• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

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

Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
Victor Ian said:
Where is the raft of batsmen averaging over 50 like in the 00's? They weren't weak. They bowled in vastly different conditions with different tactics which is why their numbers don't seem to compare as well. Larwood doesn't get much love, but he was THE man when it came to pace, and O'Reilly was THE man when it came to spin in that era.
Click to expand...
Larwood is so overrated. He had one great series due to Bodyline tactics, struggled in every other outing, apart from 2 tests against the Windies (no Headley, both matches won by an innings) and 3 tests against South Africa in Mitchell’s debut series (never got him out btw).
 
The Sean

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
I think I rate Larwood higher than many, and perhaps think that Bedser, while a wonderful bowler, was more dependent on home conditions than most greats. But if I were to rank the eight proper bowlers in the '30s and '50s I'd put them something like:

O'Reilly
Trueman
Davo
Laker
Verity
Larwood
Bedser
Martindale

With Hammond and Sobers essentially even (remembering we are judging Sobers by his 1950s bowling only).

The '50s is the stronger overall bowling unit, but not by as much as a lot of people here are saying, and not by enough to make up for the batting. Particularly Bradman - which is an extraordinary advantage.
 
ataraxia

ataraxia

International Coach
The Sean said:
I think I rate Larwood higher than many, and perhaps think that Bedser, while a wonderful bowler, was more dependent on home conditions than most greats. But if I were to rank the eight proper bowlers in the '30s and '50s I'd put them something like:

O'Reilly
Trueman
Davo
Laker
Verity
Larwood
Bedser
Martindale

With Hammond and Sobers essentially even (remembering we are judging Sobers by his 1950s bowling only).

The '50s is the stronger overall bowling unit, but not by as much as a lot of people here are saying, and not by enough to make up for the batting. Particularly Bradman - which is an extraordinary advantage.
Click to expand...
Grum?
 
mr_mister

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
ataraxia said:
Grum?
Click to expand...
he only made the 20s side not the 30s side(as a 3rd spinner seemed like overkill) so thats why Sean didn't include him

I wonder if Grimmett in for for Martindale would have made the side look better to voters?

Looking back I'm surprised Martindale got the nod. Cowie or even Constantine(who has a superior FC bowling record to Martindale and their test sample sizes are quite small) would have made the pace bowling look far more star studded

Martindale has as much test cred as like, Brad Hodge's test record
 
trundler

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
The Sean said:
I think I rate Larwood higher than many, and perhaps think that Bedser, while a wonderful bowler, was more dependent on home conditions than most greats. But if I were to rank the eight proper bowlers in the '30s and '50s I'd put them something like:

O'Reilly
Trueman
Davo
Laker
Verity
Larwood
Bedser
Martindale

With Hammond and Sobers essentially even (remembering we are judging Sobers by his 1950s bowling only).

The '50s is the stronger overall bowling unit, but not by as much as a lot of people here are saying, and not by enough to make up for the batting. Particularly Bradman - which is an extraordinary advantage.
Click to expand...
This completely ignores margins though. The 50s trio sandwiched between O'Reilly and Verity are significantly better than the other 2 50s bowlers. And I'm not sure if Larwood was better than Bedser.
 
The Sean

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
trundler said:
This completely ignores margins though. The 50s trio sandwiched between O'Reilly and Verity are significantly better than the other 2 50s bowlers. And I'm not sure if Larwood was better than Bedser.
Click to expand...
Yeah, fair point on both counts. Though to be fair I'm also not sure if Laker was better than Verity.

I don't want to run down any of these blokes because they're all champs. But amidst the underrating (IMO) of the 1930s bowling lineup, it's worth noting that the 1950s has only four genuine bowlers as well and as good as they are, two of them - Laker and Trueman - had very home-skewed records in the 1950s.

Verity did too in his decade, though to a slightly lesser extent that I can see, but I just think the idea so many peopling are peddling here that the '50s attack is the defining difference in this contest is really way off the mark.

Especially if, as you say, we're talking margins. There's a reason Bradman is banned from drafts, because he's the single greatest advantage in cricket history. And here we've given him Hutton, Hammond and Headley to bat with!
 
trundler

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I'm with you on Verity being Laker's equal at the very least since any average difference between the two is easily explained by the Bradman effect. That 30s batting lineup is truly ridiculous for sure. I think I just value a good pace attack more than anything and the 30s side is certainly lacking in that regard. Does an extra ATG batsman make up for it?
 
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
Fuller Pilch said:
Larwood had a first class average of 17.5. His test average of 28 shows Bradman's genius in 1930, not Larwood's weakness.
Click to expand...
Ah so I presume the other batsmen were just standing around, twiddling their thumbs? Fact is outside of Bodyline Larwood struggled to make any significant impact against an Australian side.
 
0

_00_deathscar

International Regular
trundler said:
80s lacks a spinner. 30s has an extra batsman (Bradman) but the pace bowlers are pretty underwhelming. 90s openers have nothing on the other two duos. It's not a slam dunk at all. The 80s side is virtually comprised solely of ATGs.
Click to expand...
It’s a weird balance though and some are playing in a weird spot - like if you sent Dravid and someone else in to open in the 90s cos they averaged 50ish and are ATGs…
 
mr_mister

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
30s beats 50s 10-9
80s beats 90s 11-8


Onto the second set of QFs

It's 1960s vs 2000s

1960s:

Bob Simpson * 6
Bill Lawry
Ken Barrington
Graeme Pollock
Rohan Kanhai
Gary Sobers 5
Denis Lindsay +
Allan Davidson 2
Peter Pollock 3
Fred Trueman 1
Lance Gibbs 4

2000s:

Matthew Hayden
Graeme Smith *
Ricky Ponting
Rahul Dravid
Jacques Kallis 5
Kumar Sangakkarra
Adam Gilchrist +
Shaun Pollock 3
Dale Steyn 2
Muttiah Muralitharan 4
Glen McGrath 1


and 1940s vs 1970s

1940s:

Len Hutton
Arthur Morris
Don Bradman *
Denis Compton 5
Dudley Nourse
Everton Weekes
Keith Miller 2
Don Tallon+
Ray Lindwall 1
Jack Cowie 3
Bill Johnston 4

1970s:

Geoff Boycott
Sunil Gavaskar
Viv Richards
Greg Chappell *
Javed Miandad
Ian Botham 5
Allan Knott +
Derek Underwood 4
Dennis Lillee 1
Andy Roberts 2
Jeff Thomson 3
 
mr_mister

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I'm gonna go 2000s and 1940s

The 40s is missing a spinner, but the 70s isnt really taking advantage of that as it doesnt have the powerhouse bowling attacks of the 80s, 90s and 00s

Bradman settles any debate
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top