Era XIs

[Craig]

Well I'm going to have to disagree with you there on Murali. We have been on this issue over and over it aint funny (it probably aint).

But agree with you on Barry Richards.

 

[a massive zebra]

first of all figures are not everything. if u use your beloved averages everywhere then trescothick would be an amazing batsman.....james anderson would be an all rounder and hussain and butcher would be useless.
if u havent seen cricket from the WI era then i think u should shut up and stop stating things that u know nothing about. u cannot compare players from different eras!!why?because pitches in the 70s and 80s offered a lot more than they do now.hell people used to be scared to open the batting...nowadays u see people like sehwag opening the batting. u cannot refute that pitches are better now than they ever were.
also the standard of bowling has definetly gone down. haynes would have come up against lilee,hadlee,botham,kapil dev,imran khan,willis etc on seaming wickets...hayden on the other hand has played only a few.
also i would like to see hayden play well in england...the last time he went there he had a really bad tour-not that im saying he cant but it would definetly porve that he can play all around the world

What a load of rubbish. No statistics are not everything but it is fair to say they mean something, especially if taken over a long career. Are you trying to say Lara is not better than Fleming, or Tendulkar is not better than Butcher? Trescothick would not be an amazing batsman using averages alone - he would be a good one in decline, which appears to be accurate. James Anderson would not be an alrounder because he has only got out twice in Test cricket - thus making his average invalid. Hussain and Butcher would not be useless they would be Test class but unexceptional, which is correct. Yes averages have to be taken in context but they are a good indicator of ability.

You correctly state that the standard of bowling was higher in the 80s, but the current standard of bowling in test cricket is better than it was in 80s first-class cricket, yet Hayden's test record is far better than Haynes in 1st class cricket.

Hayden scored runs all over the world, he has consistently been the most prolific batsman in the world since 2001, and Australia have played in most countries in that time.

 

[hourn]

Era IV team:

Sunil Gavaskar
Matt Hayden*
Sachin Tendulkar
Viv Richards
Steve Waugh
Adam Gilchrist
Imran Khan or Ian Botham**
Malcolm Marshall
Shane Warne
Joel Garner
Muttiah Murlitharan

12th man: Richard Hadlee

*Noticed a lot of people haven't put Hayden in their team. Although stats don't tell the full story, he's clearly been the most succesful opening batsmen in quite a while.......may not be techincally perfect, but that's what was said about Bradman too.

**Take your pick. I'd prefer Imran Khan, but i wouldn't turn down Ian Botham.

 

[marc71178]

What a load of rubbish. No statistics are not everything but it is fair to say they mean something, especially if taken over a long career. Are you trying to say Lara is not better than Fleming, or Tendulkar is not better than Butcher?

So you rubbish him for comparing the batsmen more than the figures in different eras of bowling by using players playing at the same time...

 

[marc71178]

It amazes me all the people putting Gilchrist at 6 in these teams.

 

[Grubb]

Hi there, first time writer long time reader...
In the old Aussie cricket magazine, before Inside Edge, there was a very interesting comparison piece on batsmen of various eras. It must have been in about 1989/90, and it used a number of pertinent statistics to rate players. I think they selected 20 or 30 batsmen for the comparison, and rated them from 1-20 or 30 in each section, and those ratings were then added together to determine the final rankings.
The sections included "personals": percentage of failures (innings <20); "going on rate" of converting 20s to 50s, and then of 50s to 100s and 100s to 150s; "value to team": percentage of team runs (less extras), and individual average diff compared with average runs per wicket of other players in all relevant matches. I think there was also a % of runs in matches won figure, but I may be wrong. There were a number of other bits and pieces in there too, which I can't remember. I think there were about 10-15 sections in all.
If anyone else recalls the piece I think it would be interesting to revisit in terms of this discussion. In its favour, it rated players relative to their peers, both in their team and the opposition, and then compared their affect on the game. So, for example, if Lara averages 52 while his team-mates collectively average 24, he gets a +26 for average diff, which will put him higher than a Kallis (for example) who averages 55 but whose team-mates average 29. It's a useful way to compare players of different eras, because the sections are more relative than standard cricket stats. On the downside, the importance of each rating is equal, so if a player is ranked 19th on failures, but 3rd on going on rate of 20s to 50s, they are both accorded the same weighting when the final result is calculated. Also, people with short test careers are penalised (but that's true for all ratings systems).
For the record, if my memory is correct, I think the top three were Bradman, Headley and possibly Richards.
If anyone else remembers the article I'd be interested to know. I think it would be worthwhile to make a similar table now.
That's a fair whack. Hope it makes sense.

