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

[chaminda_00]

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.

I think your better off comparing the overall package then indiviual bowlers, as you bowl as a team not indiviuals. Also wouldn't you compare bowlers to what role they played, ie:
- Swing: Davison v Imran
- Strike: Trueman v Ambrose
- Stock: Lindwall v McGarth
- Main Spinner: Laker v Murali
- Support: Miller v Warne

The way i see it is 2 - 2 and you can't really compare a seamer and spinner, but Warne and Murali have a massive advantage over Laker regardless. But IMO Davison, Trueman, Lindwall, Miller have a slight advantage over McGarth, Imran and Ambrose. But thats my opinion and im sure most would disagree.

 

[silentstriker]

McGrath is also a better strike bowler than Trueman, in addition to being a better stock bowler.

And Imran was a better bowler than Davidson, especially with his reverse swing.

 

[The Sean]

I'm not sure how Ray Lindwall would have enjoyed being called the stock bowler...

 

[The Sean]

McGrath is also a better strike bowler than Trueman, in addition to being a better stock bowler.

And Imran was a better bowler than Davidson, especially with his reverse swing.

I saw Imran at his peak, but have had to hear and read about Davo - but in their prime I don't reckon there was too much between them at all. Imran was certainly a better all round cricketer, but purely as bowlers I think it's pretty 50-50.

 

[chaminda_00]

McGrath is also a better strike bowler than Trueman, in addition to being a better stock bowler.

And Imran was a better bowler than Davidson, especially with his reverse swing.

What was Trueman strike rate again?

Also Davidson used reverse swing when he needed to, its just that he didn't need it as much. Also its wasn't glorified as much, cus they thought it just happen naturely.

As much as i love Glen McGarth do you think he would have been as effective against more patient batsmen, who would have just kept leaving his outside off stumps balls. I remember reading some say, if McGarth played in a different era he would have had to develop a new plan, as batsmen would have been happy to just let balls go and weren't so worried about the run rate. Batsmen these days due to One Day Cricket, don't always know how to build innings and go for shots that aren;t needed. A lot of McGarth wickets are due to batsmen losing patient and going for big shots. Im sure McGarth will be able to develop his game to different tactics used by batsmen, but would he be as effective?

 

[silentstriker]

What was Trueman strike rate again?

49.43 vs. 51.70. Thats not a difference. Plus McGrath also concedes less runs. He's a better strike bowler and a stock bowler than Trueman. Also, McGrath does it on batting paradises, which means his trike rate, adjusted for the pitch and conditions is likely much better than Trueman.

As much as i love Glen McGarth do you think he would have been as effective against more patient batsmen, who would have just kept leaving his outside off stumps balls. I remember reading some say, if McGarth played in a different era he would have had to develop a new plan, as batsmen would have been happy to just let balls go and weren't so worried about the run rate.

So how come he does so well against players like Dravid and Kallis? Dravid averages 10.00, and Kallis averages 9.83 against McGrath. Surely, these are not impatient men?

Also, McGrath averages 35% of dismissals by LBW or bowled (same as Lillee), so the stereotype of him bowling outside off stump until someone makes a mistake is, whats the word, oh yes.. completely wrong.

 

[chaminda_00]

49.43 vs. 51.70. Thats not a difference. Plus McGrath also concedes less runs. He's a better strike bowler and a stock bowler than Trueman. Also, McGrath does it on batting paradises, which means his trike rate, adjusted for the pitch and conditions is likely much better than Trueman.

Thats a two run difference over a long career it makes a pretty big difference. I would still say Trueman is a better strike bowler.

So how come he does so well against players like Dravid and Kallis? Dravid averages 10.00, and Kallis averages 9.83 against McGrath. Surely, these are not impatient men?

Also, McGrath averages 35% of dismissals by LBW or bowled (same as Lillee), so the stereotype of him bowling outside off stump until someone makes a mistake is, whats the word, oh yes.. completely wrong.

LOL thats pretty poor, i'll give you that, but if McGarth could do that to Dravid im sure Trueman, Lindwall, Miller or Davison could do that him. Maybe that middle order isn't that strong.

EDIT: just noticed Trueman ER is 2.61 and McGarth is 2.50. With averages of 21.61 and 21.57 i find it hard for people to say his not atleast on par with McGarth

 

[silentstriker]

LOL thats pretty poor, i'll give you that, but if McGarth could do that to Dravid im sure Trueman, Lindwall, Miller or Davison could do that him. Maybe that middle order isn't that strong.

