Greatest Ever Test XI

[FaaipDeOiad]

Both G Chappell and Gavaskar's averages are inflated facing WI of dodgy quality...remember that WI didnt have a good attack before 75 or so and in some of the series after that, they fielded debutants and all that... except that Gavaskar still did better than anyone facing the top WI bowling unit while Greg struggled.... Richards also caught NZ bowling while they were peaking as well as Pakistan, which was a superior attack from what Greg faced.
All in all, Greg is a great batsman but i would rate him behind Richards, Tendulkar, Lara, Steve Waugh and Border.

Chappell series against the West Indies...

1972/73 - 5 tests, 8 innings, 342 runs @ 48.86 with two 50s and one 100. Dismissed by Gibbs five times and Holder and Willett once each.
1975/76 - 6 tests, 11 innings, 702 runs @ 117.00 with three 50s and three 100s. Dismissed by Roberts twice, Julien twice, Holder and Fredericks once each.
1979/80 - 3 tests, 6 innings, 270 runs @ 45.00 with one 50 and one 100. Dismissed by Roberts three times, Croft twice and Garner once.
1981/82 - 3 tests, 6 innings, 86 runs @ 14.33 with one 50. Dismissed by Holding four times, Garner once and Croft once.

Total - 17 tests, 31 innings, 1400 runs @ 56.00 with seven 50s and five 100s.

And how about Pakistan, the other side with a brilliant bowling attack in the 70s and 80s?

1972/73 - 3 tests, 5 innings, 242 runs @ 60.50 with one 50 and one 100. Dismissed by Saleem Altaf, Majid Khan and Sarfraz Nawaz once each.
1976/77 - 3 tests, 6 innings, 343 runs @ 57.17 with three 50s and one 100. Dismissed by Iqbal Qasim and Imran Khan twice each, and Javed Miandad and Sarfraz Nawaz once each.
1979/80 - 3 tests, 5 innings, 381 runs @ 76.20 with two 50s and one 100. Dismissed by Iqbal Qasim twice and Imran Khan, Sarfraz Nawaz and Tausif Ahmed once each.
1981/82 - 3 tests, 5 innings, 251 runs @ 50.20 with one 100. Dismissed by Imran Khan twice and Sikander Bakht, Wasim Raja and Sarfraz Nawaz once each.
1983/84 - 5 tests, 6 innings, 364 runs @ 72.80 with two 100s. Dismissed by Abdul Qadir twice and by Sarfraz Nawaz and Mudassar Nazar once each.

Total - 17 tests, 27 innings, 1581 runs @ 63.24 with six 50s and six 100s.

And how about the rest of the sides he faced?
England - 35 tests, 65 innings, 2619 runs @ 45.95 with twelve 50s and nine 100s.
India - 3 tests, 5 innings, 368 runs @ 73.60 with two 50s and one 100.
New Zealand - 14 tests, 22 innings, 1076 runs @ 56.63 with three 50s and three 100s.
Sri Lanka - 1 test, 1 innings, 66 runs @ 66 with one 50.

Seems like a pretty evenly balanced performance overall to me. He had once bad series against the West Indies and none against Pakistan, the two strongest all-round bowling nations he faced, and contrary to what you say he clearly did have massive success (more than Richards by far) against Pakistan when their bowling was at its height. He had a fair but not spectacular time of it against England. And as the ultimate test of consistency, only one year in his career did he average under 40, in 1971 where he played just four tests, and against no opposition did he do this.

Compare this to Richards, who averaged under 40 in 1975, 1977, 1978, 1982, 1983, 1989, 1990 and 1991.

And his record against Pakistan?
16 tests, 27 innings, 1091 runs @ 41.96 with seven 50s and two 100s. He did much better than Greg against England and averaged 62.37, played much more against India so the records are not comparable, but averaged less, and averaged less against New Zealand as well.

 

[C_C]

PAK didnt really mature as a bowling attack till 81/82 or so and NZ till around 83 or so...

and up until 1979, i would say the IND bowling attack was superior to the PAK bowling attack.....
Greg was an awesome batsman but he simply didnt catch the same level of bowling that Richards/Border/Gavaskar etc. found themselves in the middle of.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

PAK didnt really mature as a bowling attack till 81/82 or so and NZ till around 83 or so...

and up until 1979, i would say the IND bowling attack was superior to the PAK bowling attack.....
Greg was an awesome batsman but he simply didnt catch the same level of bowling that Richards/Border/Gavaskar etc. found themselves in the middle of.

