All Time 11

[PhatBoy]

Smith’s record really is very very iron clad when you dive into it.

He averages 44 or higher in each innings.
He averages 43 at home in SA which is pound for pound the toughest nation for opening batsmen, and a whopping 55 away - that’s extraordinary for an opener.

He has 3 ‘opponent’ holes.
One of these is Sri Lanka and it’s actually because of his performances in South Africa; his record on the spinning pitches of Sri Lanka is fine, he averages mid 40s there.

He averages mid 30s against India but it isn’t because of any apparent weakness against spin, as he has fared reasonably in India (three half centuries in 7 tests and an average of 36) and he has centuries in Bangladesh, Pakistan and the UAE and high averages in all three. I think you can probably put the Sri Lanka hole down to an anomaly - a few bad games at home against a weak opponent.

The interesting gap in his record comes against Australia. He averages 40 here; no mean feat for a visiting opener who played in the era in which he did, against some all-time attacks. He made 346 in his first 19 innings against Australia and clearly struggled. Two of those innings were for the world XI.

Thereafter he scored just under 900 at 42 with three centuries including a disastrous final series. So although he finished with an average of 33 against the Aussies I think he proved fairly unequivocally that he could play against them

 

[Foucault1989]

"That team from when you were young is terrible, so here is a team from when I was young..."

Look at the stats champ

 

[Caligo]

Look at the stats champ

If we genuinely want to look at stats we won't be picking any bowlers from after ww2, although most of the best of them only played 20 odd tests.

 

[Stan_Darsh72]

Going for players i have seen footage of.

Mark Taylor (C)
Sunil Gavaskar
Brian Lara
Sachin Tendulkar
Viv Richards
Michael Hussey
Adam Gilchrist
Shane Warne
Wasim Akram
Curtly Ambrose
Glenn McGrath

 

[PhatBoy]

I think Ricky Ponting is very unlucky not to get picked in these teams, especially teams from the 70s onwards. I feel like there are a lot of nostalgia picks from the 70s and 80s. Mate if watching blokes plod along at 2 an over is your thing, awesome, but I'm picking guys who scored runs and took wickets in undisputably the best generation of cricket late 90s - 2000s.

Sehwag
Hayden
Ponting
Tendulkar
Lara
Kallis
Gilchrist
Akram
Warne
Murali
McGrath

That team would like sh** on your World Series heros.

But they didn’t, did they.

Guys like Gordon Greenidge and Roy Fredericks set the template for you to whack yourself over Virender Sehwag as a teenager. You might not have heard of them save for 1-2 old guys mention their name, it doesn’t mean they couldn’t play.

 

[Foucault1989]

But they didn’t, did they.

Guys like Gordon Greenidge and Roy Fredericks set the template for you to whack yourself over Virender Sehwag as a teenager. You might not have heard of them save for 1-2 old guys mention their name, it doesn’t mean they couldn’t play.

Virender sehwag:

104 104

8586 8586

49.3 49.3

82.2

Gordon Greenidge:

108 108

7558 7558

44.7

I'm not saying Greenidge or any other player from the 70s and 80s couldn't play. Clearly there were some all time greats of the game. I'm just saying that sometimes I see these teams get put together and more current day players with simply phenomenal records get overlooked in favour of players with inferior records who played a few decades ago and I think nostalgia has a part to play in that.

Now I recognize that player payments, training facilities and resources and equipment technology has come a long way and if some of these players had these resources at their disposal they may have been records (not to say their current stats aren't great as it is). But if I'm picking an all time 11 from the 1970s onwards, I'm comfortable picking an opener who has scored 8,000 runs with an average of close to 50 and a strike rate of 82. By any definition that is absolutely remarkable. Just because Greenidge played in a similar way first doesn't make him a better batsmen.

