a team of players from 1995-2010 can beat any other.

[Ikki]

Don't understand the point of this exercise when you exclude Bradman. What about excluding Marshall and Murali too then?

It has a point to it. Bradman is so damn good he makes any negligible difference in the teams irrelevant. Marshall and Murali on the other hand have comparable players to compete against. No one compares to Bradman.

 

[GotSpin]

It has a point to it. Bradman is so damn good he makes any negligible difference in the teams irrelevant. Marshall and Murali on the other hand have comparable players to compete against. No one compares to Bradman.

What I mean to say is - just because Bradman is god doesn't mean he should be removed, especially with a post suggesting a group players is better than any other era

 

[Blaze 18]

It is speculation but not wild by any means.

Of course the bowling attacks of the 90s were much more lethal and i think the names of pairs speak for themselves plus the pitches surely weren't as flat as now a days.

Can you imagine a Gabba test the way it turned out! Who would have thought that in the 90's

People seem to forget that flat pitches have always been around; they may be slightly more frequent now, but it is vastly overstated. The biggest difference is that there are not too many great bowlers around - great bowlers take the pitch out of the equation.

 

[vcs]

People seem to forget that flat pitches have always been around; they may be slightly more frequent now, but it is vastly overstated. The biggest difference is that there are not too many great bowlers around - great bowlers take the pitch out of the equation.

Agree with every bit of that.

 

[Faisal1985]

People seem to forget that flat pitches have always been around; they may be slightly more frequent now, but it is vastly overstated. The biggest difference is that there are not too many great bowlers around - great bowlers take the pitch out of the equation.

Well there you go then.....opening was hard in the 90s then it is today for one reason or the other.

Even if the pitches were just as flat, which i disagree with, a champion new ball attack of the 90s could easily make the ball talk a lot more then any of the pairs of today barring may be a couple of bowlers. Day night games were also not as common in the 90s as are today and the early morning of ODIs or even tests would be hell for any opening batsman in the 90s regardless of which opposition you are playing pretty much all the sides had lethal first attacks.

My whole point is it was hard to open in the 90s then it is today. 1 reason you don't agree with but the other one you did.

 

[Blaze 18]

Well there you go then.....opening was hard in the 90s then it is today for one reason or the other.

Even if the pitches were just as flat, which i disagree with, a champion new ball attack of the 90s could easily make the ball talk a lot more then any of the pairs of today barring may be a couple of bowlers. Day night games were also not as common in the 90s as are today and the early morning of ODIs or even tests would be hell for any opening batsman in the 90s regardless of which opposition you are playing pretty much all the sides had lethal first attacks.

My whole point is it was hard to open in the 90s then it is today. 1 reason you don't agree with but the other one you did.

The pitches may or may not be as flat - but whatever the case, the difference is not as much as some might think. The 1970's and 1980's had more than their fair share of draws, but I do not see anyone trying to denigrate the achievements of a Sunil Gavaskar or a Greg Chappell. The reason why scoring rates and totals have increased has a lot to do with the change in mindset of batsmen, too - can you imagine Virender Sehwag batting for sixty overs and scoring thirty six* ? Unfortunately, a lot of people attribute the change in scoring rates only to flatter pitches which is plain wrong, in my opinion.

As for the Saeed Anwar vs Virender Sehwag comparison, I would pick the latter every day of the week and twice on a Sunday. I really liked Saeed Anwar as a batsmen, but I have never seen a batsman like Virender Sehwag. Whether or not he would have performed against Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Curtly Ambrose, Malcom Marshall, Imran Khan and Geoffrey Boycott's grandmother is, quite frankly, irrelevant. No-one will ever know the answer.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

I don't agree that Tendulkar is better then Chappell. If there is any difference it's marginal hence why I put the equal sign.

Personally, I would pick Chappell over Tendulkar. Reason, I like Chappell's stats. He is better 2nd down batsman and does better in 3rd and 4th innings.

