# 5 for 1986-2006 World Test XI

[Matt79]

I mean, do you see how few votes Viv Richards got in this poll???!!

 

[silentstriker]

I mean, do you see how few votes Viv Richards got in this poll???!!

One of the votes was mine -- and the reaosn he didn't get as many votes was we are only voting on 1986-2006. If we had taken Viv's entire career into account, I am sure he would have been in n.

 

[shortpitched713]

I mean, do you see how few votes Viv Richards got in this poll???!!

Apparently people aren't giving too many points for aura, in which case both Viv and Imran would be shoo-ins.

 

[adharcric]

I mean, do you see how few votes Viv Richards got in this poll???!!

As mentioned by SS, the reason for that is that it's an all-time XI of the past two decades and Richards didn't do much in that period. You know what, I think those 8 votes he got are a gift because on merit, he only deserves 4 or 5 given the criteria of this poll. Of course, a slightly different criteria and Richards would be a sure thing.

 

[Slats4ever]

So in the end, you agree that batsman have it easier.

stop being so self righteous you douche

 

[JBH001]

Oh, absolutely. Sehwag has it much easier than Anwar. No doubt about it. I would have voted for Anwar, except the difference in averages was too high. If Ponting had averaged 65, I would have to vote for Ponting.

Why set the bar so high for Ponting?
If I remember right the difference between the averages of Ponting and Lara is, more or less, the difference between Anwar's average and Sehwag.

(I think it was 58 - 52 Ponting v Lara and 52 - 45 Sehwag v Anwar)

If you are to be consistent you should say that Ponting is indeed better than Lara.

 

[JBH001]

I think you're selling Ponting short re. last year's Ashes, and generally. His average that series was not as good as it had been, but his innings in the 3rd test on the last day to save that game for Australia, imo turned him from an exceptional player to a great one in one day. 5th day wicket, under the pump from a good attack, wickets falling around him yet he held it together and saved the game. It got to the point where, until Warne got out, the television began showing not how many wickets England needed but how many runs Australia needed. You can say what you like about his captaincy and sometimes his behaviour, but his batsmanship is wonderful.

Lara too is a great player. They can both be destructive, but Lara seems to defy physics with some of the things he can do with a bat in his hand. Nevertheless, you cannot say that the bowlers whom he faced in the mid-late 90s were all better than those Ponting has faced this decade. Australia were strong in the mid-late 90s, Pakistan were good, but England were ordinary, India other than at home had a woeful record, South Africa were just making their way back (though they did have Donald), NZ had lost Hadlee and Murali had only just come along for Sri Lanka.

So often we decry modern players, especially batsmen, and say that their records are good because bowlers aren't as strong now as, say 20-30 years ago. Is that true? Pitches have become more homogenised, but there are more results now than ever. Someone's taking 20 wickets! The West Indies in the 80s had wonderful bowlers, but they bowled only about 70 overs a day. Further, were batsmen as innovative and aggressive then as now? Did they play off the back foot like Ponting, Lara, Gilchrist, Sehwag, Sachin, Pietersen, Freddie, Inzy, Yousef, Hayden and others do now? Had the impact of one-day cricket on techniques and run-rates really come into play as early as the 80s and early-mid 90s? Players take on short balls now as never before. They always look to score. I'd love to see a contest between those great WI sides of the 80s and a line-up of of today' batsmen who hook, pull and cut like there's no tomorrow.

There are still some decent bowlers around now. Obviouly Ponting does not have to face McGrath & Warne, but Murali's a champion, Vaas is a good bowler, Shoahib is as quick as anyone there's been, he had Ambrose & Walsh in his early years, Akram & Waqar as well. Donald was there too. Bond when fit as an imposing figure and he also has Flintoff and Harmison to contend with as well as Ntini, Harbajan and Kumble. They are no mugs.

They are both great players. My view is that if I wanted someone to bank on to score runs consistently, I'd go with Ponting, but if I wanted to be entertained with the possibility of a massive score, BC Lara would get the nod.

If I had to choose between the two of them for this side, I'd go with Lara, because given the players around him, he could afford to be as entertaining as he liked, and I'd like to see that!

Great post Burgey.
But whatever the merits of those bowlers you mentioned post 2001, only 5 can be genuinely classed as great bowlers. Namely McGrath, Warne, Murali, Kumble and Pollock (who is now in decline). All these bowlers are 'left overs' from the 90's and if you add to that Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Donald, Wasim, Waqar you have a better idea of the bowling quality, especially in terms of pace, that the 90s represented.

2001 is generally given as the year in which bowling quality began to decline, pitches began to generally flatten, and things began to be harder for bowlers. A look at Dravids record, for instance, bears this out and though I have not looked at Pontings I believe the same holds true for him too. A gigantic spike post 2001.

 

[ClownSymonds]

I was considering Ganguly, but went with Shivnarine Chanderpaul in the end. Lara has it won already, and Chanderpaul needed to get off the mark.

 

[aussie tragic]

Can someone please vote Dravid or Inzy as we currently have a tie for the 3rd runner-up that will enter the # 6 position with Waugh and Viv

 

[adharcric]

Dravid = Mr. Dependable. You can be sure he'll be in the poll for every single position. Poor guy never wins but keeps moving on.

 

[Burgey]

Yep, fine player Dravid. Not as flashy as others, but gets the job done with a minimum of fuss. Not out of place in any middle order position in this team, but it's debatable as to whether he'll get picked. His Adelaide effort out here last time was a stand out innings, not to mention what he & V V S did to us in 2001. God, why did I mention that? Still having nightmares.

Just out of interest, why is he opening in the one-dayers with Sehwag at 3?

 

[JBH001]

Yeh, I have been wondering that myself - Dravid's better at 3 I reckon, even in ODI's.

 

[R_D]

Yep, fine player Dravid. Not as flashy as others, but gets the job done with a minimum of fuss. Not out of place in any middle order position in this team, but it's debatable as to whether he'll get picked. His Adelaide effort out here last time was a stand out innings, not to mention what he & V V S did to us in 2001. God, why did I mention that? Still having nightmares.

Just out of interest, why is he opening in the one-dayers with Sehwag at 3?

That can be best answered by Mr Greggy Chappell. I'm all up for flexible batting order etc and experimentation or whotever but too much experimentation just causes further confusion.
hopefully everythign will be back to normal for Aus match.

 

[adharcric]

Well I can see why they gave the Dravid-opening idea a shot. Sehwag was getting owned by short balls by opposition pacemen and they thought they could move him down since he's good at finding the gaps and strikes it hard and well against both pace and spin. Obviously, Sehwag likes the ball coming onto the bat and our team collapses like a pack of cards when Dravid is the first to go. You never know, it still could work out, but we don't have a year to figure that out. Sehwag-Tendulkar has been damn successful and that's the way to go right now. This experiment is over, I hope.

 

[Burgey]

Well I can see why they gave the Dravid-opening idea a shot. Sehwag was getting owned by short balls by opposition pacemen and they thought they could move him down since he's good at finding the gaps and strikes it hard and well against both pace and spin. Obviously, Sehwag likes the ball coming onto the bat and our team collapses like a pack of cards when Dravid is the first to go. It's over, I hope.

But I thought there weren't any good fast bowlers around at the moment, and haven't been since at least 2001 .......

 

[nightprowler10]

Dravid = Mr. Dependable. You can be sure he'll be in the poll for every single position. Poor guy never wins but keeps moving on.

But isn't this poll for middle order? How many games has he played in the middle order? Inzi should go ahead in my opinion.

 

[shortpitched713]

Yeah, I see Inzi more likely at #6 then Dravid tbh.