Stats XI: Best England XI of last 50 yrs

Few sports fans are as keen to talk about records, classic matches, great players from the past etc as cricket buffs. This is where all such posts should be made. You will find an excellent library of cricket views, opinions and records here. Go ahead, be a classic cricket pundit. We take you seriously.
User avatar
raja
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 29596
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:14 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
Pakistan

Stats XI: Best England XI of last 50 yrs

Postby raja » Thu Sep 27, 2018 10:00 am

https://www.thecricketer.com/Topics/top ... ts_xi.html

This is based on stats alone.
Must be said that Dennis Amiss got loads of runs against India and a relatively weak Windies side.
He came a cropper in the Ashes - was widely ridiculed as Lillee's bunny.

But ok, if this is only stats based, it is not going to consider the above.

So Amiss is in, Cook and Gooch are out.

It does however show that, statistically at least, England's openers in the last 50 years have largely struggled.

Atherton, unfortunately for his stats, had to play some of the finest bowlers ever seen.

User avatar
Going South
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 26947
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 6:10 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
United States of America

Re: Stats XI: Best England XI of last 50 yrs

Postby Going South » Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:15 pm

come on. you are too lazy to post the XI for a top XI discussion thread. huh!!

G Boycott (batting average 48.69);
DL Amiss (47.76);
JE Root (52.28);
KP Pietersen (47.28);
GP Thorpe (44.66);
AW Greig (40.43/bowling average 32.20);
MJ Prior (40.18/c 243, st 13);
JA Snow (26.87);
DL Underwood (25.60);
RGD Willis (25.20);
JM Anderson (27.23)

User avatar
Going South
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 26947
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 6:10 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
United States of America

Re: Stats XI: Best England XI of last 50 yrs

Postby Going South » Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:16 pm

no cook?

aaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha.

User avatar
raja
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 29596
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:14 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
Pakistan

Re: Stats XI: Best England XI of last 50 yrs

Postby raja » Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:08 am

Rather surprised to see Matt Prior with a batting average of 40.
I knew he was always a pain but I'd thought his average would be around 36 or so.

As a keeper, I don't think he was quite in the same league as Alan Knott.

But this is a Stats XI, so Knott misses out.

User avatar
Going South
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 26947
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 6:10 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
United States of America

Re: Stats XI: Best England XI of last 50 yrs

Postby Going South » Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:06 pm

yes. there is no good wicket keeper batsman from England for decades, so you get to pick an average player over a below-average player. ;). Not everyone is blessed with dhoni or sanga. ;)

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 5267
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Stats XI: Best England XI of last 50 yrs

Postby Paddles » Sat Sep 29, 2018 10:05 pm

Going South wrote:yes. there is no good wicket keeper batsman from England for decades, so you get to pick an average player over a below-average player. ;). Not everyone is blessed with dhoni or sanga. ;)


Dhoni. What a legend. But he's hardly in the running with Les Ames (the first great wicket keeper bat - and yes he played for England but he is outside the 50 year limit, despite all his runs).

Dhoni averages 38 in his career. He even made 1 test century away from India, a long way from home in Pakistan.

So besides Prior averaging more than Dhoni, there is also Alec Stewart averaging more than him (but his split is more Sanga like increasing as he drops the gloves). So this makes Bairstow averaging 41.35 as the potential keeper bat on numbers as a wicket keeper.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... pe=batting

The real weakness I see in the stats team is in the bowling. Underwood was ineffective when covered pitches came in as he was a sticky dog specialist, and Jimmy Anderson just is not effective away from home.

With Bairstow, Buttler, Pope, and Foakes - as well as Burns and Billings; England has a total and utter glut of wicket keepers right now, when they need an opening bat, a fast bowler and a spinner. Burns should be made the opener and Billings dropped for a while from the squads.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 5267
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Stats XI: Best England XI of last 50 yrs

Postby Paddles » Sat Sep 29, 2018 10:15 pm

raja wrote:https://www.thecricketer.com/Topics/top_single/englands_best_xi_of_the_past_50_years_stats_xi.html



It does however show that, statistically at least, England's openers in the last 50 years have largely struggled.



Disagree, Boycott is up with Gavaskar as the best of the last 50 years. Gooch not far behind.

I think Cook's career is simply outstanding. And Stewart did well opening or batting 3. Plus Strauss had a fine career.

