Chappell vs. Border vs. Waugh

[bagapath]

actually you'll be surprised how many of them from the combined team make it to the world XI of the same period.

maybe you'll have to create space for gavaskar, imran and murali. sachin and hadlee could be strong contenders too. other than them i would expect 7 or even 8 of this team to be in the best combined xi of last 30 years; and remember, we have dropped border and s.waugh already and did not even consider walsh and m.taylor and akram and miandad and botham and kapil.

i think we've been very lucky to have been treated to good test cricket by two champion teams in the recent decades.

 

[weldone]

actually you'll be surprised how many of them from the combined team make it to the world XI of the same period.

maybe you'll have to create space for gavaskar, imran and murali. sachin and hadlee could be strong contenders too. other than them i would expect 7 or even 8 of this team to be in the best combined xi of last 30 years; and remember, we have dropped border and s.waugh already and did not even consider walsh and m.taylor and akram and miandad and botham and kapil.

i think we've been very lucky to have been treated to good test cricket by two champion teams in the recent decades.

Agree with the essence of your post, but disagree with the teams...

The five you named (Gavaskar, Imran, Murali, Sachin, Hadlee) are absolutely must in a World XI for this period (One could argue a bit about Hadlee though since there are so many great bowlers in this time, still he's almost a must)...Moreover, there's a good case of Andy Flower (or Sangakkara) over Gilchrist...And you have to consider Miandad because he was one of the very best batsmen in this era, and also Akram if not for anything (!) then for variety in your pace attack...So, we have 5 musts and 4 others who are very strong candidates...I say there might be 4-6 players from WI and Australia combined in the playing XI...

 

[Matt79]

Agree with the essence of your post, but disagree with the teams...

The five you named (Gavaskar, Imran, Murali, Sachin, Hadlee) are absolutely must in a World XI for this period (One could argue a bit about Hadlee though since there are so many great bowlers in this time, still he's almost a must)...Moreover, there's a good case of Andy Flower (or Sangakkara) over Gilchrist...And you have to consider Miandad because he was one of the very best batsmen in this era, and also Akram if not for anything (!) then for variety in your pace attack...So, we have 5 musts and 4 others who are very strong candidates...I say there might be 4-6 players from WI and Australia combined in the playing XI...

Miandad doesn't merit a spot in either the best Aussie or best Windies team of their peak periods, let alone a combined side, let alone a World XI...

And in a team with a really really strong top 6, there'd be no hesitation in taking Gilchrist over either Flower or Sanga.

 

[Slifer]

Interesting that many of you put Chappell ahead of Lara.

If Lara is on song he would be the best batsmen in either team and would win the match on his own.

Yes thats true but i just have this affinity for Greg Chapell. Absolutely solid against most of the attacks he faced in his time, good conversion rate etc etc etc. IMO one of the most underrated players of all time!!

 

[Slifer]

IMO

Hayden > Greenidge
Langer = Haynes
Ponting = Richards
Chappell = or > Lara
Border > Lloyd
Waugh > Chanderpaul
Gilchrist >> Dujon
Warne = Marshall
Lillee > Holding
McGrath = Ambrose
Reid < Garner

The bowling is very equal, although Australia's is more diverse. Batting it's distinctly better for Australia for mine.

I'll give Aust the edge in batting but no way are those 2 bowling attacks equal. As much as Warne = Marshall, Lillee > Holding (but not by much), Mcgrath > Ambrose (by a whisker) but Reid<< Garner or Roberts or Walsh or Bishop.

 

[Ikki]

I'll give Aust the edge in batting but no way are those 2 bowling attacks equal. As much as Warne = Marshall, Lillee > Holding (but not by much), Mcgrath > Ambrose (by a whisker) but Reid<< Garner or Roberts or Walsh or Bishop.

Nah, I reckon the distance in the batting is much more than Reid v Garner - who are essentially the 4th specialist bowlers. And why was Reid mentioned anyway? Gillespie for mine would be better than Reid for that position.

 

[zaremba]

Nah, I reckon the distance in the batting is much more than Reid v Garner - who are essentially the 4th specialist bowlers. And why was Reid mentioned anyway? Gillespie for mine would be better than Reid for that position.

