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

[kyear2]

It's hard to know how good Hutton would have been. People here still generally consider him the most worthy of an all time world XI opening spot with Hobbs.

And didn't Lara and Sachin average well over 40 against all those countries? Or do you mean specifically the pace bowlers while they cashed in against spin. If so, how do you find such a stat haha

Hutton was a strange case though, as he was part of the transition era. He had a hand at the very tail end of the 30's but really proved himself as the game modernised.

But it wasn't till the 40's but moreso the 50's that multiple teams had decent attacks in varied conditions

 

[mr_mister]

to be fair to that 30s side, O'Reilly would be in any countries 1st XI other than SL and Aus and Verity usually makes England's 1st or 2nd one depending on where Laker is assessed.

 

[kyear2]

If we assume Bradman would have only averaged 60 or something the modern age and only be slightly ahead of Sachin and Lara rather than double them, then that makes Hutton and Hobbs 40 averaging opening batsman on the level of like Michael Slater and Alec Stewart which feels wrong

Hutton no, Hutton faced Lindwall, Miller, Valentine and Rhamdin, O'Reilly.
Hobbs, only God knows. It was such a different game. As an honor, he's an automatic, but can he compete in the modern game, likely no.

 

[kyear2]

Bradman would have averaged 60s against 80s pace attack. Against other side he would have averaged around 100 taking his overall average to around 75-80.

Similarly Hutton, Hobbs would have averaged 40s against 80s pace attack and around 60 against others to take their overall average to around 50.

Hutton is more comparable to modern players than he is to Hobbs.

 

[harsh.ag]

80s 00s

 

[Victor Ian]

This idea of competing in the modern game is flawed. Modern probably always kills old if that is the case. But how about those old players being presumed to adapt here for a number of years, also use better equipment, have analysis, play on better pitches, and have helmets. They would all be better athletically, the bowlers would not be bowling in shoes that break their toes, they'd be bowling to a different workload allowing more attack, and in many cases, would spend all their time practising. They would get to grounds refreshed without spending a month on a boat nearly dying and sleep in comfortable beds to recuperate during games.
Peers is how you rate them.

 

[kyear2]

tbf that's due to his batting support being useless in that series. Did the opening batsmen reach 100 runs combined for the whole thing?

The 40s side has Hutton, Bradman, Nourse, Weekes etc. No-one is saying one batsman(though Bradman could be the closest) wins you matches, but strong batting units are as important as bowling units, obviously. Good bowlers win games but good batsmen can make it impossible to lose

Bradman lost more matches in his career than Marshall.

Not that it's definitive. But yeah, great bowlers have a great impact on their teams.

And Bradman doesn't make a team unbeatable.

But to also make a concession. As an opening bowler Maco only lost 4 matches, and two were in Sydney. So yeah, a spinner would have helped the '80's team cause.

 

[OverratedSanity]

If we're going to do the tired old players were worse argument, this entire thread is pointless.

 

[stephen]

Every time I read your posts I feel you cannot be any more biased than this but you keep surprising me.

Going by your post 2010's side would be one of the fav's to win this one because the stocks in Indian cricket for pace bowlers has never been this good and 'as per your logic' Indian fans would only have begun appreciating pace bowlers (more than ever) in the last decade.

If there is anything to take out of the voting here I feel Bradman is being overrated more than the 80s side. Bradman's 30s side barely managed to win against the 50s side by one vote (against an attack of Davidson, Trueman and Co).

And if you observe the ATG sides picked here regularly Hadlee and Marshall are more prominently present in these ATG sides as compared to 50s bowlers.

And if you consider Bradman to be equivalent of 2 ATGs, his side is so well equipped with top quality batsmen that they should negate the opposition bowling pretty easily. But the votes say otherwise.

Way to misrepresent what I've said.

And arguing that people voting for a side proves anything except that a majority of the people who voted think that way is a logical fallacy.

I noted that most Indian voters had gone with the 80s side. The strength of the 80s side is its pace attack. I proposed an idea that maybe Indians are over rating the 80s side because of the changes in recent times to their side (which has gained some top quality pace bowlers and who have seen excellent results because of it). It would be no different from Australians suddenly valuing spin much more highly in the 90s/00s than they had before. It was an idea, no more.

