of 8 years vs 4, rabada has only 30 fewer wickets.

 

[OverratedSanity]

There is zero reason to pick Philander over Rabada. 216 wickets for Philander, 183 for Rabada. They both sucked equally in India.

Don't even think they sucked equally tbh. Rabada atleast had some threatening spells and bowled tons of overs.

 

[morgieb]

Hmm a 90s XI:

Gooch
Slater
Lara
Tendulkar
S Waugh
De Silva
Healy+
Akram
Warne
Donald
Ambrose

IIRC when we chose it a couple of years ago it was the same as what you had but with Anwar instead of Slater.

 

[stephen]

IIRC when we chose it a couple of years ago it was the same as what you had but with Anwar instead of Slater.

The second opener slot is pretty much the only "up for debate" slot IMO.

2nd XI:

Anwar
Taylor
Boon
M Waugh
Crowe
Inzamam-ul-Haq
Stewart+
Waqar
Kumble
Walsh
McGrath

Huge step down in the batting and spin departments, but the pace bowlers were almost as good. Would love to squeeze Pollock in there but I don't think he could displace any of the three other quicks based on 90s accomplishment. Kumble over Murali for the batting (their bowling stats were virtually identical in the 90s).

Third XI:

Kirsten
Atherton
Fleming
Cullinan
Dravid
Border (c)
Flower+
Pollock
Bishop
McDermott
Murali

which has a damn fine attack but other than a past it Border and a green Dravid didn't have much in the way of batting. Match fixers excluded for obvious reasons.

 

[silentstriker]

I reiterate, if you’re naming two spinners in a “best of” or AT side, you’re doing it wrong.

Spot the non Indian.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

The second opener slot is pretty much the only "up for debate" slot IMO.

2nd XI:

Anwar
Taylor
Boon
M Waugh
Crowe
Inzamam-ul-Haq
Stewart+
Waqar
Kumble
Walsh
McGrath

Huge step down in the batting and spin departments, but the pace bowlers were almost as good. Would love to squeeze Pollock in there but I don't think he could displace any of the three other quicks based on 90s accomplishment. Kumble over Murali for the batting (their bowling stats were virtually identical in the 90s).

Third XI:

Kirsten
Atherton
Fleming
Cullinan
Dravid
Border (c)
Flower+
Pollock
Bishop
McDermott
Murali

which has a damn fine attack but other than a past it Border and a green Dravid didn't have much in the way of batting. Match fixers excluded for obvious reasons.

How did Stephen (2 100s and 23 50s in the 90s) Fleming make that Third XI??!! Amongst NZers in that decade he was well behind Crowe (obviously), John Wright (who averaged over 50 from 1990 to retirement in 1993), Andrew Jones (av of 45), and even Craig McMillan who started his career brilliantly and Nathan Astle who scored 2 test 100s on a tour of the Windies. Fleming's conversion rate was still pretty bad after 2000 but was absolutely horrific in the 90s.

John Wright was an absolute gun opener from 1990-1993 (up with Gooch imo as the best in the world).

 

[OverratedSanity]

Crowe: 32 matches, 2317 runs @45, 7 hundreds, 7 fifties
Inzamam: 58 matches, 3717 runs @43, 8 hundreds, 23 fifties
Dravid: 34 matches, 2698 runs @50, 6 hundreds, 6 fifties

You'd take Dravid's record for that period over the other two wouldnt you? Had some terrific overseas tours as well.

 

[Burgey]

Spot the non Indian.

If you want to take two spinners into tests outside the SC then don't worry about picking AT teams to play against you, settle for an Australian team from 1985 or a 1990s England outfit. Both will beat you as often as not. Picking two spinners to play every test in SA, England, NZ & Aus is a recipe for losing. It's just that simple.

 

[Burgey]

They are not just spinners. They add a lot in terms of lower order batting. Add Philander to it, batting until 9 becomes pretty damn good. The fast bowling options through this decade are not exactly earth shattering with the glorious exception of Steyn.

I would go with the below order

7.Shakib
8.Ashwin
9.Philander
10.Steyn
11.Anderson(hate to pick him, but there isn't much choice)

But if you aren't taking 20 wickets you aren't winning. This isn't a Hadlee vs Ambrose or McGrath argument, where you plumb for the former because his batting is better despite the averages and output being consistent with the ball - these spinners you're wanting to pick two of are cod ordinary in half the world. It's a massive step down to have two in the one side.

That bowling attack stinks as a "best of" line up, Steyn aside. The conditions required to make Philander and Anderson bowl their best are anathema to those which assist Ashwin and Al Hasan. And that's because those four bowlers are not really ultra-top shelf, are they? Like I said, it's a rubbish decade for ATG bowlers, made worse by the line ups chosen in this thread. IMO you can have one of Anderson or Philander (I'd take Anderson because he tries all the time) and pick one of Rabada/ Cummins/ Johnson/ Bumrah/ Shami because they wouldn't throw the ball back to you if there's no cloud cover or the pitch is dry.

If you're going to rely on two spinners, you forfeit half your games around the world with those in the frame in this thread. I include Lyon in that, who is probably the most consistent around the world, but it's consistently pretty average by "best of" or ATG standards, isn't it?