So how exactly did Pakistan not mature until 1983? The likes of Imran Khan, Sarfraz Nawaz, Iqbal Qasim etc are bowlers of high quality and it was clearly the best bowling attack Greg faced after the West Indies and perhaps the English attack about 79-83 when Botham was mammoth force.

 

[C_C]

So how exactly did Pakistan not mature until 1983? The likes of Imran Khan, Sarfraz Nawaz, Iqbal Qasim etc are bowlers of high quality and it was clearly the best bowling attack Greg faced after the West Indies and perhaps the English attack about 79-83 when Botham was mammoth force.

Imran didnt mature till 79 or so, Qadir didnt come in till 80 or so, Iqbal Qasim..not until 81 or so.... all in all, i dont think the PAK attack of the 70s was anything comparable to PAK attack of the 80s and i wouldnt pit Greg Chappell's figures against PAK until the last two series...
As per against WI...as you can see, he fails to average 40 when there is atleast 2 good/great bowlers present in the lineup....

 

[roseboy64]

I decided to use the 10,000 runs club as a base for my team. That way, Lara, Tendulkar, S Waugh and Gavaskar were picked. Bradman beats out Border fr obvious reasons. maybe I should put Border of Waugh.Warne is curently the leading wicket taker so that put him ahead of Muralitharan. Gilchrist gets the keeping spot because of his batting. Sobers, greatest all rounder ever. McGrath is a great bowler and he's still going.

 

[roseboy64]

Decided to do a different XI.

Gavaskar
Tendulkar
Bradman
Lara
Border/Waugh
Sobers
Gilchrist
Hadlee/Marshall
Warne
McGrath
Walsh/Holding

 

[roseboy64]

Now for a West Indies All time XI.

Greenidge
Haynes
Headley
Lara
Richards
Sobers
Dujon
Marshall
Holding
Ambrose
Walsh

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Imran didnt mature till 79 or so, Qadir didnt come in till 80 or so, Iqbal Qasim..not until 81 or so.... all in all, i dont think the PAK attack of the 70s was anything comparable to PAK attack of the 80s and i wouldnt pit Greg Chappell's figures against PAK until the last two series...
As per against WI...as you can see, he fails to average 40 when there is atleast 2 good/great bowlers present in the lineup....

Chappell did well against Pakistan in every series, including those after 79, 80 and 81 respectively. And given that all of his dismissals in the 79 series came to West Indian greats in Roberts, Croft and Garner I hardly think you can discount that series. The fact is, he had exactly two genuinely poor series against good sides in his whole career.

And just for good measure to show his general consistency, against England who also had consistently good bowling attacks from the early 70s through to the early 80s...

1970/71 - 5 tests, 8 innings, 243 runs @ 34.71 with one 50 and one 100. Dismissed by Willis twice and by Shuttleworth, Underwood, Lever, Snow and Illingworth once each.
1972 - 5 tests, 10 innings, 437 runs @ 48.56 with one 50 and two 100s. Dismissed by Snow and Underwood three times each, Illingworth, D'Oliveira and Illingworth once each.
1974/75 - 6 tests, 11 innings, 608 runs @ 55.27 with five 50s and two 100s. Dismissed by Underwood four times, Willis, Lever and Arnold twice each and by Titmus once.
1975 - 4 tests, 7 innings, 106 runs @ 21.20 with one 50. Dismissed by Edmonds and Old twice each and Snow once.
1976/77 - 1 test, 2 innings, 42 runs @ 21.00. Dismissed by Underwood and Old once each.
1977 - 5 tests, 9 innings, 371 runs @ 41.22 with one 50 and one 100. Dismissed by Willis, Hendrick and Underwood twice each, and by Old, Greig and Botham once each.
1979/80 - 3 tests, 6 innings, 317 runs @ 79.25 with one 50 and one 100. Dismissed by Underwood twice and Botham and Lever once each.
1980 - 1 test, 2 innings, 106 runs @ 53.00 with one 50. Dismissed by Old twice.
1982/83 - 5 tests, 10 innings, 389 runs @ 48.63 with one 50 and two 100s. Dismissed by Cowans and Willis three times each, and by Hemmings once.

As you can see, he was also remarkably consistent against England. Despite them being the worst of his sides in terms of his statistical record, he really only had two poor series against them, one of which was only one test in length. He also averaged under 40 in his first series against them, but as it was his first ever test series this is probably excusable.

