What is your ALL TIME WORLD XI TEAM for tests?

[ohnoitsyou]

That answer doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but do I take it to mean that you think Grace was a better bowler than Barnes? Or at the very least a faster one who should get a newer ball?

Was meaning its moot seeing as they both would come on within a couple of overs of each other, but yeah they should be the other way around.

 

[watson]

Just as an aside while we talking about the bowling of WG. Apparently he had a round action that I imagine to be similar to Malinga's. He preferred to bowl around the wicket, aim at the leg stump, and try and get batsman caught in the deep.

 

[watson]

Its an interesting stat but Hobbs faced other challengers and his ave is still high 50s. Neither does it bear repeating that Sunny managed to dodge (by circumstance not design) the best WI and even Aussie teams. So I don't think a distinction can be made btwn the 2 on this issue. On another matter; apart from the unique example of the WI I wouldn't always agree that post ww2 attacks are consistently better than before that war.

It's true that Gavaskar never faced both Lillee and Thomo together because of WSC, although he did face them separately from time to time. However, I think that Gavaskar faced his fair share of West indian quicks at their peak. For example;

West Indies V India (1976)
Bowlers = Holding, Roberts, Julien, Daniel
Tests = 4
Runs = 390 at 55.72
Note: This is the infamous series where Bedi quit the Sabina Park Test during second innings due to intimidatory bowling by Holding inparticular.

West Indies V India (1983)
Bowlers = Holding, Roberts, Garner, Marshall
Tests = 5
Runs = 230 at 30.00

India V West Indies (1983-84)
Bowlers = Marshall, Holding, Roberts, Daniel, Davis
Tests = 6
Runs = 505 at 50.50

The Pakistan pairing of Imran and Sarfraz in the early 80s was useful, especially at home;

Pakistan V India (1982-83)
Bowlers = Imran, Sarfraz, Qadir, Qasim
Tests = 6
Runs = 434 at 48.22

Gavaskar of course scored plenty of runs against Willis and Botham both in India and England, but seemed to always have problems against an England attack led by John Snow. I assume that's because Gavaskar was still finding his way in the early 70s.

Overall, you would have to say that Gavaskar saw a good number of great fast bowlers at their best. However, upon reflection I don't think that we should get too carried away either as he wasn't exactly swamped with ATG attacks as we might assume.

 

[Coronis]

As you can see, when he actually did face the great WI bowlers, he averaged 30.

 

[Days of Grace]

On the topic of South Africa...

Mitchell
Richards
Kallis
Pollock
Nourse
Faulkner
Procter
Waite+
Tayfield
Steyn
Donald

The strike power of SA's fast bowlers is unbelievable. Ripper top order too.

That team is brilliant. Nourse to captain?

 

[Days of Grace]

As you can see, when he actually did face the great WI bowlers, he averaged 30.

And then 50 at home in 1983/84. Okay, Garner wasn't there and Roberts was almost done, but facing both Marshall and Holding at their peaks is a tough challenge in anyone's books.

 

[watson]

As you can see, when he actually did face the great WI bowlers, he averaged 30.

What I noticed about Gavaskar's list of scores against the West Indian quicks is that he either scored big or not at all. That series average of 30.00 against Holding, Roberts, Garner, and Marshall only exists because of his 147 not out in Guyana.

 

[viriya]

And if Hobbs had retired in 1928 rather than 1930 he'd have an average of 61. Over a period of twenty years.

The number of matches played is essentially meaningless when you're comparing players 60 years apart, assuming they played a full number of matches relative to their era. And Hobbs' pre-war average is mentioned not because it elevates his career average markedly, but because batting was generally far more difficult than it was after the war, and yet he still averaged 57.

A lot of players have "if they had retired sooner" averages that are impressive. I'm not claiming Hobbs isn't an ATG - just that he didn't have to face the bowling quality Gavaskar had to in the late 70s and 80s.. The average difference is not trivial but I would think the bowling quality argument at least makes Hobbs and Gavaskar comparable.

 

[viriya]

Jack Gregory was one of the great names of cricket and Mailey one of its greatest leg spinners inspite of attempts to revise their reps downwards.

Mailey might have been an early proponent of leg spin bowling but 99 wickets at 34 with 3 wickets/match does not warrant him being called one of the greatest leg spinners imo.. I would reserve that for someone like Grimmett/O'Reilly for the pre-1960 era.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Mailey might have been an early proponent of leg spin bowling but 99 wickets at 34 with 3 wickets/match does not warrant him being called one of the greatest leg spinners imo.. I would reserve that for someone like Grimmett/O'Reilly for the pre-1960 era.

Get your stats right boi

 

[the big bambino]

Mailey might have been an early proponent of leg spin bowling but 99 wickets at 34 with 3 wickets/match does not warrant him being called one of the greatest leg spinners imo.. I would reserve that for someone like Grimmett/O'Reilly for the pre-1960 era.