Also, difference b/w Gilly and Sanga is also marginal.

gilly's glovework winning him a challenge, first time for verything

 

[smash84]

. I really liked Saeed Anwar as a batsmen, but I have never seen a batsman like Virender Sehwag. Whether or not he would have performed against Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Curtly Ambrose, Malcom Marshall, Imran Khan and Geoffrey Boycott's grandmother is, quite frankly, irrelevant. No-one will ever know the answer.

Of course no one will ever know the answer but we do know that there were some very good players around in the 90s (Mark Waugh always comes to mind) who didn't get to plunder so many runs because they had it a lot harder in terms of opposition and pitches. Looking at the game of cricket you can see that there just are not too many great bowlers around anymore and so even ordinary batsmen end up scoring loads of runs (I am not saying that Sehwag is ordinary only speaking generally).

The same reason that I would rate Miandad higher than Yousuf (although Yousuf has a 4-5 run higher average than Miandad). Miandad played in a tougher era.

 

[Faisal1985]

The pitches may or may not be as flat - but whatever the case, the difference is not as much as some might think. The 1970's and 1980's had more than their fair share of draws, but I do not see anyone trying to denigrate the achievements of a Sunil Gavaskar or a Greg Chappell. The reason why scoring rates and totals have increased has a lot to do with the change in mindset of batsmen, too - can you imagine Virender Sehwag batting for sixty overs and scoring thirty six* ? Unfortunately, a lot of people attribute the change in scoring rates only to flatter pitches which is plain wrong, in my opinion.

That wasn't even my point of debate tbf. I am not at all saying that. But you do agree that pitches do play a role in the runs scored...no cricket follower can deny it. The amount of affect is a debatable point obviously.

As for the Saeed Anwar vs Virender Sehwag comparison, I would pick the latter every day of the week and twice on a Sunday. I really liked Saeed Anwar as a batsmen, but I have never seen a batsman like Virender Sehwag. Whether or not he would have performed against Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Curtly Ambrose, Malcom Marshall, Imran Khan and Geoffrey Boycott's grandmother is, quite frankly, irrelevant. No-one will ever know the answer.

I think thats really harsh on Anwar. Anwar has a better average outside subcontinent unlike Sehwag against good attacks of the 90s...that does play a huge role in how you rate him as an opener.

Sehwag's brilliance is not in question here but what is in question is what era was harder to open in and if that had an effect on Anwar's average being lower then Sehwag. And i personally think it did have a big affect.

You don't need to speculate Sehwag vs. the bowlers from 90s. Just look at the bowlers from today vs the bowlers in the 90s. Especially the new ball attacks of non-subcontinent countries.

 

[Blaze 18]

Of course no one will ever know the answer but we do know that there were some very good players around in the 90s (Mark Waugh always comes to mind) who didn't get to plunder so many runs because they had it a lot harder in terms of opposition and pitches. Looking at the game of cricket you can see that there just are not too many great bowlers around anymore and so even ordinary batsmen end up scoring loads of runs (I am not saying that Sehwag is ordinary only speaking generally).

The same reason that I would rate Miandad higher than Yousuf (although Yousuf has a 4-5 run higher average than Miandad). Miandad played in a tougher era.

I am not rating Virender Sehwag higher than Saeed Anwar because of the difference in their averages - which I did not even know until a few minutes back, thought Anwar averaged more than fifty.

Anyway, Saeed Anwar's ODI exploits sometimes tend to influence peoples' opinions when they rate him as a test player. He was a fine player in the game's longest and most important format, but fell short of being a truly great player - and it has little to do with his average being less than fifty, as far as I am concerned. I would have Virender Sehwag over him in a heartbeat.

 

[Blaze 18]

That wasn't even my point of debate tbf. I am not at all saying that. But you do agree that pitches do play a role in the runs scored...no cricket follower can deny it. The amount of affect is a debatable point obviously.



I think thats really harsh on Anwar. Anwar has a better average outside subcontinent unlike Sehwag against good attacks of the 90s...that does play a huge role in how you rate him as an opener.

Sehwag's brilliance is not in question here but what is in question is what era was harder to open in and if that had an effect on Anwar's average being lower then Sehwag. And i personally think it did have a big affect.