In all, in 25 series in his career he averaged under 40 just seven times, and as the bowling stocks supposedly improved into the 80s he in fact became more consistent, with just two of those series coming in the second half of his career, 36 against New Zealand in 80/81 and the poor West Indies series.

In comparison, in 29 series in his career, Richards averaged under 40 twelve times.

Clearly, using a stats-based argument and consistency against good bowling to claim Richards was better than Chappell (or Gavaskar) isn't a very good idea, because all the evidence points in the opposite direction.

 

[Zinzan]

Now for a West Indies All time XI.

Greenidge
Haynes
Headley
Lara
Richards
Sobers
Dujon
Marshall
Holding
Ambrose
Walsh

Its amazing how many people leave out the "3w's" walcott, weekes and worrell out of there W.I side. I'd at least have one of them. Probably Weekes or walcott, if not both

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Its amazing how many people leave out the "3w's" walcott, weekes and worrell out of there W.I side. I'd at least have one of them. Probably Weekes or walcott, if not both

As I argued earlier, I can't really see a place for them. For me, Weekes is the 5th best middle-order batsman for the West Indies, after Richards, Headley, Lara and Sobers. Walcott and Worrell also just miss out. The could be a place for Walcott as a keeper, but since he rarely actually kept in tests Dujon is probably a better choice, and there could be a place for Worrell if one of the bowlers was dropped and Sobers and Worrell as all-rounders were to make up the 4th bowling slot, but I think the four quicks plus Sobers is a better side.

 

[C_C]

. And given that all of his dismissals in the 79 series came to West Indian greats in Roberts, Croft and Garner I hardly think you can discount that series. The fact is, he had exactly two genuinely poor series against good sides in his whole career.

I did count that series mate..i meant overall....
he has the lats two series against WI where he faced excellent bowling....
but from the first glance i dont think he averages 40+ in the two series in question....same # of innings and outs - 1 average is 45 the other is 16.... so in reality against quality WI bowling he averages around 25-27 or so.

Clearly, using a stats-based argument and consistency against good bowling to claim Richards was better than Chappell (or Gavaskar) isn't a very good idea, because all the evidence points in the opposite direction.

Well Richards fell off considerably near the end of his career.....late 80s or so, he no longer was the batsmen he once was....but as a testimony to Richards' greatness, i think he averages 60+ or in the high 50s past his 50th test...a lot like Gavaskar who is also in the high 50s...
In general, Richards IMO faced superior bowling than Chappell and did better....and amongst his contemporaries, only Gavaskar, Miandad and Border faced superior bowling than him and did about as well..

 

[Swervy]

So how exactly did Pakistan not mature until 1983? The likes of Imran Khan, Sarfraz Nawaz, Iqbal Qasim etc are bowlers of high quality and it was clearly the best bowling attack Greg faced after the West Indies and perhaps the English attack about 79-83 when Botham was mammoth force.

just to make a point....late 70's, early 80's, Pakistan werent really considered to have a strong bowling line up. Imran was a class performer, but Sarfraz,Sikander,Iqbal Qasim and co were steady players occasionally capable of a great performance...ie Sarfraz' 9fer vs the Aussies

 

[SJS]

This is the umpteenth time one seems to be posting this and likely to be different from earlier ones

1. Hobbs
2. Hutton/Gavaskar
3. Bradman
4. George Headley
5. Walter Hammond
6. Garfield Sobers
7. Imran Khan
8. Bob Taylor
9. Dennis Lillee
10. Grimett/Orielly
11. SF Barnes

 

[marc71178]

What?

Average 51
Runs 10 000+
Centuries: 34
Years in Test Cricket: 16

Speaks for itself. Furthermore, I think there's a dearth of openers.

I know he had a good record, but to say he's a certainty means you are be definition saying he's the best opening batsman ever.

 

[C_C]

saying he's the best opening batsman ever.

exactly what i am saying.
Best opening batsman ever.
Suttcliffe, Hobbs etc. didnt face attacks the callibre of Gavaskar. Didnt face the kind of pressure Gavaskar did.
Particularly Hobbs.... he beat up on the minnows like WI and RSA - both of whom were the bangladesh/Zimbabwe of their times and retired from Test cricket before OZ had any decent bowler barring Grimmett.
That is akin to a record compiled against modern day Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, if not worse.
Stucliffe did okay against the OZ but faced only two of their class bowlers - O'Reiley and Grimmett.....virtually no decent pacer from OZ during that period and Constantine apart, none in the world....wouldnt compare that record against someone like Gavaskar or even Greenidge.....faced bowlers FAR FAR superior in capability. Hutton IMO is far better than either of these two as an opener.....faced down Miller, Johnston and Lindwall and did pretty well.