Like everyone else who quotes the overall stats you don't account for the impact the proportion played against the top sides has in distorting them. You can't compare the average of a pre war bowler, who may have played close to 100% of his games against his strongest opponent with that of a modern bowler, who may have played less than 20% against his strongest opponent, equally. What is being held against the likes of Mailey is that he had no NZ, Pak or SL to decimate and bring his ave down accordingly.

As for Sunny he is a candidate for best opener ever for sure though I'd pick others that is just a subjective preference. Can definitely see why others prefer him. Great player (but a bit of a **** imo).

 

[the big bambino]

Get your stats right boi

Ha! True. It was closer to 5 per match.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Always thought of Mailey as a very similar bowler to MacGill, both massive turners of the ball but didn't have the accuracy or variations of a Grimmett or Warne.

 

[Red]

There's a well worn story that Hobbs rated Mailey as a superior bowler to Grimmett, but it was O'Reilly's and Bradman's insistence on Grimmett's greatness that ensured he had a stronger legacy than Mailey.

Mailey is without doubt one of the most interesting characters in cricket history, and certainly one of my favourites.

And yeh, Mailey took 5 wickets per test, not 3.

 

[kyear2]

This Week.

Hutton
Grace (3)
Bradman
Chappell (7)
Viv
Gilly
Imran (2)
Hadlee (1)
Warne (6)
Barnes (4)
Murali (5)

Legitimately think this bowling attack doesn't need Marshall, wouldn't add anything to either the old or new ball bowling.

I will bite.

Pace and aggression to start. His cricket intellect was near unrivaled. He was also a match winner par excellance.
Granted Imran was a better batsman and arguably the best old ball bowler, but Malcolm was the better new ball bowler better bowler overall. Imran was an ATG but averaged 27 outside of Pakistan, so unless they all playing all of their games in Pakistan, Marshall does add something.
Barnes played on pre WW2 pitches and still averaged pratically the same as Marshall vs Australia, only gouging on a weak S.A. team to boost his stats. Again ATG, but stats are a tad misleading. Bambino and others will disagree but the numbers are there for anyone to see.
Hadlee was undeniably top tier and a top 10 bowler, but he was seen as second to Marshall and Lillee while he played.

So yes, for me Marshall adds something to any and every team.

 

[Coronis]

There's a well worn story that Hobbs rated Mailey as a superior bowler to Grimmett, but it was O'Reilly's and Bradman's insistence on Grimmett's greatness that ensured he had a stronger legacy than Mailey.

Mailey is without doubt one of the most interesting characters in cricket history, and certainly one of my favourites.

And yeh, Mailey took 5 wickets per test, not 3.

I'd go Grimmett over Mailey any day.

 

[Red]

I'd go Grimmett over Mailey any day.

Wouldn't begrudge you that opinion at all. I might as well. Just saying that the guy (Hobbs), generally regarded the best batsman of that era, regarded Mailey as the better bowler.

 

[the big bambino]

I wont bite on the Barnes/Marshall issue just to say I see little difference btwn the 2. I also prefer Grimmett over Mailey but I think Mailey was better on Australian wickets against strong batting teams. Admittedly an isolated but nonetheless important distnction imo.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

I will bite.

Pace and aggression to start. His cricket intellect was near unrivaled. He was also a match winner par excellance.
Granted Imran was a better batsman and arguably the best old ball bowler, but Malcolm was the better new ball bowler better bowler overall. Imran was an ATG but averaged 27 outside of Pakistan, so unless they all playing all of their games in Pakistan, Marshall does add something.
Barnes played on pre WW2 pitches and still averaged pratically the same as Marshall vs Australia, only gouging on a weak S.A. team to boost his stats. Again ATG, but stats are a tad misleading. Bambino and others will disagree but the numbers are there for anyone to see.
Hadlee was undeniably top tier and a top 10 bowler, but he was seen as second to Marshall and Lillee while he played.

So yes, for me Marshall adds something to any and every team.

Marshall is always the second pacer in my team for a standard four man attack but i just don't see him as being so crucial here. While you will probably disagree i see Marshalls biggest advantage was that he could everything, swing, reverse, hostile pace, cut. etc and with a five-man that just isn't so important. The nature of the team mandates Imran-Hadlee at seven and eight, and there batting more than makes up for the miniscule difference in bowling; eith the old ball Marshall would be a distinct fourth(fifth) behind Imran, Barnes and one or two of the spinners. With the new ball, yeah there is a bit of a loss, while I see Hadlee as being just as good with the new cherry as Marshall, neither Barnes or Imran are quite as good.

At the moment i'm in the Barnes is the best bowler of all time camp, so yeah... was the standout bowler of an era to an extend that no one else can claim.

That leaves two spots. This being an atg team with the intend of competing against anyone in any conditions i see playing two spinners to be necessary so theres the last two spots gone, but i guess in pace friendly conditions Marshall would come in for one of the spinners.

 

[Flem274*]

Marshall, Hadlee, Imran, Warne and the allrounder(s) is my attack. Batting to eleven and all four have a case for top five bowler of all time.