You don't need to speculate Sehwag vs. the bowlers from 90s. Just look at the bowlers from today vs the bowlers in the 90s. Especially the new ball attacks of non-subcontinent countries.

Again, the 1990's may have been harder to open in, but it does not automatically mean that all runs scored then were on raging turners and greentops. Like I mentioned, I don't think the pitches have flatted out too much, but yes, there were better bowling attacks around back then. My gripe is mainly with those who would have you believe that every century scored before the 2000's was on a pitch full of cracks against a bowling attack straight from hell.

I hate comparing players using raw averages; just to show how I can use them to make Anwar look bad :

Saeed Anwar averaged 23.25 and 19.20 against South Africa and West Indies respectively - do I take it that he failed miserably against Allan Donald, Shaun Pollock, Curtley Ambrose and Courtney Walsh ? Of course, he did not have to play Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis either - how many great bowlers left ? Suddenly the argument against Virender Sehwag does not seem to hold much weight, does it ?

For the record, I believe that Saeed Anwar was a good player of pace bowling, far better than those misleading numbers suggest. Like I mentioned in my reply to smalishah, I don't rate Virender Sehwag higher for something as trivial as a higher batting average; I rate him higher because I reckon he is a better batsman by a distance.

 

[Faisal1985]

Again, the 1990's may have been harder to open in, but it does not automatically mean that all runs scored then were on raging turners and greentops. Like I mentioned, I don't think the pitches have flatted out too much, but yes, there were better bowling attacks around back then. My gripe is mainly with those who would have you believe that every century scored before the 2000's was on a pitch full of cracks against a bowling attack straight from hell.

I hate comparing players using raw averages; just to show how I can use them to make Anwar look bad :

Saeed Anwar averaged 23.25 and 19.20 against South Africa and West Indies respectively - do I take it that he failed miserably against Allan Donald, Shaun Pollock, Curtley Ambrose and Courtney Walsh ? Of course, he did not have to play Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis either - how many great bowlers left ? Suddenly the argument against Virender Sehwag does not seem to hold much weight, does it ?

For the record, I believe that Saeed Anwar was a good player of pace bowling, far better than those misleading numbers suggest. Like I mentioned in my reply to smalishah, I don't rate Virender Sehwag higher for something as trivial as a higher batting average; I rate him higher because I reckon he is a better batsman by a distance.

Fair enough.

And all i say is...Sehwag had it a bit easier then Anwar did in the opening slot...

By the way Anwar does average more in England, SA, NZ then Sehwag does...thought i would just throw that in there.

 

[smash84]

Again, the 1990's may have been harder to open in, but it does not automatically mean that all runs scored then were on raging turners and greentops. Like I mentioned, I don't think the pitches have flatted out too much, but yes, there were better bowling attacks around back then. My gripe is mainly with those who would have you believe that every century scored before the 2000's was on a pitch full of cracks against a bowling attack straight from hell.

I hate comparing players using raw averages; just to show how I can use them to make Anwar look bad :

Saeed Anwar averaged 23.25 and 19.20 against South Africa and West Indies respectively - do I take it that he failed miserably against Allan Donald, Shaun Pollock, Curtley Ambrose and Courtney Walsh ? Of course, he did not have to play Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis either - how many great bowlers left ? Suddenly the argument against Virender Sehwag does not seem to hold much weight, does it ?

For the record, I believe that Saeed Anwar was a good player of pace bowling, far better than those misleading numbers suggest. Like I mentioned in my reply to smalishah, I don't rate Virender Sehwag higher for something as trivial as a higher batting average; I rate him higher because I reckon he is a better batsman by a distance.

I do get your point and as big a fan that I myself am of Saeed Anwar (one of the most stylish Pak batsmen ever) I too would pick Sehwag over Anwar on almost any given day. The only point that I did try to raise was that most openers in 00s have had it fairly easy compared to the openers in the 90s which mistakenly lead some people to believe that openers in the 90s were all crap.

 

[Himannv]

gilly's glovework winning him a challenge, first time for verything

Have to say its true. Sanga batting like a dream these days.