What made the mid-1980s Indian ODI team so good?

[mr_mister]

Nah, Harvey's definitely considered ATVG I think

Never gets talked about as a potential bat for our ATG XI

 

[trundler]

75 tests back then is equivalent to 130+ today. No one had played that many before. Averaged 60 in the first half like Viv and Ponting. Was the best batsman in the world for an extended period. Imo he (alongside Hill) was as good as say Chappell and Border but doesn't make it because his #3 spot is taken by Bradman.

 

[morgieb]

What irks me is that Ponting and Harvey aren't afforded the same luxury of not being judged by the period in which they were clearly past it

Problem with Harvey was just how young he was when he started to decline. Declining so dramatically in your late 20's is far harder to excuse than declining in your late 30's.

Ponting's problem was that the post-peak period was so long, and I also think the quality of team plays into it? Plus every other ATG bat (other that Dravid) at the time was gunning it deep into their 30's.

 

[mr_mister]

Who was the first man to crack 100 tests?

 

[morgieb]

Who was the first man to crack 100 tests?

IIRC it's Colin Cowdrey.

 

[mr_mister]

IIRC it's Colin Cowdrey.

Boring.

 

[h_hurricane]

Problem with Harvey was just how young he was when he started to decline. Declining so dramatically in your late 20's is far harder to excuse than declining in your late 30's.

This is so true about Botham as well. Word by word in fact. Yet, many choose to ignore his entire 30s.

 

[mr_mister]

And Viv too.

 

[vcs]

Viv's stats are still ATVG level at the very least, even after his decline. Botham's decline really hurt his statistics, plus there's the "never excelled against the best team of his era" thing.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Nah, Harvey's definitely considered ATVG I think

Never gets talked about as a potential bat for our ATG XI

He makes the NZ ATG team though

There are plenty ATG players who don't make their country's ATG XI, especially from Aus & Eng

 

[trundler]

He makes the NZ ATG team though

There are plenty ATG players who don't make their country's ATG XI, especially from Aus & Eng

He's at least better than Laxman, Abbas and KP too.

 

[h_hurricane]

It is very hard to find a glaring hole in Viv's resume.

Did he put up a great record by bullying opposition in home tracks ? No.

Was he poor touring in Aus, Eng, Pak or India ? No.

Did the best bowlers in his opposition (Lillee, Hadlee and Imran) chew him up time and again ? No.

Was he poor in NZ ? Yes, for a series, if that could be called a hole

Comparing him to the likes of MoYo and Mark Waugh who were leagues below him as batsmen and have fair amount of holes in their resumes isn't apt at all.

 

[mr_mister]

It is very hard to find a glaring hole in Viv's resume.

Did he put up a great record by bullying opposition in home tracks ? No.

Was he poor touring in Aus, Eng, Pak or India ? No.

Did the best bowlers in his opposition (Lillee, Hadlee and Imran) chew him up time and again ? No.

Was he poor in NZ ? Yes, for a series, if that could be called a hole

Comparing him to the likes of MoYo and Mark Waugh who were leagues below him as batsmen and have fair amount of holes in their resumes isn't apt at all.

Do I need to find a hole considering what my argument is? He is considered by many to be the second greatest batsman after Bradman

the burden of proof is on people to prove to me why a guy who averaged early 40s for an entire decade during his career is worthy of such a reputation


https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...an;template=results;type=batting;view=innings


look at that. Literally Mark Waugh

maybe he didn't have a glaring hole, but he had a long period of time without a glaring peak either. just consistently 'okay' for a long time

 

[Bolo.]

Saying Tendulkar only has longevity over other great batsmen is the most brain-dead, simplistic crock of revisionist bullshit I keep encountering on here. By 2001 both Bradman and Benaud put him in their all time XIs. Benaud rated him just a touch above Greg Chappell, Lara and all other middle order batsmen he'd seen. Do better.

To frame it in simplistic terms, I think it can be more or less reduced to longevity. A 22 year career means he was playing on both ends of the age spectrum where a lesser bat would have no business being in the team, and would have had much better numbers to show for it.

Even his famously well rounded record (40+) is largely a function of his longevity- like everyone else (although admittedly much less so than almost everyone else) he failed a lot in series. The thing that kept his record so rounded is the fact that he had sufficient repeat series to correct his record.

Not a slight on Sachin at all. He is comfortably the best bat since his debut. I just dont see a problem in recognising the contribution of longevity.

