Finding out the best decade for test cricket: The tournament thread! 12 ATG XIs duke it out.

[The Sean]

'80s
'40s

 

[Michaelf7777777]

30s and 2000s

 

[sunilz]

Australian posters like Stephen need to understand just like your favourite boy Steve Smith has lost most of his test series against IND and SA , Bradman side of 40s will be hunted down by 80s.

Keep deluding yourself that Bradman won't be contained by 80s like Smith wasn't contained by SA bowler in 16, 18 and IND bowler in 20.

Test matches are won by bowlers not batsman. Steve Smith couldn't win you 2019 Ashes. Similarly Bradman isn't winning against 80s side.

 

[sunilz]

Do Australian posters like Stephen deliberately over rate 30s, , 40s player to big up Bradman ?

Why no one picks these 30, 40s bowlers in their ATG side ?.

 

[kyear2]

Do Australian posters like Stephen deliberately over rate 30s, , 40s player to big up Bradman ?

Why no one picks these 30, 40s bowlers in their ATG side ?.

Yes, because "he's like having an extra batsman" .

 

[mr_mister]

Australian posters like Stephen need to understand just like your favourite boy Steve Smith has lost most of his test series against IND and SA , Bradman side of 40s will be hunted down by 80s.

Keep deluding yourself that Bradman won't be contained by 80s like Smith wasn't contained by SA bowler in 16, 18 and IND bowler in 20.

Test matches are won by bowlers not batsman. Steve Smith couldn't win you 2019 Ashes. Similarly Bradman isn't winning against 80s side.

tbf that's due to his batting support being useless in that series. Did the opening batsmen reach 100 runs combined for the whole thing?

The 40s side has Hutton, Bradman, Nourse, Weekes etc. No-one is saying one batsman(though Bradman could be the closest) wins you matches, but strong batting units are as important as bowling units, obviously. Good bowlers win games but good batsmen can make it impossible to lose

 

[sunilz]

Yes, because "he's like having an extra batsman" .

But 80s side has lots of extra batsman like Imran, Kapil, Hadlee, Marshall ( he could bat )

 

[Victor Ian]

80 40

 

[sunilz]

tbf that's due to his batting support being useless in that series. Did the opening batsmen reach 100 runs combined for the whole thing?

The 40s side has Hutton, Bradman, Nourse, Weekes etc. No-one is saying one batsman(though Bradman could be the closest) wins you matches, but strong batting units are as important as bowling units, obviously. Good bowlers win games but good batsmen can make it impossible to lose

Hutton, Nourse and Weekes would struggle to average 40 against 80s pace attack.

You need to remember even Tendulkar, Lara average in mid 30s against pace attack of SA, PAK and Aus in 90s. And the batsman you named are not better than these 2 players.

 

[mr_mister]

It's hard to know how good Hutton would have been. People here still generally consider him the most worthy of an all time world XI opening spot with Hobbs.

And didn't Lara and Sachin average well over 40 against all those countries? Or do you mean specifically the pace bowlers while they cashed in against spin. If so, how do you find such a stat haha

 

[kyear2]

This is the NBA's 75th season and everyone is doing their top NBA players list. Despite the fact that Wilt is by miles the most statistically dominant player in league history and Russell has by far the most rings, no one places them as no 1. Why, because they recognize that it was a different game back them, with limited competition.
But we still pretend that Sutcliffe who played with different rules and timeless rests could compete in today's game.

We didn't approach anything resembling the modern game till the late 30's and didn't hit it's stride till the post war days.

And no, would never say discredit Bradman, Hammond, Headley etc. But let's not pretend they were a cut above either.

Even 10 years later, the game and level of completion had improved so much.

Just my opinion though

 

[mr_mister]

I don't like just assuming the older school players would have struggled in the modern age. It basically downgrades everyone from before 1950, bowlers and batsman.

Yes, fitness standards have improved of course over time but batsman have now got better equipment, eg far better bats for one thing and of course pitch standards are far better now, there's no more stickies around since we started using covered pitches.

Basically it's too hard to add up and subtract these factors to give a fair guess on how Hutton and Hammond and Bradman would have done in 2000s IMO

 

[sunilz]

It's hard to know how good Hutton would have been. People here still generally consider him the most worthy of an all time world XI opening spot with Hobbs.

