Great lower order batting teams in history?

[Senile Sentry]

Not a test team but the 1983 India World Cup team had syed kirmani batting 10 and madan lal, roger binny and kirti azad ahead of him. Made a difference in the final and other matches

That team is probably one of the wierdest if not the worst world cup winning teams ever, statistically. Apart from Kapil, not a single batter averaged over 35 in that tournament (Vengsarkar just played 2 so excluded). The entire team produced just 5 50s and 1 hundred (Kapil 175*,) in the tournament.

Also Kirmani averaged just 12 in that tournament (career avg 20). Binny averaged 12 (career avg 16) and Azad 7.5 (career avg 15).

Basically 1983 was basically a three men act - Kapil (,303 rune @ 60, 12 wickets @ 20), Madan Lal (17 wickets @17, 102 runs @ 32) and Mohinder (237 runs @ 30 and 8 wickets @ 22).

 

[Sunil1z]

That team is probably one of the wierdest if not the worst world cup winning teams ever, statistically. Apart from Kapil, not a single batter averaged over 35 in that tournament (Vengsarkar just played 2 so excluded). The entire team produced just 5 50s and 1 hundred (Kapil 175*,) in the tournament.

Also Kirmani averaged just 12 in that tournament (career avg 20). Binny averaged 12 (career avg 16) and Azad 7.5 (career avg 15).

Basically 1983 was basically a three men act - Kapil (,303 rune @ 60, 12 wickets @ 20), Madan Lal (17 wickets @17, 102 runs @ 32) and Mohinder (237 runs @ 30 and 8 wickets @ 22).

Did you just forget the contribution of India’s greatest swing bowler? ?

 

[Senile Sentry]

Did you just forget the contribution of India’s greatest swing bowler? ?

Apologies. Binny with 18 wickets at 18 as well !

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

I liked the post until you said the "bowling alone Hadlee > McGrath" part. You've overdone, what was already a very good and legitimate point by adding something needlessly controversial to it.

But I agree, you could make an ATG side, with something like:

Khan/Botham/Miller
Pollock
Hadlee
Warne/Ashwin/Jadeja

for 8-11 frontline bowlers, and it's very arguable how much you'd be losing compared to specialists.

Controversial?
Even if you rate Hadlee as the Greatest bowler of alltime, its a fair opinion.

 

[shortpitched713]

Most would put McGrath ahead of Hadlee, and quite a few have him GOAT bowler. I think there are less who have Hadlee as GOAT bowler, that's all.

 

[a massive zebra]

Most would put McGrath ahead of Hadlee, and quite a few have him GOAT bowler. I think there are less who have Hadlee as GOAT bowler, that's all.

If by "most" you mean over 50%, then probably yes. If by "most" you mean the vast majority, then no. A McGrath vs Hadlee head to head in 2021 was 60/40 in favour of McGrath.

Glenn McGrath vs Richard Hadlee

.

www.cricketweb.net

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Most would put McGrath ahead of Hadlee, and quite a few have him GOAT bowler. I think there are less who have Hadlee as GOAT bowler, that's all.

Mainly because Australia has 5x the popn of NZ.

Marshall or Barnes is the GOAT.
McGrath and Hadlee are battling for 3rd/4th.
I'd put Ambrose 5th, and have Murali and Warne battling for 6th and 7th.

 

[Red]

Might've been an Australian XI that contained Benaud, Davidson, Ian Jonnston and Lindwall, plus maybe Wally Grout in the lower order. That'd be a decent lower order. The team in that era mixed the batting order up a lot though.

 

[AndrewB]

You try telling that to this England tail: https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...-vs-new-zealand-4th-test-63844/full-scorecard

Mullally at 9 is the stuff of nightmares.

Another contender for the worst tail is that of the West Indies in the 2nd & 4th Tests v Pakistan in 1957-8:
Ivan Madray (FC batting average 9.12, Test batting average 1.00)
Lance Gibbs (FC 8.55, Tests 6.97)
Roy Gilchrist (FC 7.81, Tests 5.45)
Tom Dewdney (FC 5.70, Tests 2.42)

In the 3rd Test the tail was slightly stronger as Eric Atkinson played instead of Madray; but as Sobers scored 365 in that match it didn't really make much difference.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Another contender for the worst tail is that of the West Indies in the 2nd & 4th Tests v Pakistan in 1957-8:
Ivan Madray (FC batting average 9.12, Test batting average 1.00)
Lance Gibbs (FC 8.55, Tests 6.97)
Roy Gilchrist (FC 7.81, Tests 5.45)
Tom Dewdney (FC 5.70, Tests 2.42)

In the 3rd Test the tail was slightly stronger as Eric Atkinson played instead of Madray; but as Sobers scored 365 in that match it didn't really make much difference.