 

[PhatBoy]

Virender sehwag:

104 104

8586 8586

49.3 49.3

82.2

Gordon Greenidge:

108 108

7558 7558

44.7

I'm not saying Greenidge or any other player from the 70s and 80s couldn't play. Clearly there were some all time greats of the game. I'm just saying that sometimes I see these teams get put together and more current day players with simply phenomenal records get overlooked in favour of players with inferior records who played a few decades ago and I think nostalgia has a part to play in that.

Now I recognize that player payments, training facilities and resources and equipment technology has come a long way and if some of these players had these resources at their disposal they may have been records (not to say their current stats aren't great as it is). But if I'm picking an all time 11 from the 1970s onwards, I'm comfortable picking an opener who has scored 8,000 runs with an average of close to 50 and a strike rate of 82. By any definition that is absolutely remarkable. Just because Greenidge played in a similar way first doesn't make him a better batsmen.

I’m not saying he is a better batsman. But people picking guys from a previous era aren’t just automatically doing it BECAUSE they are from ‘their’ era either.

Sunil Gavaskar scored something like a dozen hundreds against the greatest fast bowling cartel that has ever existed, doing it as an opening batsman. Whatever run rate you want to score at, that has to at the very least put him in the mix, in exactly the same way that Sehwag’s sheer destructiveness has to put HIM in the mix.

Also you need to remember that Sehwag has a couple of holes in his record on the SENA pitches when you remove Australia. I loved the guy and he’s in the mix of ‘guys I’ve seen’ but his freak run rate and average is tempered slightly by some of the gaps in his record.

And yes Greenidge’s overall strike rate is nothing spectacular but he could also score 200 in a day to run down a second innings target when the mood took him.

 

[Caligo]

If you assume Sutcliffe has locked in one opening slot, it is worth considering if you want another grinder (like Sunny) or something different, maybe a big intimidatory opener (Sehwag maybe) to go with him.

I am undecided, but I do like the idea of choosing openers that compliment each other with very different styles.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Whilst I think Sobers probably does get in on his batting alone, I believe that, like Kallis, his bowing isn't good enough to ever actually be thrown the ball when a captain has Warne and Murali soaking up big numbers of overs and Marshall and whoever you pick as your second paceman out of Akram/Steyn/McGrath/any number of West Indians. Sobers was a very good bowler, but I am just never letting him bowl unless Marshall breaks his toe.

And so for me it is just the standard best 6 batsmen you can find, Gilchrist/Sanga/Dhoni or whatever keeper you fancy and then the best four bowlers. I will have a shot at a team in a bit.

MuMu was not a bowler.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Neil Harvey and Keith Miller would qualify for the NSW side, both would be good shouts for that first XI.

Monty Noble and Charles Turner would also make the cut somewhere.

Victoria says you are welcome to Harvey and Miller.

 

[Caligo]

MuMu was not a bowler.

Yeah. I actually agree, but that is its own argument for its own thread. I didn't want to derail this entire thread into a discussion of the merits of the uni of WA analysis of his action, and particularly the dishonest way the ICC manipulated the report for their own ends. And that is before you get into the rule changes to accommodate him.

And here I go... derailing the thread. I could easily do 20 pages just on this. Sorry.

 

[Kyptastic]

If you assume Sutcliffe has locked in one opening slot, it is worth considering if you want another grinder (like Sunny) or something different, maybe a big intimidatory opener (Sehwag maybe) to go with him.

I am undecided, but I do like the idea of choosing openers that compliment each other with very different styles.

Sutcliffe may have the numbers, but if any opener is a lock it's Hobbs. Sutcliffe played his entire test career post first world war, where the pitches had become much better for batting. Hobbs' career was split between pre and post war, with the pre-war matches played on much worse pitches.

In that time pre-war, of those who played more than 10 innings as an opener, Hobbs was the only one to average over 50. His nearest rival is Bardsley, who has an average 10 runs less



If you look at the period post war up until Sutcliffe's retirement, he's out ahead, but not by as much as Hobbs was



Take into account the fact that most of their contemporaries rate Hobbs as the superior batter and I think Hobbs has one opening spot locked in in any all time Xi

 

[Caligo]

Sutcliffe may have the numbers, but if any opener is a lock it's Hobbs. Sutcliffe played his entire test career post first world war, where the pitches had become much better for batting. Hobbs' career was split between pre and post war, with the pre-war matches played on much worse pitches.