 

[h_hurricane]

Do I need to find a hole considering what my argument is? He is considered by many to be the second greatest batsman after Bradman

the burden of proof is on people to prove to me why a guy who averaged early 40s for an entire decade during his career is worthy of such a reputation


https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...an;template=results;type=batting;view=innings


look at that. Literally Mark Waugh

maybe he didn't have a glaring hole, but he had a long period of time without a glaring peak either. just consistently 'okay' for a long time

Viv averaged 62 in the first 40% of his career and 42 in the last 60%. Mark Waugh averaged 45 in the first 40% of his career and 40 in the last 60%. I am not a big fan of peak rating, but why such a significant chunk is taken out lol. The first half of their career kind of explains the difference in their stature isn't it ? If Viv was **** poor in the second half and dragged his average to under 45 overall, you may have had a point.

Viv Richards being the 2nd best batsman after Bradman isn't written in stone but it isn't a ridiculous opinion either considering there isn't another batsman apart from Don clearly running away from him.

 

[Daemon]

Roger Binny surprisingly seems to have been a very decent test cricketer prima facie tbh.

27 tests, 830 runs @ 23 and 47 wickets @ 32.

Most sides would take that.

I was about to say the above shows he was very low impact scoring 30 odd runs per game and taking under 2wpm, but it seems to be the opposite, especially with the ball. He made a couple of match winning contributions, but on the flip side has zero wickets in about half the Tests he played.

 

[Moss]

While the 1983 WC win was a huge upset and India ought to have been outmatched then, the 1985 team which won the World Championship of Cricket down under was a serious side. Had batting depth all the way down, a classy middle order (Azhar, Vengsarkar, Gavaskar, Amarnath), a range of allrounders, and unusually for an Indian side those days fielded well. The use of two spinners Siva and Shastri as attacking options was quite unusual for its time too, aided by Sadanand Vishwanath who was a real asset behind the stumps in that tournament. [Siva and Sada both faded away soon after, rumours about their off-field lifestyles seem to have been a thing.]

Also, this is so good to watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a26MmJuxDos

 

[mr_mister]

Viv averaged 62 in the first 40% of his career and 42 in the last 60%. Mark Waugh averaged 45 in the first 40% of his career and 40 in the last 60%. I am not a big fan of peak rating, but why such a significant chunk is taken out lol. The first half of their career kind of explains the difference in their stature isn't it ? If Viv was **** poor in the second half and dragged his average to under 45 overall, you may have had a point.

Viv Richards being the 2nd best batsman after Bradman isn't written in stone but it isn't a ridiculous opinion either considering there isn't another batsman apart from Don clearly running away from him.

Okay, I really think there are several batsman who are clearly running away from him based on their stats. Hammond, Hobbs, Hutton, Lara, Sachin, Sobers, Steve Smith.

And I think there are batsman who go neck-a-neck for him statistically like Dravid who would never in a million years be rated higher than him by anyone

I'm not saying Mark Waugh was as good as him, I definitely rate Viv a lot higher than Junior- I'm just using Mark Waugh as an example of someone who was only 'okay' relatively, and nowhere near the conversation for second greatest bat after Bradman, and then illustrating that for over a decade Viv scored his runs at a similar average. And when your test career is 17 years long a decade is a big ol chunk of it.

I guess my beef is with intangibles mattering as much as they do. They seem too wishy washy

 

[harsh.ag]

I was about to say the above shows he was very low impact scoring 30 odd runs per game and taking under 2wpm, but it seems to be the opposite, especially with the ball. He made a couple of match winning contributions, but on the flip side has zero wickets in about half the Tests he played.

Heh. Hopefully in India most of these games

 

[srbhkshk]

To frame it in simplistic terms, I think it can be more or less reduced to longevity. A 22 year career means he was playing on both ends of the age spectrum where a lesser bat would have no business being in the team, and would have had much better numbers to show for it.

Even his famously well rounded record (40+) is largely a function of his longevity- like everyone else (although admittedly much less so than almost everyone else) he failed a lot in series. The thing that kept his record so rounded is the fact that he had sufficient repeat series to correct his record.

Not a slight on Sachin at all. He is comfortably the best bat since his debut. I just dont see a problem in recognising the contribution of longevity.

Is it though? Even before the 00 decade started, he averaged 74 in England, 49 in Australia , 58 in WI , 50 in NZ and 37 in SA. It's only SA where there was a "hole" if you want to call it that and he still had 2 centuries there.