On the other part of the debate - Bradman. I do think people underrate how good Bradman was because we haven't seen anything like it. Bradman averaged 50% more runs than Steve Smith. Smith has been mind blowing. Bradman was way better than him. We can't truly comprehend how good he was because we don't really believe it. We don't believe it because we have no Anchor for our brains to work with. Bradman was as much better than Kane Williamson as Kane Williamson is to Pat Cummins.

Let's just look, for example, at the 1936/37 series, which by Bradman's standards was an average one.

In that series he made:
38, 0, 0, 82, 13, 270, 26, 212 and 169.

That was an average series for him. He "only" averaged 90 that series. That's akin to your average series being Michael Clarke 2012 level. It's unbelievable.

Basically, to say that Bradman would have averaged 60 today, you need to be saying that the best of the rest would be averaging around 30 today. Do we really believe that Hobbs would have averaged less than Travis Head?

Bradman might have "only" averaged 80 vs the 80s attack, but he's also wearing out the opposing quick bowlers, ensuring the middle order faces a softer ball and piling up massive totals. He was ridiculous and is banned from drafts because any side with him in is basically going to win unless there's a heavy, one sided advantage given to the opposing sides.

A bowling example would be like if every bowler was at Srinath level and one bowler was Marshall.

 

[kyear2]

This idea of competing in the modern game is flawed. Modern probably always kills old if that is the case. But how about those old players being presumed to adapt here for a number of years, also use better equipment, have analysis, play on better pitches, and have helmets. They would all be better athletically, the bowlers would not be bowling in shoes that break their toes, they'd be bowling to a different workload allowing more attack, and in many cases, would spend all their time practising. They would get to grounds refreshed without spending a month on a boat nearly dying and sleep in comfortable beds to recuperate during games.
Peers is how you rate them.

Wasn't rating them based on equipment, everyone played in the same conditions. But for me more about the lack of quality opposition.
Bradman is the greatest batman ever, I would never dispute that. But he faced one decent team and 3 poor ones.

But then we hear how he would do the same to an '80s attack? Body line was literally the 70's

 

[stephen]

Wasn't rating them based on equipment, everyone played in the same conditions. But for me more about the lack of quality opposition.
Bradman is the greatest batman ever, I would never dispute that. But he faced one, at best decent team and 3 poor ones.

But then we hear how he would do the same to an '80s attack? Body line was literally the 70's

Body line was not the 70s. Body line required field settings that were illegal in the 70s.

Body line was stacking leg side behind square and bowling nothing but short pitched balls on leg stump.

I actually think that Bradman would have done better against it if he had have prepared to face it (not that averaging 57 in a series is bad by any means).

 

[kyear2]

Way to misrepresent what I've said.

And arguing that people voting for a side proves anything except that a majority of the people who voted think that way is a logical fallacy.

I noted that most Indian voters had gone with the 80s side. The strength of the 80s side is its pace attack. I proposed an idea that maybe Indians are over rating the 80s side because of the changes in recent times to their side (which has gained some top quality pace bowlers and who have seen excellent results because of it). It would be no different from Australians suddenly valuing spin much more highly in the 90s/00s than they had before. It was an idea, no more.

On the other part of the debate - Bradman. I do think people underrate how good Bradman was because we haven't seen anything like it. Bradman averaged 50% more runs than Steve Smith. Smith has been mind blowing. Bradman was way better than him. We can't truly comprehend how good he was because we don't really believe it. We don't believe it because we have no Anchor for our brains to work with. Bradman was as much better than Kane Williamson as Kane Williamson is to Pat Cummins.

Let's just look, for example, at the 1936/37 series, which by Bradman's standards was an average one.

In that series he made:
38, 0, 0, 82, 13, 270, 26, 212 and 169.

That was an average series for him. He "only" averaged 90 that series. That's akin to your average series being Michael Clarke 2012 level. It's unbelievable.

Basically, to say that Bradman would have averaged 60 today, you need to be saying that the best of the rest would be averaging around 30 today. Do we really believe that Hobbs would have averaged less than Travis Head?

Bradman might have "only" averaged 80 vs the 80s attack, but he's also wearing out the opposing quick bowlers, ensuring the middle order faces a softer ball and piling up massive totals. He was ridiculous and is banned from drafts because any side with him in is basically going to win unless there's a heavy, one sided advantage given to the opposing sides.

A bowling example would be like if every bowler was at Srinath level and one bowler was Marshall.

That's a very misleading and lazy argument. And let's not go back to Hobbs, let's use Hammond or Hutton.