On flat roads like McGrath does it? Highly doubtful IMO.

 

[nightprowler10]

Thats a two run difference over a long career it makes a pretty big difference. I would still say Trueman is a better strike bowler.

Two ball difference

 

[chaminda_00]

On flat roads like McGrath does it? Highly doubtful IMO.

If your going down the flat roads line you pretty much stating that Ponting, Dravid, Lara and Tendulkar records are inflated due to roads and therefore the 46 to 66 middle order is better.

 

[aussie tragic]

If your going down the flat roads line you pretty much stating that Ponting, Dravid, Lara and Tendulkar records are inflated due to roads and therefore the 46 to 66 middle order is better.

exactly....

Although I also think the 46-65 Bowlers are better

Truman, Lindall or Miller could open the bowling in any team, while who better than Davidson and Laker to folllow

 

[silentstriker]

If your going down the flat roads line you pretty much stating that Ponting, Dravid, Lara and Tendulkar records are inflated due to roads and therefore the 46 to 66 middle order is better.

Dravid and Ponting's records are inflated. And Dravid is not in the 86-2006 time BTW. Lara and Tendulkar's are not as much because their primes were earlier with better bowlers and less roads as pitches.

Even without the inflation, Walcott is not better than Ponting. And Sachin and Lara had their primes in the nineties, and they are better than Weekes and Worrell.

Just look at how many knowledgable people (CW posters and not) have Sachin and Lara in their all time sides, compared to the amount of people who have Weekes and Worrell in their sides.

 

[chaminda_00]

TBF a lot of people who saw Weekes play have him in their all time list. IMO Walcott is on par with Ponting, but i think after Ponting finishes he will be better. Worrell no doubt brings that middle order down, but is a quality captain and handy back up bowler.

The interesting thing for me in many all time Windies greats have Lara infront Weekes, which i guess says a lot.

I should point that overall i think the 86-2006 middle order is probably better, but with the lower order batting of earlier side, it cancels it out to an extent. Miller and Davison have been known to only bat to their potential when needed. I can see them playing well above their averages up against that attack.

 

[aussie tragic]

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

Will you be doing one for pre-WWII?

After we do the post-WW2 XI, the plan is to do a mid-war XI (1919-39) and a pre WW1 XI

 

[aussie tragic]

And let's now select the 1946-2006 World Test XI:

http://forum.cricketweb.net/showthread.php?t=21215

 

[PhoenixFire]

Weekes = Ponting. Averages pretty much the same, yet Ponting can play on roads, and I'm sure Weekes had to play on some pretty horrendus pitches in WI, in the 50s and 60s.

 

[silentstriker]

Weekes = Ponting. Averages pretty much the same, yet Ponting can play on roads, and I'm sure Weekes had to play on some pretty horrendus pitches in WI, in the 50s and 60s.

Yes, though I said Ponting, thats the one where I could be convinced otherwise. The rest are dead right though. In all, the 1986-2006 to win by an innings

 

[PhoenixFire]

On what pitches though, the 46-66 team would flatten the 86-06 on 46-66 pitches.

 

[silentstriker]

On what pitches though, the 46-66 team would flatten the 86-06 on 46-66 pitches.

Doubtful. McGrath would take a wicket @ like 35 S/R. And Murali and Warne would have a field day. Most of those we picked for 1986-2006 have solid techniques to cope with whatever fields may come.

I am not sure if the oldies can cope with the increased pace and levels of competition in the modern era. It is naive and ridiculous to think that while people overall are bigger stronger and faster, that somehow the old timers in cricket can still compete at the same level with modern players. I know a sprinter from 1945 would be owned in 2008 olympics. Why is cricket much different?

Again, with few exceptions, probably Bradman, maybe Hobbs, and some of the other greats that stood out in their time completely. They would go down a notch but still might be pretty good. The others? No shot.

 

[aussie tragic]

Sorry, guys... I forgot to post the 1946-65 Second XI:

1. Bob Simpson (45.43)
2. Hanif Mohammed (44.80)
3. Ken Barrington (58.04)
4. Graeme Pollock (52.26)
5. Neil Harvey (48.41)
6. Dennis Compton (49.81)
7. Richie Benaud (24.45) --- (Bowl: 27.03)
8. Godfrey Evans (20.49)
9. Fazal Mahmood (14.09) --- (Bowl: 24.70)
10. Alec Bedser (12.75) --- (Bowl: 24.89)
11. Brian Statham (11.44) --- (Bowl: 24.84)