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

[sunilz]

You'd hope that a guy mostly picked almost exclusively in favourable conditions would help his team win in those conditions.

Are you talking about Bradman when you say playing in favourable condition and against weak team ? ?

Because Bradman didn't play any test in Asia. So I am confused ?

 

[sunilz]

I AWTA the above. Sportspeople constantly get better and better in all sports so modern day players and teams are better than those from yesteryear. In short, the current NZ team must be the GOAT cricket team.

You need to hold your horses. They are yet to win a test in IND, AUS, SA in last 10 years. They will be rightly dispatched from their no.1 ranking in Nov by India.

If either of IND/NZ increase their overseas win percentage , then your point is correct.

 

[kyear2]

The Windies barrage made an ATG like border average 30 odd. Bradman copped a similar barrage in Bodyline without decent protective gear and was still two times as good.
I get your point about more teams throws up more competition, but it also goes that less teams makes you rarely play bunnies. Australia has been quite consistent in producing great teams and non australian players had to face them every second time, with no mediocre opposition.

I agree. Hence why I said Bradman wasn't necessarily twice as good as Hammond, Hutton etc. The main opposition they had were each other, but the Aussies had better attacks than the Brits. That was my point.

And re body line, again agree. Bradman was ****ing amazing. I never questioned that. But he wouldn't have averaged that in the 70's, 80's or 90's. And while body line was a test, we can't compare that attack to 83 Marshall, Garner, Holding etc..
But I get your points. But again I don't think he was twice as good as Sobers, Sachin, Lara, Richards Smith etc. And hence , belatedly back to the original.point. Bradman to me isn't worth 2 batsmen doesn't make a team unbeatable.
That's all I was trying to say.

 

[sunilz]

I am trolling about Bradman and Jadeja. Please don't start fighting with me ?

My point is Bradman would only make your side better if your bowling attack is comparable to other team. And 30s/40s bowling attack is not comparable to 80s. So, Bradman won't make much difference because other batsmen won't score that much.

 

[h_hurricane]

You'd hope that a guy mostly picked almost exclusively in favourable conditions would help his team win in those conditions.

This is not true any more. Jadeja has a higher home/away % of test matches than Lillee and Anderson to quote a few examples.

Jadeja has now played 9 overseas tests now since he last played a home test(which was way back in 2019).

 

[sunilz]

This is not true any more. Jadeja has a higher home/away % of test matches than Lillee and Anderson to quote a few examples.

Jadeja has now played 9 overseas tests now since he last played a home test(which was way back in 2019).

And the most important thing is all the tests are in SENA countries not even SL, BAN, WI where pitches are spin friendly.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Hutton
Headley
Hammond

Right - so just Bradman then

 

[anil1405]

Way to misrepresent what I've said.

And arguing that people voting for a side proves anything except that a majority of the people who voted think that way is a logical fallacy.

I noted that most Indian voters had gone with the 80s side. The strength of the 80s side is its pace attack. I proposed an idea that maybe Indians are over rating the 80s side because of the changes in recent times to their side (which has gained some top quality pace bowlers and who have seen excellent results because of it). It would be no different from Australians suddenly valuing spin much more highly in the 90s/00s than they had before. It was an idea, no more.

Just because India has seen fast bowling talent so Indian fans (especially on this forum) only understood the importance of fast bowling in test cricket NOW is as flawed an assumption as it can get. And gives the impression you don't understand how Indian fans perceive pace bowling. So you might want to look back at the discussions Indian fans have had in the past about pace bowlers.

On the other part of the debate - Bradman. I do think people underrate how good Bradman was because we haven't seen anything like it. Bradman averaged 50% more runs than Steve Smith. Smith has been mind blowing. Bradman was way better than him. We can't truly comprehend how good he was because we don't really believe it. We don't believe it because we have no Anchor for our brains to work with. Bradman was as much better than Kane Williamson as Kane Williamson is to Pat Cummins.

Let's just look, for example, at the 1936/37 series, which by Bradman's standards was an average one.

In that series he made:
38, 0, 0, 82, 13, 270, 26, 212 and 169.

That was an average series for him. He "only" averaged 90 that series. That's akin to your average series being Michael Clarke 2012 level. It's unbelievable.

