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

[The Sean]

Yeah that was a terrific spell from Marshall - it was a five-for while conceding about one run per over as I recall. Something like 5-32 off 28!

 

[Fuller Pilch]

80s and 40s

 

[Slifer]

Yeah that was a terrific spell from Marshall - it was a five-for while conceding about one run per over as I recall. Something like 5-32 off 28!

Right. The 80s team could use a spinner but one of real quality wasn't available. Imo it's not a hindrance because there isn't a pitch or anywhere on earth that Warne or Murali would be more effective than Hadlee/Marshall/Garner/Imran. All 4 were formidable worldwide. Obviously, Murali is a beast in SL but :

A. Those pitches are unique to SL and don't occur much elsewhere
B. I can see Marshall and co taking the pitch out of the equation

 

[stephen]

30s and 40s.

80s has such poor balance and they're running into Bradman. There's doing to be some very tired bowlers methinks. Remember what Gavaskar did to the mighty WIndies attack. Now imagine a side with 3 players who are a class above Gavaskar. The 80s batting is also completely untested against quality spin. I just can't see them beating this 30s side with any consistency.

00s probably have the best non- Bradman side left in the contest. I think this one is a lot closer. Close to having the GOAT quick and the GOAT spinner and a ridiculous batting line up as well. But the 40s have a strong bowling attack and Bradman. Batting might not win matches, but it sure does put the victory out of reach of your opponents.

 

[trundler]

Now imagine a side with 3 players who are a class above Gavaskar.

Nah, just Bradman.

 

[stephen]

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.

 

[stephen]

Nah, just Bradman.

Hutton
Headley
Hammond

 

[Slifer]

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.

Ok so what conditions would Imran/Hadlee/Marshall/Garner be less effective in? And i want stats, examples, not gut feelings. From where I sit all 4 were successful the world over: Pakistan, India, NZ, WI, Eng, Australia, SL. RSA wasn't a team in the 80s but facing up to that attack in RSA would be overkill.

If you're going to say one or two struggled in a particular country or vs a particular team , then so did any spinner you are pitting them against.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Now imagine a side with 3 players who are a class above Gavaskar.

Out of interest who are the 3?
Bradman obviously.
2 out of 3 from Hutton, Hammond, and Headley.

Edit - I see you've named all of them above

 

[smash84]

30s and 40s.

80s has such poor balance and they're running into Bradman. There's doing to be some very tired bowlers methinks. Remember what Gavaskar did to the mighty WIndies attack. Now imagine a side with 3 players who are a class above Gavaskar. The 80s batting is also completely untested against quality spin. I just can't see them beating this 30s side with any consistency.

00s probably have the best non- Bradman side left in the contest. I think this one is a lot closer. Close to having the GOAT quick and the GOAT spinner and a ridiculous batting line up as well. But the 40s have a strong bowling attack and Bradman. Batting might not win matches, but it sure does put the victory out of reach of your opponents.

Remember that even Bradman was relatively tamed in Bodyline by his standards. . He'll get a pretty good contest here as well.

 

[miscer]

Right. The 80s team could use a spinner but one of real quality wasn't available. Imo it's not a hindrance because there isn't a pitch or anywhere on earth that Warne or Murali would be more effective than Hadlee/Marshall/Garner/Imran. All 4 were formidable worldwide. Obviously, Murali is a beast in SL but :

A. Those pitches are unique to SL and don't occur much elsewhere
B. I can see Marshall and co taking the pitch out of the equation

this is a misunderstanding of how cricket is played. You don’t just take some guy’s stats and apply them without team context. In a team of 3 atg fast bowlers warne would be dangerously effective because you could use him exactly when he is most impactful I.e. middle overs and day 4/5. 3 atg fast bowlers + atg spinner > 4 atg fast bowlers.

blindly looking at bowling averages fails to capture the above nuance.

a clear example of this is Warne (and McG) stats when the other isn’t present. Now add 3 atg quicks and Warne is now only needed at times he is most effective. His stats would completely transform. Cricket is a team sport

 

[stephen]

Ok so what conditions would Imran/Hadlee/Marshall/Garner be less effective in? And i want stats, examples, not gut feelings. From where I sit all 4 were successful the world over: Pakistan, India, NZ, WI, Eng, Australia, SL. RSA wasn't a team in the 80s but facing up to that attack in RSA would be overkill.

If you're going to say one or two struggled in a particular country or vs a particular team , then so did any spinner you are pitting them against.

Overs 40-80 in every game.

Also, a pure pace attack is going to struggle with over rates.

 

[Slifer]

30s and 40s.