In that time pre-war, of those who played more than 10 innings as an opener, Hobbs was the only one to average over 50. His nearest rival is Bardsley, who has an average 10 runs less

View attachment 1855200

If you look at the period post war up until Sutcliffe's retirement, he's out ahead, but not by as much as Hobbs was

View attachment 1855205

Take into account the fact that most of their contemporaries rate Hobbs as the superior batter and I think Hobbs has one opening spot locked in in any all time Xi

I hadn't seen a breakdown like that. It is really impressive. I had heard the plaudits for Hobbs but it is always hard to know how meaningful they are.

On a separate issue, would you be comfortable selecting both or would you want a more physically imposing partner for whichever one you took?

Edit: a separate point in support of your arguments, Hobbs was probably the best fielder of his era. When the margins of selections are tight, something like that might sway opinion.

 

[Kyptastic]

I hadn't seen a breakdown like that. It is really impressive. I had heard the plaudits for Hobbs but it is always hard to know how meaningful they are.

On a separate issue, would you be comfortable selecting both or would you want a more physically imposing partner for whichever one you took?

Edit: a separate point in support of your arguments, Hobbs was probably the best fielder of his era. When the margins of selections are tight, something like that might sway opinion.

If you ended up with both Sutcliffe and Hobbs as your opener in an all time XI I don’t think you’d have many complaints coming your way. The argument against Sutcliffe is he didn’t really face express pace at test level. He debuted after the Gregory and McDonald partnership wreaked havoc, with Gregory on his last legs and McDonald playing League cricket in England. After that, the only fast bowler Australia had was Tim Wall, who wasn’t that quick. Against the West Indies in 1933, when Martindale and Constantine bowled Bodyline, he only averaged 20. That’s why I have Gavaskar ahead of him as the other opener

 

[PhatBoy]

I don’t really understand

Yeah. I actually agree, but that is its own argument for its own thread. I didn't want to derail this entire thread into a discussion of the merits of the uni of WA analysis of his action, and particularly the dishonest way the ICC manipulated the report for their own ends. And that is before you get into the rule changes to accommodate him.

And here I go... derailing the thread. I could easily do 20 pages just on this. Sorry.

It’s not really detailing the thread it was a major cricketing debate albeit I disagree with the side of it you have landed on.

I can’t agree with a naked eye argument.

1. Cricket as far as I’m aware has never had a rule stipulating that your arm has to be straight when you bowl. That in itself caused a LOT of meltdowns when Murali arrived because people didn’t understand WHY he was being called (not saying you were one of these people). Fans would say ‘look at his arm, it’s bent. He has to be throwing!!!’ Well you go and see if you can pick up a ball with a bent arm, keep it bent at the same angle, and throw it. You can’t. So having a bent arm was no crime.

2. The reason he was accused by Hair and Emerson of throwing is because in their opinion, and they are entitled to it, he was beginning his action with a bend in his arm, and straightening it as he released. Now I personally cannot understand why an umpire would be silly enough to think they could make that assessment in the blink of an eye but credit to them for having courage to back themselves. It would have been tough to do it. But it was unwise. No one can know that to the naked eye.

3. It was proven that Murali could not fully straighten his arm so on ANY score, there was no way that IF he was straightening his arm, he was FULLY doing it.

4. At the time I don’t think it was fully appreciated how much of an impact his wrist was having in what he was doing. He was an off spinner ergo it wasn’t really factored in until later ‘hang on, look at his wrist.’ Once people picked up on this, it started to become apparent that his wrist gave a much worse look to the action in its entirety.

