What is your ALL TIME WORLD XI TEAM for tests?

[ataraxia]

Miller was a top 30 quick bowler when I did my fast bowler survival last year and that's probably fair.

He was 33rd, and I said something along the lines of it isn't good enough.

 

[Gob]

So much drivel in this thread.

Warne vs Murali can early descend into removing stats in many different ways. If you remove Murali's stats against minnows, Murali fans will say to remove stats against Australia. Australian fans will then say if we do that, we should look at away records only because Murali played in a home county that favoured spin. If we do that Murali fans will say Warne got most of those wickets feasting on hapless English batsmen. By the time we're done removing stats, both of them took a dozen wickets at an advocate of 25 in a simulated game against ATG players.

Fact is that they were both fine bowlers who had similar weaknesses (record against India in India, periods of relative mediocrity (start of Murali's career, middle of Warne's)). They're both the top two wicket takers in history. Which one you pick is probably based more on how they did against/ for your team than anything else.

Also, wpm either means little or Lillee should be rated more highly by those on this site. It only seems to be used when denigrating an obvious ATG. Fact is it has more to do with bowling workload and support than much else.

Miller was a top 30 quick bowler when I did my fast bowler survival last year and that's probably fair. Extremely valuable player and only overshadowed by 25 other guys from half a dozen nations in a hundred years of cricket. Sounds like an ATG to me, especially when you factor in his batting and his war injury which meant he bowled with back pain for most of his career. Kapil was not as good with bat or ball, despite being a very fine bowler and clearly amongst the top two Indian pace bowlers ever.

They say that Miller was a better batsman and a worse bowler to what his statistics suggest. They also say that serving in the war put things in perspective to him which eventually led him to not to take the game with the same intensity as he did before serving in the airforce

But they say that and they could well be wrong

 

[TheJediBrah]

If we do that Murali fans will say Warne got most of those wickets feasting on hapless English batsmen.

I've seen people say that. Brainless argument. Warne only averaged slightly less against England than his career average. No where near as meaningful as Murali taking 180 wickets against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe at an average of 14 lol

 

[Victor Ian]

Haha. 180 wickets, because, you know...protractor!

 

[Gob]

I've seen people say that. Brainless argument. Warne only averaged slightly less against England than his career average. No where near as meaningful as Murali taking 180 wickets against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe at an average of 14 lol

Anyone who suggest taking wickets against England is equal to beating up Ban/Zim is a moron. England is the most successful non subcontinent side in the subcontinent since the turn of the century

Although you can argue whether Warne can replicate Murali's feat if had the same opportunities vs minnows. My gut feel is he will fall long way short. Warne was amazing at rising up to a big occasion but he also got canned by Sharia Nafees and Habibul Bashar and generally hadn't been great when stakes were low (except when playing India)

 

[honestbharani]

England in the 90s were headless chicken against spin. Anyone who thinks they were better than Bangladesh in the 00s is an absolute moron.

 

[Burgey]

Interesting point re wpm raised with regards to DK. His partnership with Thommo actually overshadows that for some significant parts of his career he didn't have much support too. Not Murali or Hadlee levels of bereft, but some average performers. Max Walker took the new ball with him for a time, then there was Geoff Dymock and Len Pascoe. Hogg was around but in and out of the side with injury. Alderman was good in England in 81 but not all that much elsewhere really. Lawson came on pretty strong in the last few years of Lillee's career, but a few of those years from say 77-82 were a bit dusty on the support front, including in WSC when he also had Mick Malone.

 

[Gob]

Anyone who thinks they were better than Bangladesh in the 00s is an absolute moron.

We are all friends here. No need to go for personal insults

 

[OverratedSanity]

England in the 90s were headless chicken against spin. Anyone who thinks they were better than Bangladesh in the 00s is an absolute moron.

TIL I'm a moron

 

[honestbharani]

We are all friends here. No need to go for personal insults

TIL I'm a moron

Meant when it comes to playing spin, BD in 2000s > England in 90s. Obviously exaggerated and used the same word Gob said earlier.

England definitely turned the corner once Hussain took over esp. when it came to playing spin.