Reid and Gillespie are not in Joel Garner's league.

 

[bagapath]

Nah, I reckon the distance in the batting is much more than Reid v Garner - who are essentially the 4th specialist bowlers. And why was Reid mentioned anyway? Gillespie for mine would be better than Reid for that position.

reid was much more incisive than dizzy before injuries cut his career short. better average, strike rate, wkt/test ratio and also the variety of left arm pace to go with lillee and mcgrath's right arms. still if you want to drop reid you've to go for mcdermott before gillespie gets a chance.

 

[bagapath]

Agree with the essence of your post, but disagree with the teams...

The five you named (Gavaskar, Imran, Murali, Sachin, Hadlee) are absolutely must in a World XI for this period (One could argue a bit about Hadlee though since there are so many great bowlers in this time, still he's almost a must)...Moreover, there's a good case of Andy Flower (or Sangakkara) over Gilchrist...And you have to consider Miandad because he was one of the very best batsmen in this era, and also Akram if not for anything (!) then for variety in your pace attack...So, we have 5 musts and 4 others who are very strong candidates...I say there might be 4-6 players from WI and Australia combined in the playing XI...

we're talking abour viv richards, greg chappell, ricky ponting, brian lara and sachin tendulkar. javed miandad was a great player but he is half a notch below the names mention above. in fact, the other two champions we've not taken in the combined team - allan border and steve waugh - are also slightly stronger candidates than miandad.

 

[Ikki]

Reid and Gillespie are not in Joel Garner's league.

I am not saying they are. But in playing the role of the back-up bowlers I'd much rather Gillespie who made a career out of it.

 

[bagapath]

Reid and Gillespie are not in Joel Garner's league.

my only complaint with garner's record is he didnt take enough five-fers; just 7 in 56 matches compared to holding's 13, roberts' 11 and marshall's 22. ambrose and walsh too claimed more than 20 five wicket hauls. this "inability" to run through batting sides single handedly is the only glaring weakness in garner's otherwise excellent record. for somewhat similar reasons i am never able to rate batsmen without double centuries - haynes, anwar, cowdrey, vengsarkar and m.waugh - in the very top tier.

 

[weldone]

Miandad doesn't merit a spot in either the best Aussie or best Windies team of their peak periods, let alone a combined side, let alone a World XI...

Oh, so you are saying Chanderpaul, Lloyd > Miandad...I strongly disagree...Miandad is highly underrated, I mean look at the attacks he had to face...Richards didn't have to face Marshall, Garner, Holding or Roberts...Border didn't have to face Lillee, Thomson...Still Miandad averages more than both (Yes, I know averages aren't everything)...And he maintained that record for as long as 18 years...If he were born in Australia or England, there would have been a strong case of him being knighted...He's certainly worth a consideration when making a world XI for that period, not necessary that one has to take him, but he has to be among the contenders...

 

[weldone]

In fact, the other two champions we've not taken in the combined team - allan border and steve waugh - are also slightly stronger candidates than miandad.

On what basis?...I mean on what basis have you not taken Border and Waugh in the combined XI? And on what basis do you think that Miandad is slightly weaker candidates than them?...Don't you think that the comments you're making are too judgmental? [And about my point about Miandad, read my post above]

 

[silentstriker]

I am not saying they are. But in playing the role of the back-up bowlers I'd much rather Gillespie who made a career out of it.

Huh? So you'd rather have Gillespie as your third bowler than Garner?

 

[Slifer]

Nah, I reckon the distance in the batting is much more than Reid v Garner - who are essentially the 4th specialist bowlers. And why was Reid mentioned anyway? Gillespie for mine would be better than Reid for that position.

Umm as far as i can see the only significant edge Australia have in batting is Gilchrist vs Dujon, which in any case is made up by the gap between Garner/Walsh/Roberts/Bishop vs ne of the 4th Ozzie bowler. IMO it's a toss up depending very much on playing conditions etc.