5. The demonstration he gave on the Sky coverage showed that contrary to the statement that ‘he can’t bowl those deliveries especially the doses WITHOUT throwing’ - he wore a brace that allowed NO straightening of the arm and bowled his full repertoire of deliveries during a lunch break.

6. The scientific study showed that one bowler: the criminally underbowled* Ramnaresh Sarwan was the only bowler studied who DIDNT break the agreed allowable amount of straightening that bowlers were given


*absurdly bad

I don’t really see what argument anyone can make about this anymore. I still think Warne was the better spinner but I don’t think there is any more room for debate about the legality of Murali’s action

 

[Caligo]

I don’t really understand


It’s not really detailing the thread it was a major cricketing debate albeit I disagree with the side of it you have landed on.

I can’t agree with a naked eye argument.

1. Cricket as far as I’m aware has never had a rule stipulating that your arm has to be straight when you bowl. That in itself caused a LOT of meltdowns when Murali arrived because people didn’t understand WHY he was being called (not saying you were one of these people). Fans would say ‘look at his arm, it’s bent. He has to be throwing!!!’ Well you go and see if you can pick up a ball with a bent arm, keep it bent at the same angle, and throw it. You can’t. So having a bent arm was no crime.

2. The reason he was accused by Hair and Emerson of throwing is because in their opinion, and they are entitled to it, he was beginning his action with a bend in his arm, and straightening it as he released. Now I personally cannot understand why an umpire would be silly enough to think they could make that assessment in the blink of an eye but credit to them for having courage to back themselves. It would have been tough to do it. But it was unwise. No one can know that to the naked eye.

3. It was proven that Murali could not fully straighten his arm so on ANY score, there was no way that IF he was straightening his arm, he was FULLY doing it.

4. At the time I don’t think it was fully appreciated how much of an impact his wrist was having in what he was doing. He was an off spinner ergo it wasn’t really factored in until later ‘hang on, look at his wrist.’ Once people picked up on this, it started to become apparent that his wrist gave a much worse look to the action in its entirety.

5. The demonstration he gave on the Sky coverage showed that contrary to the statement that ‘he can’t bowl those deliveries especially the doses WITHOUT throwing’ - he wore a brace that allowed NO straightening of the arm and bowled his full repertoire of deliveries during a lunch break.

6. The scientific study showed that one bowler: the criminally underbowled* Ramnaresh Sarwan was the only bowler studied who DIDNT break the agreed allowable amount of straightening that bowlers were given


*absurdly bad

I don’t really see what argument anyone can make about this anymore. I still think Warne was the better spinner but I don’t think there is any more room for debate about the legality of Murali’s action

Ok let's have a first go at this. I will use the same numbering you used in my replies.

1. Yep. You are absolutely right. People went bonkers cos he was bowling with a bent arm (and wasn't the first) thinking that was the rule when it absolutely wasn't. People making that argument were wrong.

2. Hair and Emerson weren't just using the naked eye. It was well known in Australian and English umpiring circles at the time that his action was questionable, and they had worked together analysing footage and determined as a large group (at least a dozen umpires) that he was chucking. Most of that group were too scared to do anything about it, but privately those brave enough to speak out. (This came from a NSW grade umpire at the time)

3. Sri Lankan and Indian officials made the argument that Murali could not straighten his arm enough physically to be chucking. This was proven to be false in a WA lab, but besides that, when Murali was fielding in the outfield he used a regulation (if a bit strange looking) straightening action to throw the ball in. Everyone could see he could straighten his arm. It was straight up corruption claiming otherwise by those officials.

4. Yep. His wrist action made it look worse than it was. It was still really bad, and well beyond the laws of the game.

5. I watched that segment with the brace. The action looked fundamentally different. The effect on the ball looked different. I don't know what it was meant to be evidence of but it wasn't his standard bowling.

6. The ICC study you refer to was study at all. There was a world cup at the time so the ICC said let's look at some WC footage and just make whatever claim we want about it. Nobody was tested in a lab. Nobody was tested at all. It was straight up PR fluff to cover up for their bullshit.

