Cricinfo Best Test 11 from last 25 years

[Mr Miyagi]

Also I prefer to select sides thinking I get to pick this player at their peak, but I never do the hard work of defining a minimum requirement for duration of that peak, analysing the career record of players who are ATVGs or less within that requirement - for example, Mike Hussey has a 30 Test Peak of averaging 70 odd in Tests right? Does Peak Mike Hussey make an ATG test team?

How are you offsetting peaks with longevity?

Does longevity matter or just peaks?

Do peaks much better than the career length get discounted?

Are you standardising peaks at 30 tests for players?

You had no Botham in your tail.

 

[trundler]

My logic is simple. With Warne at 10, my team bats deep as it is and so I just go with the best bowler at 11. With Bradman and the like in the middle order and Khan and Marshall in the lower order, the batting is strong as it is and I don't think runs from the #11 would be needed at all so I go with the bowler I think would partner Marshall best (and also whom I consider the 2nd greatest after Marshall). Alternatively, you could have Hadlee at 9 and Murali at 11 or Hadlee at 10 and Warne at 11 even and that makes sense but if I'm already batting to 10, taking batting into consideration for #11 sounds like a bit of an overkill. One useless bat isn't going to weaken the team. I'll take McGrath to get the top order out. Hadlee makes my 2nd XI as the #8 or 9

 

[trundler]

If peaks are more important than longevity then there's a whole bunch of blokes to be considered ahead of Tendulkar.

 

[trundler]

TBF, if I'd been older and had seen Hadlee as the fast-medium bowler conquering the world growing up instead of McGrath I'd have picked him instead.

 

[cnerd123]

If peaks are more important than longevity then there's a whole bunch of blokes to be considered ahead of Tendulkar.

Yea I've thought about that

Like I said, I shy away from doing the hard work of deciding how much is the minimum year/games that I want to evaluate the peak over, and then going through all the players who meet that criteria and determining who was best at their peak

Its just too subjective, but I think it will result in a fairer, more accurate all time XI

 

[trundler]

Maybe Tendulkar isn't the best example. Technical perfection should count for something and mid-way into his career he was picked by Bradman in his XI and being lauded by Benaud as being a level above all those he'd seen. But if we do take longevity out of the equation, there isn't much separating him and Chappell as the greatest #4. Throw Hammond in for consideration too.

 

[Borges]

Steyn over anyone else, and Hadlee over McGrath for me.

Others can select there own teams based on their own preferences. I've no quarrel with any of them unless they insist that the whole world must agree with their opinions.

 

[Bolo]

Yea I've thought about that

Like I said, I shy away from doing the hard work of deciding how much is the minimum year/games that I want to evaluate the peak over, and then going through all the players who meet that criteria and determining who was best at their peak

Its just too subjective, but I think it will result in a fairer, more accurate all time XI

I think that without doing this a distinct tendency for acceptable peak length to coincidentally match peak length of favourite players is likely to emerge. The problem with this for me personally is that Stuart broad had the same peak length as my favourite batting allrounder, Jason Gillespie.

 

[harsh.ag]

A good eye and fast reflexes are more important than technical perfection I have come to think. Or at least technical perfection in the classical sense.

 

[trundler]

Which bowling order would you rather have?:
Imran Khan
Marshall
Warne
McGrath OR

Hadlee
Marshall
Warne
Steyn

 

[trundler]

A good eye and fast reflexes are more important than technical perfection I have come to think. Or at least technical perfection in the classical sense.

I don't think it's possible to be a great batsman without those.

 

[Borges]

Which bowling order would you rather have?

Hadlee
Marshall
Warne
Steyn

To me, it's not even close.

 

[trundler]

Hadlee
Marshall
Warne
Steyn

To me, it's not even close.

Fair enough but I'd like to know why you think it's not even close. You get the same variety and roughly the same skills either way.
Hadlee and McGrath cancel each other out. The batting advantage is offset by Imran's batting.
Warne and Marshall are in both orders. Steyn and Imran both old-ball masters and great anywhere.

 

[smash84]

Fair enough but I'd like to know why you think it's not even close. You get the same variety and roughly the same skills either way.
Hadlee and McGrath cancel each other out. The batting advantage is offset by Imran's batting.
Warne and Marshall are in both orders. Steyn and Imran both old-ball masters and great anywhere.

Because you asked for the bowling and not batting.

And yeah, it's not like their is that much difference between the two

 

[Borges]

I'd like to know why you think it's not even close. Steyn and Imran both old-ball masters and great anywhere.

Steyn takes a wicket once in every seven overs he bowls; Imran does it once in every nine overs. There wickets per match reflects this difference; Imran bowls more overs, but takes less wickets.
Not even close, because I favour a strike bowler over a stock bowler (in comparison).

 

[trundler]

Should have said tail instead.

Anyway to make it more interesting, Lillee in forMarshall in the tail that's got Steyn. Now who would you choose?

 

[smash84]

Steyn takes a wicket once in every seven overs he bowls; Imran does it once in every nine overs. There wickets per match reflects this difference; Imran bowls more overs, but takes less wickets.
Not even close, because I favour a strike bowler over a stock bowler (in comparison).

2 over difference in striking doesn't mean much over the length of a test match.

Ummm, both are strike bowlers. One is just striking faster. Doesn't mean the other is a stock bowler.

 

[trundler]

If you take away Imran's medium pacer who was pushed into the international scene way too soon years, he has a strike rate of 51 which is a wicket every 8.5 overs which is remarkable considering he played in a slower-scoring era and all. Average drops to 22 as well.

 

[Daemon]

2 over difference in striking doesn't mean much over the length of a test match.

Ummm, both are strike bowlers. One is just striking faster. Doesn't mean the other is a stock bowler.

2 overs makes a difference. If he takes 4 wickets that's 8 overs, 16 if you want to include the other 8 that someone else is going to bowl from the other end.

 

[Engle]

In Tests that they bowled against each other, Imran bested Lillee, Hadlee and Marshall(marginally). He had the ability to raise his game to match the occasion. In ATG teams, temperament counts for more than talent or technique.