 

[zaremba]

my only complaint with garner's record is he didnt take enough five-fers; just 7 in 56 matches compared to holding's 13, roberts' 11 and marshall's 22. ambrose and walsh too claimed more than 20 five wicket hauls. this "inability" to run through batting sides single handedly is the only glaring weakness in garner's otherwise excellent record. for somewhat similar reasons i am never able to rate batsmen without double centuries - haynes, anwar, cowdrey, vengsarkar and m.waugh - in the very top tier.

I think this is a very misleading stat which you should take with a massive pinch of salt.

The difference between batsmen and bowlers is that one batsman's success in scoring a 100 doesn't hinder his team-mates' ability to score 100s of their own. But there are only ever 10 wickets to go round for the bowlers. In Garner's case his ability to take 5-fers was restricted by the very fact that Holding, Roberts and Marshall (and the rest) took so many wickets while he was playing. This grossly distorts that element of his career bowling analysis.

His ability to run through a team is evident from the fact that he had 48 5-wicket hauls in first class cricket, more than Roberts and more than Holding. His rate of 5-fers per FC match is better than Roberts, better than Holding and better than Marshall.

(Compare, btw, Freddie Flintoff who has a total of 3 in first class cricket!).

One statistic that is neither distorted nor misleading is Garner's Test bowling average of just under 21.

 

[zaremba]

I am not saying they are. But in playing the role of the back-up bowlers I'd much rather Gillespie who made a career out of it.

I really don't understand your logic. Gillespie probably took the new ball more often than Garner in Tests (although I'm happy to stand corrected if wrong about this).

Gillespie was a fine bowler as his Test average of 26 shows but unlike Garner he's not one of the greatest bowlers in the history of the game.

Between the 2 of them I'd rather have Garner opening, Garner at first change and Garner with the old ball.

 

[Ikki]

Huh? So you'd rather have Gillespie as your third bowler than Garner?

No, not Garner...Reid. I don't think neither Gillespie nor Garner would be the 3rd bowler, more the 4th.

Whereas each specialist batsmen will roughly have an equal chance to create an innings of importance to their team, the bowler that comes after Warne, Lillee and McGrath or Marshall, Ambrose and Holding will be restricted in his efforts and hence the difference in the 4th best bowler of each side - even if it is the difference between Garner and Gillespie - will be less important than their difference in batting.

 

[zaremba]

No, not Garner...Reid. I don't think neither Gillespie nor Garner would be the 3rd bowler, more the 4th.

Whereas each specialist batsmen will roughly have an equal chance to create an innings of importance to their team, the bowler that comes after Warne, Lillee and McGrath or Marshall, Ambrose and Holding will be restricted in his efforts and hence the difference in the 4th best bowler of each side - even if it is the difference between Garner and Gillespie - will be less important than their difference in batting.

I see your point. For me, though, Garner is a top-3 bowler in that line-up, with little to choose between him and Ambrose and Marshall. Gillespie definitely 4th in that Australian team though.

 

[subshakerz]

I think this is a very misleading stat which you should take with a massive pinch of salt.

The difference between batsmen and bowlers is that one batsman's success in scoring a 100 doesn't hinder his team-mates' ability to score 100s of their own. But there are only ever 10 wickets to go round for the bowlers. In Garner's case his ability to take 5-fers was restricted by the very fact that Holding, Roberts and Marshall (and the rest) took so many wickets while he was playing. This grossly distorts that element of his career bowling analysis.

His ability to run through a team is evident from the fact that he had 48 5-wicket hauls in first class cricket, more than Roberts and more than Holding. His rate of 5-fers per FC match is better than Roberts, better than Holding and better than Marshall.

(Compare, btw, Freddie Flintoff who has a total of 3 in first class cricket!).

One statistic that is neither distorted nor misleading is Garner's Test bowling average of just under 21.

This is very true. Garner also rarely opened the bowling the way Holding, Roberts and Marshall did, thus having less of a crack at the chance to get five-fors. Batsmen rarely got on top of Garner. In fact, I can arguably see Garner as a better version of McGrath, about as niggardly and accurate with more pace and bounce and a more menacing presence and also without the need to sledge.