I just don't think Atherton was that good, he was solid but he fought for his wicket and lead the team - that's why England fans love him. His county career numbers are nothing to write home about in reality.

These numbers are pretty contextual, England played the most tests against Australia in their peaks of this 50 year period (Lillee, Thommo, Alderman, Reid, Warne, McGrath), plus they were regularly being dismantled by the Windies in the late 70's through to 1990. Mix that with clouds and a Dukes ball, anything in the 40's is far from struggling.

An English opener will not put up Sehwag or Hayden like numbers, because they play in different contexts. But how did Hayden and Sehwag fair in England? Sehwag 27.8, Hayden 34.5 and retired before the 2009 tour.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
Going South
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 26947
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 6:10 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
United States of America

Re: Stats XI: Best England XI of last 50 yrs

Postby Going South » Sat Sep 29, 2018 10:37 pm

traditionally when you think of a team the first cricket word that come to mind - ?

pakistan - bowling
india - batting
west indies - bowling

england - ?

i say batting.

so traditionally england is an average bowling team who rely on batting to win games.
that explains weak bowling in this XI.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 5267
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Stats XI: Best England XI of last 50 yrs

Postby Paddles » Sat Sep 29, 2018 11:06 pm

Going South wrote:traditionally when you think of a team the first cricket word that come to mind - ?

pakistan - bowling
india - batting
west indies - bowling

england - ?

i say batting.

so traditionally england is an average bowling team who rely on batting to win games.
that explains weak bowling in this XI.


Your premises are fairly true for modern times, but WI was definitely famous for batting before Gibbs' retired (Headley, Walcott, Weekes, Worrell, Sobers, Lloyd, Viv, GG) and they went 4 prong in June 1976 and dominated into the 1990's. So now its like modern WI was bowling (but really its the fast four bowling of their era), and traditional WI was batting. I think the same is true for Pakistan, where the Mohammad brothers, Abbas and Javed were the fame for batting, until Waqar met up with Wasim under Imran in 1989/1990 (Imran was on the decline then, and Qadir was about to dropped for Mustaq). Pakistan is really famous for reverse swing if anything.

England - I just think swinging conditions (and a fondness of allrounders) in recent times.

I wouldn't draw a conclusion from your premise. Seems a lil silly to draw this much from popular word association.

Aus - I think fast bouncy road (but SCG does take some turn and Hobart is oft greener).

India and SL will typically be a road or a dustbowl pending whether the touring team is Asian and their strength at the time; e.g Bangladesh tour India and the tracks will not turn big, they are a road. But if Aus or SA are touring anywhere in Asia, it turns sideways on day 1. This too is a modern development because the old ethos of India was "do not lose at home" so the pitches were flat and batting really easy allowing India to bat for a draw. Now "New India" is 'thrash everyone at home' so they rate their batsmen over touring teams to play on dustbowls, but play touring Asian teams on roads and back their seamers to beat the... Rubel Hussein, Lakmal, et al. If Pakistan has a strong seam attack when it next tours (if ever), India can chuck them on a dustbowl.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
Going South
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 26947
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 6:10 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
United States of America

Stats XI: Best England XI of last 50 yrs

Postby Going South » Sun Sep 30, 2018 4:52 am

nope. west indies is famous for chilling fast bowlers for many decades where cricket fans talk in awe even today. batting ? meh.

australia-?
can’t put my finger on batting or bowling but is known for win at all costs mentality and strong leadership led by example. IMO ofcourse.

lankans - batting team.

newzealand - ? i put it as bowling team.

bangladesh - bowling team ??

saffers - bowling team.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 5267
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Stats XI: Best England XI of last 50 yrs

Postby Paddles » Sun Sep 30, 2018 7:00 am

Going South wrote:nope. west indies is famous for chilling fast bowlers for many decades where cricket fans talk in awe even today. batting ? meh.


*Sigh - name them outside of Roberts/Croft/Holding/Garner/Marshall/Ambrose/Walsh... Yeah - that's right - you are unable to. It was a 1976 - 2000 thing only. Heck - lets add Bishop and Patterson. Same time frame. Lets get really overly generous and focus on county cricketers and weak test bowlers. Syl Clarke. Same time frame. W Davis, same time frame. Stephenson who never played for them. Same time frame. They started running out of quicks around 1991 with Marshall's retirement. But Walsh and Ambrose saw most the 1990's out. But they had Merv Dillon, Cummins, Rose, Benjamin and Benjamin as team mates.