80s has such poor balance and they're running into Bradman. There's doing to be some very tired bowlers methinks. Remember what Gavaskar did to the mighty WIndies attack. Now imagine a side with 3 players who are a class above Gavaskar. The 80s batting is also completely untested against quality spin. I just can't see them beating this 30s side with any consistency.

00s probably have the best non- Bradman side left in the contest. I think this one is a lot closer. Close to having the GOAT quick and the GOAT spinner and a ridiculous batting line up as well. But the 40s have a strong bowling attack and Bradman. Batting might not win matches, but it sure does put the victory out of reach of your opponents.

This has already been debunked enough times. Needless to say, when Gavaskar faced the actual full strength WI attacks he averaged in the 40s. Still good/great for the era. His stats are helped by his debut series where Vanburn Holder and I believe Sobers were frontline bowlers. Then you have the 1978 or 79 series when WI sent a second team to India (the rest were playing wsc).

And the 80s players did face quality spin. Early in his career, Viv famously had his issues vs Chandra, Bedi, Prasana and co vs India plus he and Greenidge would've faced the Indian contingent. And by issue he struggled initially but dominated soon after. See 1976 series in WI. Plus the likes of Underwood from England, Qasim and Qadir from Pakistan etc. So yeah, the 80s players did face quality spin at various points throughout their careers and were more or less successful

 

[trundler]

Hutton
Headley
Hammond

Benaud picked Gavaskar ahead of Hutton in his all time XI despite having played against him. Not much separating those two at all. Headley played 20 tests and Hammond is again top tier non-Bradman class where Gavaskar also belongs.

 

[Slifer]

Overs 40-80 in every game.

Also, a pure pace attack is going to struggle with over rates.

Overrates?? Are we considering that in these hypothetical match-ups??

 

[Slifer]

this is a misunderstanding of how cricket is played. You don’t just take some guy’s stats and apply them without team context. In a team of 3 atg fast bowlers warne would be dangerously effective because you could use him exactly when he is most impactful I.e. middle overs and day 4/5. 3 atg fast bowlers + atg spinner > 4 atg fast bowlers.

blindly looking at bowling averages fails to capture the above nuance.

a clear example of this is Warne (and McG) stats when the other isn’t present. Now add 3 atg quicks and Warne is now only needed at times he is most effective. His stats would completely transform. Cricket is a team sport

What nuances?? A bowler's job is to take wickets cheaply and if at all possible at a reasonably rate (SR). I understand the need for a spinner but with all due respect, I was never ever going to vote for Qadir on the very hypothetical chance that he'd take wickets where pacers didn't. Want to know why? Because of his stats. He was useless outside of Pakistan and vs a 90s lineup, Sachin, Lara, and Steve would eat him for breakfast. Had a Warne or close to Warne been available, yeah he probably would've made the team. Unless a quality spinner is available, you don't just pick one for variety or whatever. That makes no sense.

As a matter of fact, that trio would probably eat Murali and Warne alive as well. Doubt they'd do the same to an all pace attack in most conditions.

 

[kyear2]

I'm really curious of persons believe that Bradman would have averaged 100 if he played in the '80s. And as much as some of you say that he is worth two batsmen, still only takes 2 ball. Against Marshall, Hadlee, Imran and Garner? No one is dominating that attack.

 

[Slifer]

I'm really curious of persons believe that Bradman would have averaged 100 if he played in the '80s. And as much as some of you say that he is worth two batsmen, still only takes 2 ball. Against Marshall, Hadlee, Imran and Garner? No one is dominating that attack.

Yeah that's not happening. He may end up making more runs than anyone else but he's not doing to that attack what he did to England throughout his career (outside of Bodyline). He may very well do as well as he did vs the WI in the 1930 series ie average around 70 odd.

 

[kyear2]

30s and 40s.

80s has such poor balance and they're running into Bradman. There's doing to be some very tired bowlers methinks. Remember what Gavaskar did to the mighty WIndies attack. Now imagine a side with 3 players who are a class above Gavaskar. The 80s batting is also completely untested against quality spin. I just can't see them beating this 30s side with any consistency.

00s probably have the best non- Bradman side left in the contest. I think this one is a lot closer. Close to having the GOAT quick and the GOAT spinner and a ridiculous batting line up as well. But the 40s have a strong bowling attack and Bradman. Batting might not win matches, but it sure does put the victory out of reach of your opponents.

With regards to the 3 others above Sunil batsmen. I'll give you Hutton, but he isn't exactly a take them on kind of batsman. Hammond for his greatness, wasn't comfortable or especially great against genuinely quick, hostile bowling and again for his greatness, how much great fast bowlers of this calibre Headley faced.

 

[Line and Length]

'80s and '40s