Finding out the best decade for test cricket: The tournament thread! 12 ATG XIs duke it out.

[stephen]

30s and 90s and its not really close.

30s has Bradman and the sides are close enough outside that.

80s has a terrible balance. 90s pace attack is pretty close but they have the GOAT spinner. 90s has the stronger batting too.

 

[trundler]

80s lacks a spinner. 30s has an extra batsman (Bradman) but the pace bowlers are pretty underwhelming. 90s openers have nothing on the other two duos. It's not a slam dunk at all. The 80s side is virtually comprised solely of ATGs.

 

[kyear2]

'50's for sure. The '30's bowling attack is just not good enough.

I really can't choose between the 2nd match up as yet. Imran at 6 is too high, but the 90's openers are not up to standard.

 

[The Sean]

1930s
1980s

 

[trundler]

'50's for sure. The '30's bowling attack is just not good enough.

I really can't choose between the 2nd match up as yet. Imran at 6 is too high, but the 90's openers are not up to standard.

Dujon, Kapil and Hadlee to follow though. Would've liked an extra batsman in there personally but the side does bat deep.

 

[271 & 16/166]

50s & 80s

 

[stephen]

The 30s is definitely weaker than the 50s in the pace department, but it's bloody obvious that they have the best batting side by a long way. Hutton, Bradman and Hammond often make people's ATG world XI sides. And Bradman is basically two ATG batsmen in one. Look at how he butchered Larwood's statistics.

Granted the 30s side is worse than the 40s side, but Bradman is banned in drafts for a reason - he's the obvious best by a ridiculous margin.

As for the 80s side, I personally can't pick a side without a spinner beating one with a spinner of Warne's quality. Where do they turn between overs 40 and 80 when the opposition is 3-150? The best they can hope to do is bowl tight and hope that Tendulkar and Waugh lose concentration. Good luck with that.

 

[kyear2]

The 30s is definitely weaker than the 50s in the pace department, but it's bloody obvious that they have the best batting side by a long way. Hutton, Bradman and Hammond often make people's ATG world XI sides. And Bradman is basically two ATG batsmen in one. Look at how he butchered Larwood's statistics.

Granted the 30s side is worse than the 40s side, but Bradman is banned in drafts for a reason - he's the obvious best by a ridiculous margin.

As for the 80s side, I personally can't pick a side without a spinner beating one with a spinner of Warne's quality. Where do they turn between overs 40 and 80 when the opposition is 3-150? The best they can hope to do is bowl tight and hope that Tendulkar and Waugh lose concentration. Good luck with that.

I didn't see how the 30's team bowls out any team twice.

 

[Victor Ian]

They are much better than you think because
1) they are not bowling to bradman
2) they were the best of their generation, so would translate as good.

 

[kyear2]

They are much better than you think because
1) they are not bowling to bradman
2) they were the best of their generation, so would translate as good.

Or was a weak bowling generation.

Only O'Reilly even has a shot of making their nations AT teams. Hammond might be their 2nd best bowler.

 

[Line and Length]

'50s and '80s

 

[CricAddict]

50s and 90s. Bowlers win matches.

 

[Victor Ian]

Or was a weak bowling generation.

Where is the raft of batsmen averaging over 50 like in the 00's? They weren't weak. They bowled in vastly different conditions with different tactics which is why their numbers don't seem to compare as well. Larwood doesn't get much love, but he was THE man when it came to pace, and O'Reilly was THE man when it came to spin in that era.

Humans have not evolved in the last few hundred years. I subscribe to z theory so that someone who is the best of their generation would be as good as (within range) of the best of another generation if they were to have been raised there. These bowlers might not be McGrath and Warne, yet they are neither Anderson and Swann.

 

[mr_mister]

Or was a weak bowling generation.

Only O'Reilly even has a shot of making their nations AT teams. Hammond might be their 2nd best bowler.

Hammond over Larwood? Or hell, Verity? Unless you meant second best quick

 

[Fuller Pilch]

1930s side would score 500 quickly (best batting lineup of all the teams), get lots of men around the bat, and get through their overs quickly with top quality spinners. I'd back them to beat the 50s.

Despite Kapil being a bit of a redundant pick the 80s have got too much overall depth for the 90s.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Man for man only four of the 90s' XI would make a combined 80s/90s side - Healy (much worse batsman than Dujon btw), Warne, Lara, and Sachin.

 

[harsh.ag]

Botham would have been a much better all rounder pick than Kapil because of his batting prowess, but of course it wasn't possible to pick him once the voting had gone a certain way

 

[sunilz]

Botham would have been a much better all rounder pick than Kapil because of his batting prowess, but of course it wasn't possible to pick him once the voting had gone a certain way

Kapil + Imran would be more effective in Asian conditions than most spinners combination.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

How will the 8-balls-per-over guys play the 6-ball-per-over folks?

 

[harsh.ag]

Kapil + Imran would be more effective in Asian conditions than most spinners combination.

You don't really need that though. Marshall Hadlee Garner were all good in Asia. What you need is Botham at 6 and Imran at 8 and the side looks much better (if one had to select an all-rounder, that is)