I am surprised you didn't bring up the actual WA university research that was done on Murali. It showed that his doosra was well over 15 degrees straightening. What it didn't say though was that it did not test how much he was spinning it at the other end. It was a garbage study that didn't represent his actual bowling at all. He could have been bowling anything just to pass the test, and he still failed by well over 10 degrees. The study was actually kept secret by the ICC for a decade. They lied about its contents, claiming it said he was completely fine. And even today it is difficult to access.

The whole thing was a massive corrupt cover up. His wickets before the rule change should have been stricken entirely, and even after the change he was still chucking his doosra. But I don't get to decide on the rules or the consequences. He is a legitimate bowler according to the ICC and nothing I can say will change that.

 

[evolved2]

My XI from players I've seen and can remember.

Hayden
Sehwag
Lara
Tendulkar
Ponting
Border
Sangakarra
Warne
Muralitharan
Ambrose
McGrath

(12th man S Waugh)

 

[PhatBoy]

Ok let's have a first go at this. I will use the same numbering you used in my replies.

1. Yep. You are absolutely right. People went bonkers cos he was bowling with a bent arm (and wasn't the first) thinking that was the rule when it absolutely wasn't. People making that argument were wrong.

2. Hair and Emerson weren't just using the naked eye. It was well known in Australian and English umpiring circles at the time that his action was questionable, and they had worked together analysing footage and determined as a large group (at least a dozen umpires) that he was chucking. Most of that group were too scared to do anything about it, but privately those brave enough to speak out. (This came from a NSW grade umpire at the time)

3. Sri Lankan and Indian officials made the argument that Murali could not straighten his arm enough physically to be chucking. This was proven to be false in a WA lab, but besides that, when Murali was fielding in the outfield he used a regulation (if a bit strange looking) straightening action to throw the ball in. Everyone could see he could straighten his arm. It was straight up corruption claiming otherwise by those officials.

4. Yep. His wrist action made it look worse than it was. It was still really bad, and well beyond the laws of the game.

5. I watched that segment with the brace. The action looked fundamentally different. The effect on the ball looked different. I don't know what it was meant to be evidence of but it wasn't his standard bowling.

6. The ICC study you refer to was study at all. There was a world cup at the time so the ICC said let's look at some WC footage and just make whatever claim we want about it. Nobody was tested in a lab. Nobody was tested at all. It was straight up PR fluff to cover up for their bullshit.

I am surprised you didn't bring up the actual WA university research that was done on Murali. It showed that his doosra was well over 15 degrees straightening. What it didn't say though was that it did not test how much he was spinning it at the other end. It was a garbage study that didn't represent his actual bowling at all. He could have been bowling anything just to pass the test, and he still failed by well over 10 degrees. The study was actually kept secret by the ICC for a decade. They lied about its contents, claiming it said he was completely fine. And even today it is difficult to access.

The whole thing was a massive corrupt cover up. His wickets before the rule change should have been stricken entirely, and even after the change he was still chucking his doosra. But I don't get to decide on the rules or the consequences. He is a legitimate bowler according to the ICC and nothing I can say will change that.

sorry mate but re. #6, that actually came back largely to a study conducted out of Victoria that stated (I may have gotten my wires crossed re. Sarwan) 31 of 34 bowlers analysed threw it based on the old rule. The affiliation of those who published it was, or is, actually with Cricket Australia.

Fast bowling arm actions and the illegal delivery law in men's high performance cricket matches - PubMed

This study investigated the bowling arm kinematics of 21 elite fast bowlers (mean +/- SD; age = 27.8 +/- 3.9 years) while performing in test, tour and one day international matches. Thirty-one of the 34 deliveries analysed exhibited straightening at the elbow joint (straightening min = 3...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The other stuff I think is a matter of opinion but like I said I don’t think he was as good a bowler as Warne but I have no problem accepting the legitimacy of what he did.

