Playing selector: Lets pick the best test XI of different eras

[silentstriker]

This is what I like about you SS, you have an opinion that your choices are gold and that everyone that disagrees is crazy.... good stuff

Of course they are. Because otherwise it would imply that I am sometimes wrong.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Ah, good that you mention that....how about Warne, Ambrose, Murali and McGrath as a tail (almost 2006 englishesque) compared to Davidson, Lindwall, Laker and Trueman I think this makes up for the slight advantage in the Middle Order

Davidson: Averaged 24.59, Ambrose: 12.40, difference +12.19
Lindwall: Averaged 21.15, McGrath: 7.52, difference +13.65
Laker: Averaged 14.08, Warne: 16.76, difference -2.68
Trueman: Averaged 13.80, Muralitharan: 12.0, difference +1.79

This advantage added on average 24.95 runs per innings to Lindwall, Davidson, Laker and Trueman tail. 24.95 isn't really a substantional amount, but when you add Lindwall's 2 Test centuries, it does count.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Of course they are. Because otherwise it would imply that I am sometimes wrong.

Which of course is a thoroghly ridiculous thought............

 

[silentstriker]

Which of course is a thoroghly ridiculous thought............

Of course it is.

 

[bagapath]

i added up the batting averages of the three teams (leaving out the decimals)
1986 - 2005: 397
1966 - 1985: 389
1946 - 1965: 400

Pretty even i guess

 

[PhoenixFire]

They might be even, but considering the types of pitch that the '46-'66 team had to play on, they come out tops in my opinion.

 

[aussie tragic]

So I'll start the Post-War XI in a couple of days which is to be selected from the three era XI's.

I intend to run the polls in twos as follows:

1. Two Openers
2. No. 3

3. Wicketkeeper
4. No. 4 (includes 2 runner-ups from # 3 Poll)

5. Spinner
6. No. 5 (includes 2 runner-ups from # 4 Poll)

7. Two Opening bowlers
8. No. 6 (Allrounders only)

And then the Final Bowler (remaining Spinners, pacers and allrounders)

Let me know comments......

 

[silentstriker]

They might be even, but considering the types of pitch that the '46-'66 team had to play on, they come out tops in my opinion.

Works both ways. If batting is better, then the bowling is surely overrated because they worked on bowler friendly pitches and do not have better stats than the bowlers picked from our batsman friendly pitches?

And friendly pitches or not, , Ponting, Tendulkar, Lara are way better than Walcott, Weekes, and Worrell. I mean its so not close as to be ridiculous. Openers are better though in the old side. Even the bowlers, which includes the trio of Warne, McGrath and Murali to bitchslap anything the old side has to offer, is probably closer than the middle order.

 

[silentstriker]

So I'll start the Post-War XI in a couple of days which is to be selected from the three era XI's.

I intend to run the polls in twos as follows:

1. Two Openers
2. No. 3

3. Wicketkeeper
4. No. 4 (includes 2 runner-ups from # 3 Poll)

5. Spinner
6. No. 5 (includes 2 runner-ups from # 4 Poll)

7. Two Opening bowlers
8. No. 6 (Allrounders only)

And then the Final Bowler (remaining Spinners, pacers and allrounders)

Let me know comments......

Sounds good.

 

[chaminda_00]

Works both ways. If batting is better, then the bowling is surely overrated because they worked on bowler friendly pitches and do not have better stats than the bowlers picked from our batsman friendly pitches?

And friendly pitches or not, , Ponting, Tendulkar, Lara are way better than Walcott, Weekes, and Worrell. I mean its so not close as to be ridiculous. Openers are better though in the old side. Even the bowlers, which includes the trio of Warne, McGrath and Murali to bitchslap anything the old side has to offer, is probably closer than the middle order.

I would say the bowling attack overall in the 46 to 66 is slightly better and the depth in the batting line up covers any loss in the middle order. Don't believe so much in the hype of modern day players.

 

[shortpitched713]

I would say the bowling attack overall in the 46 to 66 is slightly better

Are you joking me?

The 86-2006 XI has three of the greatest pacers of all-time (albeit with a slightly less effective Imran), and the two greatest spinners of all-time. Forget the 46-65 attack, I think you'd be hard pressed to make an attack better than this with all the bowlers who ever played before 86.

 

[The Sean]

So I'll start the Post-War XI in a couple of days which is to be selected from the three era XI's.

I intend to run the polls in twos as follows:

1. Two Openers
2. No. 3

3. Wicketkeeper
4. No. 4 (includes 2 runner-ups from # 3 Poll)

5. Spinner
6. No. 5 (includes 2 runner-ups from # 4 Poll)

7. Two Opening bowlers
8. No. 6 (Allrounders only)

And then the Final Bowler (remaining Spinners, pacers and allrounders)

Let me know comments......

Sounds ideal - should be an absolute gem of a combined team.

Will you be doing one for pre-WWII?

 

[Saurav Ganguly]

Are you joking me?

The 86-2006 XI has three of the greatest pacers of all-time (albeit with a slightly less effective Imran), and the two greatest spinners of all-time. Forget the 46-65 attack, I think you'd be hard pressed to make an attack better than this with all the bowlers who ever played before 86.

Are you joking me?

Imran Khan was as good & effective as Ambrose,McGrath,Akram,Hadlee etc,if not better.

 

[Dasa]

^You seem familiar.

 

[nightprowler10]

^You seem familiar.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[Matt79]

I wonder what "Saurav Ganguly"'s view of Sobers as an allrounder compared to Imran is? Everybody is generally agreed that Sobers IS the better allrounder.

 

[chaminda_00]

Are you joking me?

The 86-2006 XI has three of the greatest pacers of all-time (albeit with a slightly less effective Imran), and the two greatest spinners of all-time. Forget the 46-65 attack, I think you'd be hard pressed to make an attack better than this with all the bowlers who ever played before 86.

Yes lets forgot the fact that the 46 to 66 side had three of the best quicks ever including the best left armer. One of th best all rounders, if not the best after Sobers. Laker is the only weakness in the attack, bur his still one of the top 5 spinners of all time.

 

[Matt79]

Imran and Miller are much of a muchness, especially given this is older Imran were talking about.
Murali is better than Laker, but not by as much as everyone seems to be assuming.
Ambrose and Lindwall are pretty close. Slight advantage to Ambrose maybe, but again relatively close.
McGrath and Davidson - equal virtually.
Trueman and Warne - difficult to compare a quick with a spinner. Advantage to Warne in most cases.

I think most of them are line-ball cases tbh. If the pitch is taking spin, on one hand you're say advantage modern team, because they have two top draw spinners, but then you have to consider what Laker achieved in matches where the pitch suited him (like 19 wickets in a match). Laker's average has only been equalled by a very select few, he's probably the 4th best spinner of all time for me.

 

[silentstriker]

Laker's average has only been equalled by a very select few, he's probably the 4th best spinner of all time for me.

Not close IMO. Look at the footage of his 19 wickets. People had no technique against his type of bowling. They were falling over themselves. 0% chance he would have gotten anything close with modern batsmen.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FKqcXyh4Vis

 

[chaminda_00]

Not close IMO. Look at the footage of his 19 wickets. People had no technique against his type of bowling. They were falling over themselves. 0% chance he would have gotten anything close with modern batsmen.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FKqcXyh4Vis

I guess you didn't watch Sri Lanka bat against NZ?