 

[a massive zebra]

Hi, and welcome to cricketweb.

That sounds really interesting, it would be great if someone could find a copy. I read something similar in a book called 'The Best Of The Best' by Charles Davis. In this case, the batting was topped by Bradman, followed by Sobers then I think Tendulkar. Overall, taking into account batting, bowling and fielding, Bradman was top, Sobers 2nd and Imran 3rd.

 

[marc71178]

This sounds like something interesting and worth maybe the forum looking into compiling.

What do peole judge as the key things for batting, bowling and keeping?

 

[Craig]

It amazes me all the people putting Gilchrist at 6 in these teams.

Amazing he is in the teams...

I know he is very good but I would prefer Bob Taylor (pick him as a specialist keeper) or my all-time favourite Alan Knott.

 

[SJS]

Amazing he is in the teams...

I know he is very good but I would prefer Bob Taylor (pick him as a specialist keeper) or my all-time favourite Alan Knott.

Yes. It is amazing how most people choose him. Just goes to show how one-dayers have come to cloud our thinking and judgement.

No test side will choose anyone but the best wicket keeper. Gilchrist is Australia's best today but in an all time team there are many to challenge him. Evans, Taylor, Oldfield, Knott and from recent times and FROM Australia..Ian Healy.

Walcott had a test batting average of 58 plus and is among the dozen or so most successful of all time batsmen but no one ever put him in an all time test side as a wicket keeper although I remember reading one article where he was put in an all time side as a pure batsman

 

[roseboy64]

If you're ever going to out one of the three W's in a Test XI it would be best to put Worrelll.Mostly on captaincy.Good player too.Nothing against Walcott or Weekes though.

 

[SJS]

If you're ever going to out one of the three W's in a Test XI it would be best to put Worrelll.Mostly on captaincy.Good player too.Nothing against Walcott or Weekes though.

I totally agree. In fact, he is one of the all time under rated batsmen in the game. He was much more than just a "good" player. He was pretty weak, and far below his regular self, as he played his last series in England. He died two years later. Before this series, he had scored 3718 runs in tests at 52.4 runs each.

This is what Sir Learie Constantine said of him when he died.

Norman Yardley, the England captain of the time, told me it was impossible to set a field to him. Place the fieldsman straight and he beat them on the wide. Place them wide and he would beat them straight.

I am not one for averages myself. I am more concerned with how a batsman made his runs and not what his average was at the end of the series. Sir Neville Cardus wrote of Sir Frank that he never made a crude or an ungrammatical stroke. I agree with that. Worrell was poetry.

While Walcott bludgeoned the bowlers and Weekes dominated them, the stylist Worrell waved them away. There was none of the savage aggression of a Sobers in his batting. He was the artist. All three “Ws” were geniuses but Worrell had the most style and elegance. He had all the strokes and the time and capacity to use them without offence to the eye, without ever being hurried.

He was never seen playing across the line. That is why he never hooked. Players and pressmen agreed that even when he ducked beneath a bouncer, he did so with a lack of panic and great dignity. And remember he had Lindwall and Miller to contend with.

 

[twctopcat]

Amazing he is in the teams...

I know he is very good but I would prefer Bob Taylor (pick him as a specialist keeper) or my all-time favourite Alan Knott.

Exactly to be fair you can get away with 6 batsmen when they are all time best (Bradman, Pollock, Headley etc) because chances are, if they can't get the runs, no-one can. And Knott was a fair hand with the bat. Add to that the likelihood that Imran,Wasim etc could be following who can bat a bit then there is even more case for a specialist wicketkeeper.

 

[a massive zebra]

You like bringing back my old threads don't you SJS!

You appear to have a wise head on your shoulders and are very well spoken.