andrew flintoff was a bit **** really

[honestbharani]

Yeah, bad example but not my own.

In a similar vein I think Swann is in the conversion for the spinner spot too.

Underwood easily though, right?

 

[cnerd123]

if we're resurrecting ****s from the dead to play cricket then we may as well make them injury proof too, so pick your best bowlers regardless of career length imo

I think career length is relevant to determine how good a cricketer really was IMO. A player with a short career might just be lucky that their entirety of it coincided with them being in good form, and they never had their stats dragged down by playing games out of nick. Also the more cricket you play, the more likely you are to have your technique/variations found out by your opponents, or to come across conditions where your skills get exposed. You could even just experience an elaborate run of bad luck.

Players with short careers can often avoid these shortcomings. It's also why I'm not too harsh to players with short and unsuccessful Test careers either - you never know if things would have turned around for them with just a few more games. Lots of greats have had ****** starts, but kept on getting picked and were able to rectify that.

Having said that, I do think it's totally fine to select a hypothetical team based entirely on how good cricketers were at their absolute peak, but if you are doing that, the pool of players you could select from would be ****ing massive. Way more than if you were trying to pick guys with proven career records. It's why I avoid doing that. Just cbf. Plus haven't seen a lot of these pre- TV players are their best, so it's a lot of reading and imagination to figure out how good they really could be.

When I pick a hypothetical team of dead men, I envisage that they'll be resurrected at the peak of their powers, but will spend maybe 2-3 years playing test series in a wide range of conditions against a wide range of alien/resurrected opponents. And that's why I usually put a lot of weight towards players who have longevity. Players with brittle bodies or limited test careers could easily end up being a liability. I do give some weight to FC stats and other accomplishments for the Barry Richards kind of cricketer, but even then, I usually go for the guy with the longer more proven Test career.

 

[Flem274*]

i get all this however

a) once we ressurrect and get a look at these guys, bowlers in particular, we'll see what they can really do in the inevitable trials
b) it's frank tyson ffs

 

[trundler]

Underwood easily though, right?

Underwood's returns once pitches started to be covered are solid but not mind-blowing. Verity can bat, was good against Bradman and his FC stats are ridiculous. Laker did very well in Australia and 19/90. Played against less than elite Australian sides and had reasonably favourable conditions at home though.

Oh and of course you have the assorted early era SLAs. Blythe, Peele, Briggs, Peate and a little later Rhodes. Must've missed someone.

 

[cnerd123]

you can't really tell how a cricketer will go in Test cricket in a wide range of conditions simply by 'Trials' though. Even assuming you inject them with Wolverine's blood so that they never get injured, you still have no idea how they'll perform under pressure, how they will adapt their bowling to different batting styles/pitches/balls, what their chemistry with other players in this team will be like, etc. Whole host of intangibles that, if a player has had a long and successful career, you could probably not really worry about.

The only English quick bowler that's a lock in my ATG England Squad is Trueman. The rest of the attack is between Tyson, Snow, Bedser, Statham, Willis and Anderson. Barnes is a lock for the squad, but I don't really consider him a 'quick' bowler. Botham probably the quick-bowling AR, although IMO Stokes is not too far away from eclipsing him.

I'd probably pick Rhodes in this squad, which means it's a toss up between Verity and Underwood - quality vs something a bit different. Laker definitely in the squad too.

 

[trundler]

The uncovered pitches factor is huge imo. Don't see many non-Asian offies who average less than 30 these days. Shortish career I know but he had his moments.

 

[trundler]

How the **** did we collectively miss Snow till just now? Fmd ***** mentioned him before me. I feel sick

 

[honestbharani]

Underwood's returns once pitches started to be covered are solid but not mind-blowing. Verity can bat, was good against Bradman and his FC stats are ridiculous. Laker did very well in Australia and 19/90. Played against less than elite Australian sides and had reasonably favourable conditions at home though.

Oh and of course you have the assorted early era SLAs. Blythe, Peele, Briggs, Peate and a little later Rhodes. Must've missed someone.

I am sure you are right but I still think Swann is a bit over-rated if you think he is in this conversation. Guy did benefit the most from DRS out of all the England contenders too.

 

[cnerd123]

The uncovered pitches factor is huge imo. Don't see many non-Asian offies who average less than 30 these days. Shortish career I know but he had his moments.

My hypothetical ATG squads will end up playing on 'sticky' pitches in my head, so I do think it's worth picking a few guys who specialise in those situations. Underwood is also a fairly recent cricketer, which is why I tend to rate him a bit higher than the old-school left arm offies you've mentioned.

The problem I have with picking cricketers from way back in the day is that the further back you go from modern cricket, the more different the game was, and I wonder if the skill sets those generations mastered would still be relevant in cricket as I know it today. This isn't the 'modern cricketers are way better than old cricketers' argument, more along the lines of cricket being such a different game today - in terms of rules, conditions, equipment, etc.

This is again where having a long and successful career is relevant - it atleast shows me that this player has the capacity to adapt their game with changing times. It is hard to say that of a player with a successful career, but contained entirely within a specific era or set of conditions/opponents.