Based on all that, Gavaskar IS the best opener ever and IS a certainty......who gets to partner him ? Well IMO, the competition is between Haynes, Greenidge, Hunte, Boycott,Gooch,Hassett, Hutton and Bob Simpson...i would personally go for Gooch or Simpson....Boycott was excellent but i would want someone slightly less defensive than him to partner Gavaskar.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Haynes, Greenidge, Hunte, Boycott,Gooch,Hassett, Hutton and Bob Simpson...i would personally go for Gooch or Simpson....Boycott was excellent but i would want someone slightly less defensive than him to partner Gavaskar.

Ignoring your rubbishing of one of the cricketers of the century for the moment, how on earth did you come up with such a bizarre list of openers who could partner Gavaskar? I mean, Simpson and Haynes?

Even ignoring everyone from before World War Two, there are plenty of openers better than these guys. For Simpson, what about Bill Lawry, Arthur Morris and Justin Langer? All better openers just from the same country.

And for Haynes... hell, why not Mark Taylor? I mean, not the greatest player you've ever seen right? And yet, for someone who bases their opinions so heavily on stats mixed with subjective judgement about the quality of the bowlers, how could you consider Haynes better?

Here's some bowlers who dismissed Taylor in test cricket: Ambrose, Bishop, Walsh, Patterson, Marshall, Malcolm, Gough, Caddick, Fraser, Donald, De Villiers, Pollock, Kapil Dev, Kumble, Mushtaq Ahmed, Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Saqlain Mushtaq, Imran Khan, Hadlee.

So, he faced pretty good bowling, right? Comparable if not better than Haynes, who didn't face the best bowlers of his era, and in similar conditions as well. And yet, he averaged more, scored more centuries, and scored his runs more consistently against various opposition. Remarkable!

 

[C_C]

For Simpson, what about Bill Lawry, Arthur Morris and Justin Langer? All better openers just from the same country.

Langer is a close call as is Morris...i forgot about morris...yes he deserves a mention too...
Lawry...i dunno...i am looking for an opener given to strokeplay to partner gavaskar....i picked Lawry before but he was a bit too dour..

Ignoring your rubbishing of one of the cricketers of the century for the moment, how on earth did you come up with such a bizarre list of openers who could partner Gavaskar? I mean, Simpson and Haynes?

Try using your mind for a change and forget who has been voted what.
Can you refute my argument re: Hobbs that he faced really dungheap for bowling compared to most of post WWII era players ?
apart from Grimmett, name me ONE aussie bowler from that period or hell, IND or RSA bowler who are EVER in contention for their alltime team or even alltime -A team.
Just because Wisden voted him one of the players of the century, whopee DING!
It MUST be true and therefore Hobbs MUST be better than the rest, nevermind the fact that he played in an amatuer era where the field was FAR FAR wider than in post war era, nevermind that he faced absolute dungpile for bowling and 'dominated' bowling of the callibre of SL,BD and ZIM...hell forget SL...atleast they got a very good pacer in Vaas to back up Murali... who did OZ have between Spofforth and Lindwall/Miller for pace bowling who was even in Vaas's category ?

Use your mind, lad. If we as a species relied on our mind and logic far more than media BS and 'opinions' of the etablishment in a near-blind fashion, we would've got rid of a lotta ills afflicting this miserable little planet of ours.

And for Haynes... hell, why not Mark Taylor? I mean, not the greatest player you've ever seen right? And yet, for someone who bases their opinions so heavily on stats mixed with subjective judgement about the quality of the bowlers, how could you consider Haynes better?

Read again. I want a DYNAMIC opener to parnter gavaskar and haynes was far more DYNAMIC than Taylor was, whilst both were around the same quality, albeit IMO Haynes was a tad better.
I want runs scored at a fair clip and not defensive batting to the n-th degree..Gavaskar would attack/defend according to the conditions but i want someone to partner him who was a freestroker....someone in the greenidge/freddo/simpson mould... if i just wanted someone to put runs on the board, it wouldbe a no contest for pairing with Gavaskar- it would EASILY be Geoff Boycott.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

apart from Grimmett, name me ONE aussie bowler from that period or hell, IND or RSA bowler who are EVER in contention for their alltime team or even alltime -A team.