Vs...

Headley, Worrell, Weekes, Walcott, Hunte, Sobers, Khanai, Viv, LLoyd, Kalli, Greenidge, Haynes, Lara, Chanderpaul, Gayle...

Look GS we've had differences in our past and all - but here's a lil secret that you clearly have no idea about, before 1976, the WI was dominated with a SPIN bowling attack.

Valentine, Ramadhin and Gibbs.... Wes Hall was their best seamer before the 1976 team.

The reason WI changed their cricket, was after Gibbs retired in Jan or so 1976, Lloyd was frustrated with his spinners not bowling teams out in the 4th innings at home in the series after, so he went all pace in England June 1976.

This is common knowledge for all keen cricket fans. Seriously. Any fame outside of what I just told you - is a myth that most true cricket fans would be embarrassed of fooling for.

But between 1976 and 1991 they had an embarrassment of riches of fast bowlers. Just like Australia in the 90's with its batting line up availability.

As for Australia, they're famous for sledging and moaning about bodyline. They have no historical issues producing batsmen, fast bowlers, and more quality leggies than anyone else (but even this still skips a generation or two each time). Which makes their batting crisis right now, rather peculiar.

Lankans were a batting team from 90's till Sanga, Dilshan and Jaya retired. Now they're just crap. Which they were before the 90's when they found quality batsmen and Murali. So really, they're famous for Murali/Herath and batsmen for 20 years. But now nothing (Herath will finale vs England in the upcoming series - Chandimal is hardly on anyone's radar and Angelo has been stinking up the joint lately).
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
Going South
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 26947
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 6:10 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
United States of America

Re: Stats XI: Best England XI of last 50 yrs

Postby Going South » Sun Sep 30, 2018 9:04 pm

last 50 years is the keyword. duh!

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 5267
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Stats XI: Best England XI of last 50 yrs

Postby Paddles » Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:14 am

Going South wrote:last 50 years is the keyword. duh!

2018-50=1968 duh!


1991-1976 = 15 duh!

Duh GS, duh!

So sayeth Sobers, Lloyd, GG, Haynes, Richardson, Lara, Chanders, Gayle, Bravo, Kalli, Viv...

Stop trying to save ass and just learn something about cricket culture and history. Duh!

Raja just tell him I'm right. He's clearly not believing me. The guy clearly is unable to add and process FOUR BOWLERS and SIX BATSMEN.

Baccus, Logie vs Hooper, K Benji, W Benji...

*sigh*
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
raja
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 29596
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:14 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
Pakistan

Re: Stats XI: Best England XI of last 50 yrs

Postby raja » Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:37 pm

Haha.

First things first.

Yes, Boycs was a fine opener, no doubt.
And I always rate Gooch.

I think I'm biased towards Athers cos I saw those series in the 90s on TV, where he (and usually Stewart) used to come out to open the innings.
In fact, I'm rate Stewart highly too.

Wasim/Waqar
Ambrose/Walsh
Donald/Pollock
McGrath/Gillespie
Vaas (though he didn't play SL much)'

Quite some quality in there.

Not to mention Warne, Murali and Kumble in the spin attack.

He didn't have the luxury of playing early Bangladesh. :-)

User avatar
raja
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 29596
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:14 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
Pakistan

Re: Stats XI: Best England XI of last 50 yrs

Postby raja » Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:48 pm

Now to talking about strengths of teams.

1968 onwards:

Windies:
Upto, say 1990, batting & bowling
1990s - bowling (thanks to Ambrose-Walsh). Batting was mainly Lara.
Since Lara's retirement, neither batting nor bowling.

BCCI:
Upto 2000: neither batting nor bowling
2000-2011: Batting (glorious era of Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly, Sehwag, Laxman)
2012 to date: Both batting and bowling, but in Asian conditions. Outside Asia, neither.

England:
Throughout the 50 years, both batting and bowling
They might not always have had the results to show for their quality, but they always had the quality

Australia:
Upto 1977: batting and bowling, even if largely dependent on Greg Chappell and Lillee (support players were decent)
1977-80: Packer disaster
1980-1989: Poor in both batting and bowling
1989-2005: Largely dominant in both batting and bowling
2005-to date: Questionable, despite a couple of crushing Ashes series wins at home. That "invincibility" was shattered in 2005

Pakistan:
1968-1989: Decent batting and bowling
1990 onwards: quality bowling, suspect batting

Am not talking about NZ and other sides.