Basically, to say that Bradman would have averaged 60 today, you need to be saying that the best of the rest would be averaging around 30 today. Do we really believe that Hobbs would have averaged less than Travis Head?

Bradman might have "only" averaged 80 vs the 80s attack, but he's also wearing out the opposing quick bowlers, ensuring the middle order faces a softer ball and piling up massive totals. He was ridiculous and is banned from drafts because any side with him in is basically going to win unless there's a heavy, one sided advantage given to the opposing sides.

A bowling example would be like if every bowler was at Srinath level and one bowler was Marshall.

Calling a series were Bradman averaged 90 as a normal series for him while his overall average was 99 is cherry picking at its finest.

As much as you want to hype Bradman beyond how good he is (off course he is at the very least 1.5 times better than the next best batsman), he hasn't faced enough ATG bowlers we've seen in the history of test cricket.

Anyone claiming Bradman would've averaged 60 or 70 against better bowlers is as genuine as saying a Marshall or Hadlee would've averaged 3 or 4 runs more had they faced Bradman throughout their career.

And 80s didn't have just one genuine ATG bowler. There were quite a few of them and more than what Bradman faced in his time.

Talking about drafts, if you had looked more closely at the results, in the drafts were Bradman was picked (with a bit more restriction on that drafter obviously) hardly any side with Bradman has won the draft. I remember 3-4 times that Bradman was picked his team did not win the draft.

 

[stephen]

I am trolling about Bradman and Jadeja. Please don't start fighting with me ?

My point is Bradman would only make your side better if your bowling attack is comparable to other team. And 30s/40s bowling attack is not comparable to 80s. So, Bradman won't make much difference because other batsmen won't score that much.

A bowling attack is important and matters a lot. Quality is very important, it's true, perhaps even more important than the batting. But the difference between Martindale and Marshall, which is quite wide, isn't the gaping chasm that Bradman is to Border/ Viv. The 30s spinners are probably doing a lot of the heavy lifting for that side anyway, and as Murali showed, spinners can bowl a lot.

 

[ataraxia]

Talking about drafts, if you had looked more closely at the results, in the drafts were Bradman was picked (with a bit more restriction on that drafter obviously) hardly any side with Bradman has won the draft. I remember 3-4 times that Bradman was picked his team did not win the draft.

I have noticed this. My summation of it is that it occurs because to win a draft you need ~80% support and a Bradman + 10 ATVGs side is often quite divisive and comparisons vary heavily.

 

[stephen]

Just because India has seen fast bowling talent so Indian fans (especially on this forum) only understood the importance of fast bowling in test cricket NOW is as flawed an assumption as it can get. And gives the impression you don't understand how Indian fans perceive pace bowling. So you might want to look back at the discussions Indian fans have had in the past about pace bowlers.

It's possible to have a greater appreciation for something that is hard earned and more recent even if the objective value is the same.

Calling a series were Bradman averaged 90 as a normal series for him while his overall average was 99 is cherry picking at its finest.

As much as you want to hype Bradman beyond how good he is (off course he is at the very least 1.5 times better than the next best batsman), he hasn't faced enough ATG bowlers we've seen in the history of test cricket.

Anyone claiming Bradman would've averaged 60 or 70 against better bowlers is as genuine as saying a Marshall or Hadlee would've averaged 3 or 4 runs more had they faced Bradman throughout their career.

And 80s didn't have just one genuine ATG bowler. There were quite a few of them and more than what Bradman faced in his time.

Talking about drafts, if you had looked more closely at the results, in the drafts were Bradman was picked (with a bit more restriction on that drafter obviously) hardly any side with Bradman has won the draft. I remember 3-4 times that Bradman was picked his team did not win the draft.

How is picking a series where Bradman averaged 90 cherry picking? He had more series where his average was higher than that than he had series where his average was lower (I think it was 6 higher, 4 lower or something like that). If I was cherry picking I'd pick one where he averaged 130 for the series.