As I said in the previous post. Bradman played against 1 decent attack, 2 atrocious ones and 1 below average one. British batsmen faced I very good attack and any two of the atrocious ones. Australia had a way better attack than Australia did and there wasn't enough other competition to even it out as there is today.
So no Bradman wasn't twice as good as Hutton or Hammond. He was twice as good as hix teammates. There wasn't an even playing field.

And with regards to him averaging 80 vs the '80's team he didn't even get that vs the West Indies (small sample size) and barely that against a less than stellar England attack. Only teams he scored over that against was SA and India.
The competition was crap.

 

[stephen]

Bradman lost more matches in his career than Marshall.

Not that it's definitive. But yeah, great bowlers have a great impact on their teams.

And Bradman doesn't make a team unbeatable.

But to also make a concession. As an opening bowler Maco only lost 4 matches, and two were in Sydney. So yeah, a spinner would have helped the '80's team cause.

The 80s West Indies were helped by the fact that they drew a lot. Their over rates were notoriously slow and if the pitch didn't have much in it they didn't really push for the win.

 

[kyear2]

Body line was not the 70s. Body line required field settings that were illegal in the 70s.

Body line was stacking leg side behind square and bowling nothing but short pitched balls on leg stump.

I actually think that Bradman would have done better against it if he had have prepared to face it (not that averaging 57 in a series is bad by any means).

I'm aware what bodyline was. And it's closer to what happened in the 70's than to what he otherwise faced.

 

[kyear2]

If we're going to do the tired old players were worse argument, this entire thread is pointless.

Never said they were worst. Just didn't have the level of competition that existed even in the 50's and beyond.
No one is questioning of Bradman or Hammond was great.

 

[stephen]

That's a very misleading and lazy argument. And let's not go back to Hobbs, let's use Hammond or Hutton.

As I said in the previous post. Bradman played against 1 decent attack, 2 atrocious ones and 1 below average one. British batsmen faced I very good attack and any two of the atrocious ones. Australia had a way better attack than Australia did and there wasn't enough other competition to even it out as there is today.
So no Bradman wasn't twice as good as Hutton or Hammond. He was twice as good as hix teammates. There wasn't an even playing field.

And with regards to him averaging 80 vs the '80's team he didn't even get that vs the West Indies (small sample size) and barely that against a less than stellar England attack. Only teams he scored over that against was SA and India.
The competition was crap.

At one end of his career Bradman faced Tate, Larwood and Voce. At the other end of his career he faced Bedser and Laker. It's not like England were crap and had nothing but rubbish bowlers.

 

[Victor Ian]

Wasn't rating them based on equipment, everyone played in the same conditions. But for me more about the lack of quality opposition.
Bradman is the greatest batman ever, I would never dispute that. But he faced one, at best decent team and 3 poor ones.

But then we hear how he would do the same to an '80s attack? Body line was literally the 70's

The Windies barrage made an ATG like border average 30 odd. Bradman copped a similar barrage in Bodyline without decent protective gear and was still two times as good.
I get your point about more teams throws up more competition, but it also goes that less teams makes you rarely play bunnies. Australia has been quite consistent in producing great teams and non australian players had to face them every second time, with no mediocre opposition.

 

[sunilz]

Don Bradman
52 Test won 30 lost 12 W/L 2.5

Sir Ravindra Jadeja (?)

56 Test won 36 lost 9 W/L 4

I know which player would make my team unbeatable.

 

[stephen]

Don Bradman
52 Test won 30 lost 12 W/L 2.5

Sir Ravindra Jadeja (?)

56 Test won 36 lost 9 W/L 4

I know which player would make my team unbeatable.

You'd hope that a guy mostly picked almost exclusively in favourable conditions would help his team win in those conditions.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

This is the NBA's 75th season and everyone is doing their top NBA players list. Despite the fact that Wilt is by miles the most statistically dominant player in league history and Russell has by far the most rings, no one places them as no 1. Why, because they recognize that it was a different game back them, with limited competition.
But we still pretend that Sutcliffe who played with different rules and timeless rests could compete in today's game.

We didn't approach anything resembling the modern game till the late 30's and didn't hit it's stride till the post war days.

And no, would never say discredit Bradman, Hammond, Headley etc. But let's not pretend they were a cut above either.

Even 10 years later, the game and level of completion had improved so much.

Just my opinion though

I AWTA. Sportspeople constantly get better and better in all sports so modern day players and teams are better than those from yesteryear. In short, the current NZ team must be the GOAT cricket team.