Paddles can probably talk about NZ best.

User avatar
raja
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 29596
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:14 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
Pakistan

Re: Stats XI: Best England XI of last 50 yrs

Postby raja » Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:50 pm

It is quite telling that even during the glorious period of BCCI's batting (2000-2011), they failed to win a series in Australia or South Africa.
Came close, but never crossed the line.

They did win a series in England though under Dravid.

User avatar
Going South
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 26947
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 6:10 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
United States of America

Re: Stats XI: Best England XI of last 50 yrs

Postby Going South » Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:51 pm

raja, that was informative but did not answer the question

when you think of a team what speciality come to your mind immediately?
one word. don’t dilute it by adding everything.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 5267
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Stats XI: Best England XI of last 50 yrs

Postby Paddles » Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:48 pm

raja wrote:Now to talking about strengths of teams.

1968 onwards:

Windies:
Upto, say 1990, batting & bowling
1990s - bowling (thanks to Ambrose-Walsh). Batting was mainly Lara.
Since Lara's retirement, neither batting nor bowling.

BCCI:
Upto 2000: neither batting nor bowling
2000-2011: Batting (glorious era of Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly, Sehwag, Laxman)
2012 to date: Both batting and bowling, but in Asian conditions. Outside Asia, neither.

England:
Throughout the 50 years, both batting and bowling
They might not always have had the results to show for their quality, but they always had the quality

Australia:
Upto 1977: batting and bowling, even if largely dependent on Greg Chappell and Lillee (support players were decent)
1977-80: Packer disaster
1980-1989: Poor in both batting and bowling
1989-2005: Largely dominant in both batting and bowling
2005-to date: Questionable, despite a couple of crushing Ashes series wins at home. That "invincibility" was shattered in 2005

Pakistan:
1968-1989: Decent batting and bowling
1990 onwards: quality bowling, suspect batting

Am not talking about NZ and other sides.

Paddles can probably talk about NZ best.


NZ:
NZ is famous for being a weak team, bar the 1980's when Hadlee was rampant. NZ produces the odd exceptional talent, but struggles to have enough in the team together - CCairns, Bond, M Crowe, A Jones, DV, all had some very ordinary team mates. NZ has re-emerged as a solid cricketing nation from about 2013 or so, of which something NZ fans are very happy with. But there's only a series ties away in Aus (2011) SL (2012) England (2015) and UAE (2014) to crow about. There's no away series wins bar the usual WI et al that everyone wins these days.

India:
I disagree about your assessment of India. Their 'wristy' batting strength emerged in the 70's, but was definitely notorious in the 1980's and 1990's. Be it Gavaskar, Azra, Vengasarkar, Tendulkar, et al. Its bowling weakness was also famous. There was hope Hirwani would be special, but he wasn't. So it was basically spuds like Probhakar and Shastri with Dev, who was not in Hadlee's league of a sole bowler carrying a team. But notice the deep batting India had in the 1980s.

WI:
WI had Lara, Richardson, Hooper, Chanders, Adams, all play post 1990 then Sarwan in 2000 - but the attack literally became just Walsh and Ambrose once Bishop was injured. Their bowling became a massive weakness.

Australia was 2007 when Warne and McGrath retired in the 5-0 Ashes. Langer and Martyn called stumps too. Suddenly they looked beatable. Gilly then had a horror run of form and retired. McGill retired and they went mad trying to find a new spinner. Then in 2009 Hayden retired. And that was that. Punter's runs started drying up.Still very tough to beat at home, but SA did it in 2009. And that was that. Australia were officially just a normal team once again. Then England turned up and beat them in 2010 and Aussie cricket fans started really struggling with the new cricket dynamic.

Australia in the 1980's was very strong in fast bowling. I couldn't disagree with you more. Even excluding Thommo,

Lillee, Alderman, Reid, McDermott, Hogg, Rackemann, Hughes... Mike Whitney and even Geoff Lawson struggled to get gigs. It just became and endless rotation of quality seamers not helped by Reid's constant injuries.