Yeah, that's a pretty poor tail, but I guess it depends what you think about the merits of Ronnie Irani as a Test batsman over Gerry Alexander!

 

[AndrewB]

No comparison there, so it really depends on whether you think the tail starts at 7 or at 8.

Similarly, in the Oval Test in 1993 England's bottom four of Fraser-Such-Watkin-Malcolm was very weak, but they had Ramprakash at 7 (not that he had a stellar Test career, but he was well above Irani).

The Aussie tail during WSC was pretty weak - for a couple of Tests in the 1978-9 Ashes the bottom 5 was Maclean-Hogg-Dymock-Hurst-Higgs.

 

[AndrewB]

A strong tail I spotted yesterday: for the 1st Test of the 1936-7 Ashes, England's 7-11 were Joe Hardstaff (av 46.74). Walter Robbins (26.60), Gubby Allen (25.50), Hedley Verity (20.90) and Bill Voce (13.39). (They had Hammond as 3rd pace bowler, and Ames was batting above Hardstaff for some reason).

 

[Migara]

That team is probably one of the wierdest if not the worst world cup winning teams ever, statistically. Apart from Kapil, not a single batter averaged over 35 in that tournament (Vengsarkar just played 2 so excluded). The entire team produced just 5 50s and 1 hundred (Kapil 175*,) in the tournament.

Also Kirmani averaged just 12 in that tournament (career avg 20). Binny averaged 12 (career avg 16) and Azad 7.5 (career avg 15).

Basically 1983 was basically a three men act - Kapil (,303 rune @ 60, 12 wickets @ 20), Madan Lal (17 wickets @17, 102 runs @ 32) and Mohinder (237 runs @ 30 and 8 wickets @ 22).

And probably the weakest team to win a WC as well. It was well demonstrated because they were trounced by the runner ups at their home soon after the WC.

 

[Migara]

Mainly because Australia has 5x the popn of NZ.

Marshall or Barnes is the GOAT.
McGrath and Hadlee are battling for 3rd/4th.
I'd put Ambrose 5th, and have Murali and Warne battling for 6th and 7th.

Barnes is overrated because of his average. Adjusted to the opposition, it is some where 20-21 region. ATG sure, but not the best.

 

[honestbharani]

And probably the weakest team to win a WC as well. It was well demonstrated because they were trounced by the runner ups at their home soon after the WC.

And then won in Aus over 6 other teams?

Granted i do think WI were better but weakest team is pushing it.

 

[AndrewB]

And then won in Aus over 6 other teams?

Granted i do think WI were better but weakest team is pushing it.

India had an odd run in ODIs in those 2 years: outside India they won the World Cup, the World Championship in Aus and a couple of 4-team tournaments in UAE, while losing a match in Pakistan, giving a total of 15 wins and 3 losses; but at home (all in head-to-head series) their record was 3 wins and 12 losses.

 

[Migara]

And then won in Aus over 6 other teams?

Granted i do think WI were better but weakest team is pushing it.

Weakest among WC winning teams. Do you clearly believe they will win a best of 4 series against any other WC winning team?

 

[honestbharani]

Weakest among WC winning teams. Do you clearly believe they will win a best of 4 series against any other WC winning team?

I think they will in England. You underrate how effective dibbly dobbly bowling and allround depth in batting was in England in the 80s and 90s.

 

[Migara]

I think they will in England. You underrate how effective dibbly dobbly bowling and allround depth in batting was in England in the 80s and 90s.

Dibbly dobblies are good against your usual ODI batsmen. As far as I know only 87 Aus and 92 Pakistan had those types of batsmen. 75/79 West Indies mauled such bowlers. You don't want to put such bowlers against Jayasuriya, Sehwag and Gilchrist. Then last time it was England, they eat dibbly dobblies for breakfast. And when you consider 87 Aus and 92 Pakistan are way more superior fire power with the ball. So no, I woudn't bet them to win a best of 3 series against WC winning team.

 

[honestbharani]

Dibbly dobblies are good against your usual ODI batsmen. As far as I know only 87 Aus and 92 Pakistan had those types of batsmen. 75/79 West Indies mauled such bowlers. You don't want to put such bowlers against Jayasuriya, Sehwag and Gilchrist. Then last time it was England, they eat dibbly dobblies for breakfast. And when you consider 87 Aus and 92 Pakistan are way more superior fire power with the ball. So no, I woudn't bet them to win a best of 3 series against WC winning team.

That SL side lost to Pak in 96 itself in a big final chasing 150 odd. And I think SA schooled them in a quadrangular in 97 at Sharjah where they lost chasing in the dew. I think you are overrating how good some of the other WC winning sides were.