 

[kyear2]

A bowling attack is important and matters a lot. Quality is very important, it's true, perhaps even more important than the batting. But the difference between Martindale and Marshall, which is quite wide, isn't the gaping chasm that Bradman is to Border/ Viv. The 30s spinners are probably doing a lot of the heavy lifting for that side anyway, and as Murali showed, spinners can bowl a lot.

I genuinely don't mean to draw this out. But the difference between Marshall / Hadlee / Imran and Martindale is way bigger than the difference between Bradman and prime IVA. You are comparing admittedly no 1 overall but to a top 6 batsman.

I'm not trying to make this a thing. But I can't see that.

 

[kyear2]

It's possible to have a greater appreciation for something that is hard earned and more recent even if the objective value is the same.



How is picking a series where Bradman averaged 90 cherry picking? He had more series where his average was higher than that than he had series where his average was lower (I think it was 6 higher, 4 lower or something like that). If I was cherry picking I'd pick one where he averaged 130 for the series.

Bradman averaged 89 vs an average to decent England team, 178 vs India, 201 vs SA and 74 vs the WI.

His consistency was very good, but it was his ability to go huge when ever he went big is what set him apart. He was a machine, he was the best. But outside of bodyline he never had that great challenge and the best bowler he faced was likely Verity.

Lara and Sachin had McGrath, Warne, Murali, Akram, Donald and so much more.

McGrath had Sachin, Lara, Kallis etc.

Marshall had Miandad, Sunny, AB etc.

 

[anil1405]

It's possible to have a greater appreciation for something that is hard earned and more recent even if the objective value is the same.



How is picking a series where Bradman averaged 90 cherry picking? He had more series where his average was higher than that than he had series where his average was lower (I think it was 6 higher, 4 lower or something like that). If I was cherry picking I'd pick one where he averaged 130 for the series.

There is a better possibility that people would appreciate something more when they don't have it.

Had you looked closely at the general posting trends of Indians in this forum you would have noticed how highly they've always rated fast bowlers.

 

[kyear2]

There is a better possibility that people would appreciate something more when they don't have it.

Had you looked closely at the general posting trends of Indians in this forum you would have noticed how highly they've always rated fast bowlers.

I just need to get everyone to appreciate how important a great cordon is as well now. ??

 

[stephen]

I genuinely don't mean to draw this out. But the difference between Marshall / Hadlee / Imran and Martindale is way bigger than the difference between Bradman and prime IVA. You are comparing admittedly no 1 overall but to a top 6 batsman.

I'm not trying to make this a thing. But I can't see that.

Much as I love Viv, he hit less hundreds in over double the matches that Bradman did. The gulf is gigantic.

 

[stephen]

There is a better possibility that people would appreciate something more when they don't have it.

Had you looked closely at the general posting trends of Indians in this forum you would have noticed how highly they've always rated fast bowlers.

All good. You're probably right.

There does seem to be a fetishisation of the 80s though. Just trying to figure out the source of it. The era really wasn't that great IMO. The 90s was far more exciting.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I just need to get everyone to appreciate how important a great cordon is as well now. ??

Imo slip cordons should be as bad as possible so that the fast bowlers in the team learn reverse swing

 

[anil1405]

I have noticed this. My summation of it is that it occurs because to win a draft you need ~80% support and a Bradman + 10 ATVGs side is often quite divisive and comparisons vary heavily.

The fact that teams with Bradman haven't got unanimous votes in drafts and even in this thread the 30s team beating the 50s side just by one vote shows that as much as Bradman is appreciated by everyone and interpreted to be way above the next best batsman, when it comes to results its the bowling that wins you games.

And am not surprised at the hype that 80s team is receiving here.

 

[stephen]

The fact that teams with Bradman haven't got unanimous votes in drafts and even in this thread the 30s team beating the 50s side just by one vote shows that as much as Bradman is appreciated by everyone and interpreted to be way above the next best batsman, when it comes to results its the bowling that wins you games.

And am not surprised at the hype that 80s team is receiving here.

This just says that the view of the forum is that bowling is more important than batting. I'm not convinced that's true.

Unless you are saying that the Indian bowling attack in the 00s is what won them 40 tests (19 away) at a win/loss ratio of 1.5 in the era?

Batting is the foundation upon which a match can be won. Bowling seals the deal. Both are important.