They started the decade with a monster batting line up with G Chappell, Border, Hughes et al and finished the decade with Taylor, Boon, Jones, Border, SWaugh with G Mathews struggling to get a spot. Aussie's famed weak period was really just mid 80's India nearly winning a test there, and NZ winning a series there in 85/86 and while NZ still pushing them to the limit in 87/88 (Dick French no-lbw and Dyer catch) - Aussie was back to winning. England won the Ashes in 1986/87 thanks to C Broad and some sheer and utter luck from Beefy- then Aus won the WC in 87, saw off NZ, and thrashed England in England in 1989.

By 1993 - it was Slater vs Hayden and Justin Langer, Dean Jones and Damien Martyn were squeezed and dropped out of the team. The most famous batting production was about to begin which was dire for B Hodge, J Cox, S Law, and many high quality players barely getting a gig or not at all. Aussie thought they still had this production line with Brad Hodge, but it started to look different when players like Marcus North played in 2009. Either way, it was very long run of exceptional batsmen:

Border, Boon, Jones, S Waugh, M Waugh, Taylor, Slater, Hayden, Langer, Law, Lehmann, Bevan, Ponting, Hussey, Clarke, Kattich and of course, Adam Gilchrist. And to think Elliott and Blewett were talented enough to convince the selectors of replacing these guys at times.

What is noticable that between Richie and Warnie, there is no famous spinner. I mean O'Keefe and Ash Mallet played (the latter very well) - but they're more famous for media work.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
raja
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 29596
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:14 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
Pakistan

Re: Stats XI: Best England XI of last 50 yrs

Postby raja » Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:13 am

I don't rate India before 2000 only because, as a team, they never were a true threat to the biggies for any reasonable period of time, England and Australia.

They had good players of course - Gavaskar, Vishwanath, Bedi, Chandra, Kapil, Vengsarkar, Mohinder, to name a few - but as a team, they didn't win enough to be taken seriously.

In 1971 India won two overseas series. First in the West Indies (1-0 in a 5-Test series), then 1-0 in England.
Their next series was in 1972-73, when they beat a visiting England side 2-1.

This was the highlight of India's consistent run.

They were thrashed 3-0 in their next series - a 3-Test series in England in 1974.

Those of us who lived through the 1970s and 1980s never felt India was a world-beating side - I am talking Tests.

From the top of head, what I remember of the 70s
1971: Away : West Indies (5 Tests) 1-0
1971: Away : England (3 Tests) 1-0
1972-73 : Home : England (5T) : 2-1
1974 : Away : England (3T) : 0-3
1974-75 : Home : West Indies (5T) : 2-3
1975-76 : Away : NZ (3T) : 1-1
1975-76 : Away : West Indies (4T; originally 5 planned, Guyana Test was washed out) : 1-3
1976-77 : Home : NZ (2T): 2-0
1976-77 : Home : England (5T): 1-3
1977-78 : Away : Australia (5T) : 2-3 (Packer-impoverished side)
1978 : Away : Pakistan (3T) : 0-2
1978-79 : Home : West Indies : 1-0 (Packer-impoverished side)
1979 : Away : England (4T) : 0-1

This was the story of Indian cricket in the 70s.
Not much better in the 80s.
They won two 6-Test series at home (against Australia and Pakistan) - then lost overseas series in England in 1982, and Pakistan in 1982-83.

They even managed to lose a home series against England in 1984-85 with what was then considered to be a fairly raw England side
They did wonderfully well in England in 1986 (no Botham, mind you!) - then lost to Pakistan at home.

Through the 90s (though it was my blackout period), India kept losing overseas series - whether in Australia or England or South Africa.
At home they managed to win the odd series, but a sense of solidity was missing, with the team seemingly too dependent on Tendulkar and, to a lesser extent, Azhar and Sidhu.

All this changed in 2000 or 2001.
The entry of a Sehwag with tremendous attitude, the turnaround in Kolkata 2001 - that triggered a turnaround in Indian confidence too.

It was only from then on that India could be considered to be one of the best teams in the world, even if not THE best then.

To summarise, individual players, yes.

Team consistency, not till 2000.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 5267
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Stats XI: Best England XI of last 50 yrs

Postby Paddles » Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:43 pm

India has never won a single series in SA or Aus.

They've never been a threat to the biggies. India's never been a famous for winning away team.