 

[TheJediBrah]

England in the 90s were headless chicken against spin. Anyone who thinks they were better than Bangladesh in the 00s is an absolute moron.

Can you just not today? Such a dumb post. I even spelled out the averages for you earlier. Murali averaged 21 against England and 13-15 against Ban and Zim. You are completely and demonstrably wrong.

 

[Gob]

Meant Obviously exaggerated and used the same word Gob said earlier.

Why though? Take the moral high ground

Anyway facts time

England top ten batsman from 90s



Bangladesh top ten batsmen from 00s



Now I'm not saying England were good they were mediocre but I'd still back them over that Bangladesh lot against spin, pace, beach cricket and any other form of batsmanship which includes hitting a ball with a bat

 

[harsh.ag]

HB's exaggeration is probably wrong, but Murali didn't actually play against the 90s England (his point was restricted to 90s England).

Murali played 2 tests against England in the 90s. Warne, of course, a ton. The 00 batch of England batsmen may have been better players of spin.

That is not an unreasonable position. The 90s England bats did look awful against spin plenty of times.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Putting 2000s bangladesh above any team at anything is incorrect. Saying they were better than England at playing spin is like when those commentators say Rahane must be good vs spin because he's asian.

 

[Gob]

HB's exaggeration is probably wrong, but Murali didn't actually play against the 90s England (his point was restricted to 90s England).

Murali played 2 tests against England in the 90s. Warne, of course, a ton. The 00 batch of England batsmen may have been better players of spin.

That is not an unreasonable position. The 90s England bats did look awful against spin plenty of times.

Yeah but he was comparing them to 00s Bangladesh and those were 00s Bangladesh guys.

Didn't check but Warne must have faced England far more than Murali did even in the 00s. Ofcourse Murali failing to take part in the Ashes maybe the reason

 

[TheJediBrah]

HB's exaggeration is probably wrong, but Murali didn't actually play against the 90s England (his point was restricted to 90s England).

Murali played 2 tests against England in the 90s. Warne, of course, a ton. The 00 batch of England batsmen may have been better players of spin.

That is not an unreasonable position. The 90s England bats did look awful against spin plenty of times.

Incorrect, it definitely is an unreasonable position. Again, as I said earlier Warne's career average against England is only like 1 run lower than his overall average. It's barely significant. That alone nullifies the entire point as the context it's based on is it's affect on Warne's stats.

To add to this, even further demonstrating how moronic that opinion is, Warne's average against England in the 90s (when they were supposedly worse) is 24.78 and his average against then post-2000 (when they were supposedly better) is 22.42.

No matter which way you look at it, it's evidently wrong and just a really stupid argument that does nothing other than demonstrate the ignorance and bias of whoever is making the statement.

Yes I'm probably overreacting. It's just that dumb a comment.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Just in case all that isn't enough, just looking at each of Warne and Murali's stats against England compared to their career stats shows how little influence how much each of them play England would have anyway. Both of them averaged over 20 against England. One or the other playing a whole lot more or a whole lot less isn't going to change anything significantly.

Conversely, Murali against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe is very significant. He averaged 13 and 15 against them respectively, and account for nearly a quarter of his wickets. That's why it's a relevant point. How much either of them played against England is not.

 

[harsh.ag]

Incorrect, it definitely is an unreasonable position. Again, as I said earlier Warne's career average against England is only like 1 run lower than his overall average. It's barely significant. That alone nullifies the entire point as the context it's based on is it's affect on Warne's stats.

To add to this, even further demonstrating how moronic that opinion is, Warne's average against England in the 90s (when they were supposedly worse) is 24.78 and his average against then post-2000 (when they were supposedly better) is 22.42.

No matter which way you look at it, it's evidently wrong and just a really stupid argument that does nothing other than demonstrate the ignorance and bias of whoever is making the statement.

Yes I'm probably overreacting. It's just that dumb a comment.

Yeah, makes sense. Memories probably don't serve us well in this case.

 

[Burgey]

and his average against then post-2000 (when they were supposedly better) is 22.42.

Was a one man army in 2005. Ridiculous series

 

[TheJediBrah]

Was a one man army in 2005. Ridiculous series

One of Aus' best bats too