And didn't Lara and Sachin average well over 40 against all those countries? Or do you mean specifically the pace bowlers while they cashed in against spin. If so, how do you find such a stat haha

In matches involving ( Donald +Pollock), (Akram + Waqar), (McGrath + Gillespie)

 

[kyear2]

But 80s side has lots of extra batsman like Imran, Kapil, Hadlee, Marshall ( he could bat )

I was agreeing with you.

 

[mr_mister]

Like who knows, maybe the stronger yet lighter bats are far more helpful than we realise to modern players. It wouldn't surprise me

 

[sunilz]

I don't like just assuming the older school players would have struggled in the modern age. It basically downgrades everyone from before 1950, bowlers and batsman.

Yes, fitness standards have improved of course over time but batsman have now got better equipment, eg far better bats for one thing and of course pitch standards are far better now, there's no more stickies around since we started using covered pitches.

Basically it's too hard to add up and subtract these factors to give a fair guess on how Hutton and Hammond and Bradman would have done in 2000s IMO

But players like McGrath, Marshall could absolutely change the result of a series.

You need to watch IND tour of Aus 2003/04 or Ashes 2005( after 1st test ) to realise how much McGrath meant to that ATG Aus side.

Players like McGrath, Marshall are comparable to Bradman imo.

 

[mr_mister]

If we assume Bradman would have only averaged 60 or something the modern age and only be slightly ahead of Sachin and Lara rather than double them, then that makes Hutton and Hobbs 40 averaging opening batsman on the level of like Michael Slater and Alec Stewart which feels wrong

 

[sunilz]

If we assume Bradman would have only averaged 60 or something the modern age and only be slightly ahead of Sachin and Lara rather than double them, then that makes Hutton and Hobbs 40 averaging opening batsman on the level of like Michael Slater and Alec Stewart which feels wrong

Bradman would have averaged 60s against 80s pace attack. Against other side he would have averaged around 100 taking his overall average to around 75-80.

Similarly Hutton, Hobbs would have averaged 40s against 80s pace attack and around 60 against others to take their overall average to around 50.

 

[mr_mister]

But players like McGrath, Marshall could absolutely change the result of a series.

You need to watch IND tour of Aus 2003/04 or Ashes 2005( after 1st test ) to realise how much McGrath meant to that ATG Aus side.

Players like McGrath, Marshall are comparable to Bradman imo.

I agree McGrath meant a lot to that Aus side, but if it was Warne injured and McGrath kept playing who's to say we wouldn't have been in the same position? If McGrath took Warne's 40 wickets in '05 but had no Warne to assist, I think the results would be identical.

And Marshall of course always had an ATG or two helping him out. Murali operating without another ATG helping him shows that you need more than one in a team. He bowled SL to many victories but couldn't turn them into an elite outfit like Aus and WI of the 2000s and 80s

 

[anil1405]

I wonder if the large number of Indian votes for the modern side comes from India's historical lack of quality pace bowlers and the improvement they've made to the Indian side in recent years.

I really think many are over rating the 80s side here. They have a glaring weakness which renders their bowling attack less effective in many conditions that the side would be playing in. And Imran is a very weak number 6 or a weak bowler, since he never really had a period where he was capable of batting 6 and was at the top of his game with the ball.

Every time I read your posts I feel you cannot be any more biased than this but you keep surprising me.

Going by your post 2010's side would be one of the fav's to win this one because the stocks in Indian cricket for pace bowlers has never been this good and 'as per your logic' Indian fans would only have begun appreciating pace bowlers (more than ever) in the last decade.

If there is anything to take out of the voting here I feel Bradman is being overrated more than the 80s side. Bradman's 30s side barely managed to win against the 50s side by one vote (against an attack of Davidson, Trueman and Co).

And if you observe the ATG sides picked here regularly Hadlee and Marshall are more prominently present in these ATG sides as compared to 50s bowlers.

And if you consider Bradman to be equivalent of 2 ATGs, his side is so well equipped with top quality batsmen that they should negate the opposition bowling pretty easily. But the votes say otherwise.