 

[Caligo]

sorry mate but re. #6, that actually came back largely to a study conducted out of Victoria that stated (I may have gotten my wires crossed re. Sarwan) 31 of 34 bowlers analysed threw it based on the old rule. The affiliation of those who published it was, or is, actually with Cricket Australia.

Fast bowling arm actions and the illegal delivery law in men's high performance cricket matches - PubMed

This study investigated the bowling arm kinematics of 21 elite fast bowlers (mean +/- SD; age = 27.8 +/- 3.9 years) while performing in test, tour and one day international matches. Thirty-one of the 34 deliveries analysed exhibited straightening at the elbow joint (straightening min = 3...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The other stuff I think is a matter of opinion but like I said I don’t think he was as good a bowler as Warne but I have no problem accepting the legitimacy of what he did.

Yep, the ICC did a different one that found sarwan was the only fair bowler. But it was just footage from the WC. Dodgy as heck intentionally trying to murky the waters for their rule change to protect Murali. There was never a need to go all the way up to 15 degrees. Guys bowling doosras just should have been banned.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Sunil Gavaskar scored something like a dozen hundreds against the greatest fast bowling cartel that has ever existed, doing it as an opening batsman. Whatever run rate you want to score at, that has to at the very least put him in the mix, in exactly the same way that Sehwag’s sheer destructiveness has to put HIM in the mix.

Just on this, Gavaskar's pure numbers against the West Indies are HEAVILY bolstered by the 1971 tour (where he scored 774 runs at 154.80) against the bowling might of Jack Noriega, Keith Boyce, John Shepherd, Vanburn Holder, and 35 yo Garfield Sobers. All relatively benign in comparison to what erupted throughout the decade from the Windies.

Minus that 71 series he averaged a brilliant 53.37 with 1975 runs and 9 tons which is nothing to sneeze at, but the 65 average I've often seen quoted was not against Lloyd's full pace barrage (and I've always strongly disliked Gavaskar as when he DID face the Windies pace barrage for the first time he wrote a book about how West Indian supporters belong in the jungle in response).

 

[Richard Pryor]

Yep, the ICC did a different one that found sarwan was the only fair bowler. But it was just footage from the WC. Dodgy as heck intentionally trying to murky the waters for their rule change to protect Murali. There was never a need to go all the way up to 15 degrees. Guys bowling doosras just should have been banned.

The thing that is suspect politically for me is the brutal purge that took place after Murali retired with Saeed Ajmal, Sunil Narine, and Johann Botha all getting sanctioned a few years afterwards after establishing careers with no issues (not sure if memory is accurate though).

I always sympathized with Saeed Ajmal who I think correctly argued that it didn't make any sense they only figured out his action was illegal after he'd taken well over 400 wickets in international cricket and was far too old to realistically change it.

 

[Caligo]

The thing that is suspect politically for me is the brutal purge that took place after Murali retired with Saeed Ajmal, Sunil Narine, and Johann Botha all getting sanctioned a few years afterwards after establishing careers with no issues (not sure if memory is accurate though).

I always sympathized with Saeed Ajmal who I think correctly argued that it didn't make any sense they only figured out his action was illegal after he'd taken well over 400 wickets in international cricket and was far too old to realistically change it.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that it was entirely political and corrupt. It was what I was told by someone involved (tangentially) at the time, and those feelings have only grown stronger over the years as more and more is learned. Today, the BCCI, which entirely controls the ICC, is run by the son of a major political figure in India, and all of the major positions under him are also similarly tied to Modi. And here I go again, derailing the thread in yet another direction... bad caligo.

 

[Trojan90]

All time (mostly stats driven)
Hobbs
Hutton
Bradman
Smith
Walcott
Sobers
Gilchrist
Warne
Marshall
Ambrose
McGrath

Best I’ve seen
Smith
Sehwag
Ponting
Kallis
Lara
Smith
Gilchrist
Warne
Akram
Steyn
Mcgrath

Note. Loving the work in here breaking down the stats. Would love to hear thoughts on Barrington and Hutton.