Well I don't know about India considering Hobbs never played against them. As far as other quality bowlers he faced for Australia, well I'd offer Clarrie Grimmett, Charlie Macartney, Monty Noble, Arthur Mailey, John Saunders and Warwick Armstrong. And for South Africa there isn't much as they were pretty much a rubbish team at the time, but Al Vogler is probably the best leggie they have ever produced and easily their best bowler at the time, and Hobbs faced him.

Keep in mind that Hobbs is also renowned for his magnificent first class performances, where no other player in history aside from Bradman and Grace has stood out to such a mammoth degree. His test record is not quite as remarkable, partially because the fact that he was still a good player well into his 40s eventually pushed his test average down to 56 from its giddy heights in the 60s.

 

[C_C]

Well I don't know about India considering Hobbs never played against them. As far as other quality bowlers he faced for Australia, well I'd offer Clarrie Grimmett, Charlie Macartney, Monty Noble, Arthur Mailey, John Saunders and Warwick Armstrong. And for South Africa there isn't much as they were pretty much a rubbish team at the time, but Al Vogler is probably the best leggie they have ever produced and easily their best bowler at the time, and Hobbs faced him.

sorry. I meant WI.

Okay. Tackling RSA first. He played Vogler well. Vogler was a spinner and opened the bowling in the only series he and hobbs played together. For an opener, the ability to negotiate pace bowling and the new ball is FAR more important than playing spinners...but it comes into play once the opener scores more than 50-60 runs (by which time spinners are operating), so its not trivial.
Who else from RSA ?
another leggie- faulker...who was allrighto.
Oh yes...excellent pace bowlers there - the likes of Dudley nourse, Herbie taylor, Claude Carter opening..... they SO compare to the likes of Holding,Marshall,Garner, Roberts,Lillee, Thommo,Imran, Wasim, Botham,Willis, Hadlee etc. Riiiiiight. I forgot.

That is an attack akin to Bangladesh or Zimbabwe at the moment!


Now on to Australia...so okay he played Grimmett pretty well....Montie Noble.... decent career figures (keeping in mind of the feild not being bunched together in quality i mentioned)....so if one is very generous, lets say he was about Vaas's callibre.

next is the 'brilliant' Charlie MacCartney....with 45 wickets in 35 matches @ 27.55....that is Harper-esque with the ball.
Arthur Mailey.... another spinner... with a 30-something average....modern day equivalent of Ashley Giles or something....whoa ! impressed!

Mr Warwick Armstrong....aka big ship...50 matches, 87 wickets @ 33.... man....forget Arshad Khan or Tim May, even Warnie and Murali should feel insecure in the shade of this mammoth ( i am not talking physically)!
And suprise.......another spinner......

Last but not least...Mr Saunders.....commendable 79wickets from 14 matches @ 22...would atleast make the selectors think twice while debating a replacement for Warne-Murali-Kumble-harby.... guess what ? Another spinner.....
wow.....Am impressed. He most definately could take on the best of the best...afterall, he's faced spinners that would put the likes of Bedi,Chandra,Warne,Murali etc. to shame...and hell...he has stood up to SPINNERS! surely facing a michael Holding thunderbolt or a reverswinging yorker from Imran would be a piece of cake there....hastily deposited over the cow corner in a mammoth six....afterall, what good are imran or holding at opening the bowling and what chance do they stand at the hands of a meastro who demolished spinners of Giles-Kaneria-Tim May callibre ?
Hell, he would be teaching Holding and Imran how to bowl to him and if they arnt careful, the fearsome opener will step out and loft em for sixes like one does in one's backyard against their kid sister!
Oh i was so wrong to have implied the incredible Mr Hobbs couldnt handle bowlers like Lillee or McGrath......how silly me!


As per his FC record...oh yes... a brilliant record produced in a day and age where the domestic scene had overseas players, players who went through rigorous coaching and spent their whole days practicing cricket, since thats where their breads are buttered...
oh i forgot..we are talkin about the 'good old great times'....times when people were of herculean intellect and callibre...where one could play till they were 50 because afterall, they were insanely superior genetic models to what we are and makes the likes of Matty hayden seem like a couch potato with a beer belly...people who could hold a 9-5 job and put a few hours in the weekend and evenings to produce the quality of these '4-5 hours a day cricket of only ' effort put by the nincompoops in today's generation.

Oh how can i forget that!

 

[Swervy]

. who did OZ have between Spofforth and Lindwall/Miller for pace bowling who was even in Vaas's category ?

.

can I suggest Gregory and MacDonald