 

[cnerd123]

How the **** did we collectively miss Snow till just now? Fmd ***** mentioned him before me. I feel sick

I mentioned him on page 1 and even linked to a great article about him

Always seems to get forgotten in debates like these.

 

[cnerd123]

I am sure you are right but I still think Swann is a bit over-rated if you think he is in this conversation. Guy did benefit the most from DRS out of all the England contenders too.

Swann's probably England's second greatest right-arm finger spinner behind Laker tbqh. And I think if you watch them both bowl side by side in real time, you might actually think Swann's the better bowler - Laker bowled a lot in friendly conditions, in an era where captains and opposing batsmen respected finger spinners. Swann had a lot more going against him.

I still go for Laker just because how can you not pick a guy who took 19 wickets in a Test, and who has accomplished as much as he had. Plus by all accounts (and stats) the man was a legitimately fantastic bowler.

But Swann's definitely number 2.

 

[trundler]

I can't think of many other decent offies from SENA and WI since 1970. There's basically just Lyon. I also probably overrate Maharaj too for the same reason.

 

[trundler]

Covered pitches + vastly different fielding regulations have made finger spin a lot less threatening. It's basically impossible to compare Swann Laker because of that but Swann has his plus points imo.

 

[cnerd123]

I can't think of many other decent offies from SENA and WI since 1970. There's basically just Lyon. I also probably overrate Maharaj too for the same reason.

Maharaj is great by current standards, but yea doesn't hold a candle to some of the offies in past eras.

It's definitely a dry era for finger spin, as evident by the attitudes towards it on CW lol. Unfortunately while legspin practitioners have found ways to thrive in the T20 era, finger-spinners have found themselves resorting to dodgy doosras and dart flinging. Plus having all these slow and turning tracks in the subcon and Caribbean has actually been to the detriment of finger-spin - it's giving modern day practitioners a comfort zone where they can be effective without having to do the hard work of developing drift, dip and impeccable control. Lyon's outstanding because he's built skills in tough conditions that can serve him wherever he goes. Ashwin, despite having all the talent in the world, hasn't been able to put it together because he can rock up and take bagfuls at home just bowling whatever he feels like.

Having said that - finger spinners are still having more success in Test cricket these past few years than wrist spinners are. Hardly any leggies feature in the conversation of best Test spinner of the past 5 years. Yasir Shah, maybe Imran Tahir? Barrel is bare there, despite the success they've been having in T20s and ODIs.

 

[Dendarii]

Having said that - finger spinners are still having more success in Test cricket these past few years than wrist spinners are. Hardly any leggies feature in the conversation of best Test spinner of the past 5 years. Yasir Shah, maybe Imran Tahir?

Definitely not Tahir. He picked up 57 wickets, but at an average of 40. Although his last test was in 2015, so he wouldn't really feature in a past five years conversation anyway.

 

[trundler]

There's been less than 10 great leg spinners in all of test cricket history though. Warne, O'Reilly, Grimmett, Benaud, Gupte, Chandra, Kumble if he counts and that's basically it. Mailey and Qadir weren't true greats imo.

From the last ~30 years Saqlain and Herath are the standout non Indian spinners to me. This is basically the same chicken and egg conversation about bowling conditions and bowling quality though.

Oh and Wardle is in the English spinner discussion too.

 

[cnerd123]

Yup, exactly my point. Hardly any wrist spinners with success in Test cricket recently. Finger spinners actually proving more effective.

 

[trundler]

Hobbs
Hutton
Barrington
Hammond
Compton
Botham
Knott+
Barnes
Trueman
Laker
Verity

or

Hobbs
Hutton
Barrington
Hammond
Compton
Pieterson
Knott+
Barnes
Trueman
Laker/Verity
Anderson/Tyson

It's all conditions dependent. The first side has the best balance but suffers in the batting somewhat. The second side you could pick based on conditions (sticky/regular wicket for Laker vs Verity, home/away for Anderson vs Tyson). I'd probably look at picking the first side on roads and the second side when there's something in the wicket.

No Peter May in the 2nd XI? An English all time XI sans Botham feels wrong because he's easily the best English cricketer of the last 50 years.

 

[stephen]

I think Pieterson is a genius batsman though. Peter May could easily replace him though. And I forgot to include Suttcliffe in any of this. I'll change my batting order:

Hobbs
Hutton
Sutcliffe
Barrington
Hammond
Compton/May/Pieterson/Botham
Knott+
...

 

[ImpatientLime]

There's been less than 10 great leg spinners in all of test cricket history though. Warne, O'Reilly, Grimmett, Benaud, Gupte, Chandra, Kumble if he counts and that's basically it. Mailey and Qadir weren't true greats imo.

From the last ~30 years Saqlain and Herath are the standout non Indian spinners to me. This is basically the same chicken and egg conversation about bowling conditions and bowling quality though.

Oh and Wardle is in the English spinner discussion too.

on herath i never realised how underwhelming his away stats were.

swann got 7 more test wickets away from home in 11 fewer tests.

5 more 5fers and 1 more 10fer.

to be fair to herath he bowled without a pace attack for large chunks of his career post vaas.