#No offence.

Noone doubts they've had the better batting at times but the bowling has failed them time after time after time.

Not trying to disrespect but no Asian team has ever been considered a big - the closest was Pakistan in 1992 WC era with Miandad, Malik, Imran, Ijaz, Was and Waqar et al. Noone ever took the SL seam attack seriously.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
raja
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 29596
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:14 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
Pakistan

Re: Stats XI: Best England XI of last 50 yrs

Postby raja » Tue Oct 02, 2018 4:07 pm

For years, India was a team that lacked self-belief.
Then Kolkata 2001 happened, ending Australia's winning streak.
They won the next Test too, thus winning the series 2-1.
This was a seminal moment in Indian cricket - beating THAT Aussie side, albeit at home, was huge.

This gave the team massive self-confidence - they went on to do very well in England in 2002, far beyond expectations.

They then got to the World Cup final in South Africa in 2003.

And although they didn't win the series in Australia in 2003-04, they came very close to doing so.
Compared to their previous tour of Australia (the miserable tour of 1999), this was a magnificent performance.

They went on to comfortably beat Pakistan in Pakistan in 2004.

While they continued to produce shocker defeats every now and then, even at home, overall this was an Indian side that was much more respected than previous Indian sides. Tendulkar, Dravid, Sehwag, Laxman, Ganguly, Kumble, Harbhajan (and Dhoni from 2005) - rarely had one Indian side had so many players who could have been contenders for being part of a then-World XI.

That they still didn't win a series in Australia and South Africa, though they came close, is just one of those things. And though they didn't win, they travelled OK. The batsmen got runs - though the bowlers did struggle to get wickets. But it's not that Australia or South Africa did not consider them as serious opponents. That might have been the case till 2001 - the situation changed thereafter.

BCCI did win a series in England - in 2007 under Dravid. Their first series win in England after 1986.

They were ok, till that disaster tour of England in 2011, followed by the disaster tour of Australia later that year.

This is why I said BCCI batting was ok from 2000-2011. I didn't mention bowling - it was still iffy.

From 2012, it's been largely home performances. Overseas, they've not quite measured up to their opponents. One man, Kohli, can only do so much.

I still think the opposition, whether England, Australia or South Africa, don't take BCCI lightly anymore.

Not even when BCCI are touring.

Though they haven't got the results to show to back their claims of travelling well, they're more respected now, I feel.

User avatar
raja
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 29596
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:14 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
Pakistan

Re: Stats XI: Best England XI of last 50 yrs

Postby raja » Tue Oct 02, 2018 4:24 pm

Paddles wrote:India has never won a single series in SA or Aus.

They've never been a threat to the biggies. India's never been a famous for winning away team.

#No offence.

Noone doubts they've had the better batting at times but the bowling has failed them time after time after time.

Not trying to disrespect but no Asian team has ever been considered a big - the closest was Pakistan in 1992 WC era with Miandad, Malik, Imran, Ijaz, Was and Waqar et al. Noone ever took the SL seam attack seriously.


If you check Test cricket during the Windies' golden period (late 70s till early 90s), you'll find the team that made them sweat the most was Pakistan.

In the 80s, I'd say Pakistan was the 2nd best team in the world, after the Windies.

They even won a 5-Test series in England in 1987.

And repeated the feat in 1992.

So they were really VERY good at that time.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 5267
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Stats XI: Best England XI of last 50 yrs

Postby Paddles » Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:12 pm

raja wrote:
Paddles wrote:India has never won a single series in SA or Aus.

They've never been a threat to the biggies. India's never been a famous for winning away team.

#No offence.

Noone doubts they've had the better batting at times but the bowling has failed them time after time after time.

Not trying to disrespect but no Asian team has ever been considered a big - the closest was Pakistan in 1992 WC era with Miandad, Malik, Imran, Ijaz, Was and Waqar et al. Noone ever took the SL seam attack seriously.


If you check Test cricket during the Windies' golden period (late 70s till early 90s), you'll find the team that made them sweat the most was Pakistan.

In the 80s, I'd say Pakistan was the 2nd best team in the world, after the Windies.

They even won a 5-Test series in England in 1987.

And repeated the feat in 1992.

So they were really VERY good at that time.


Yeah the late 80's through to 1992 WC era Pakistan was on the rise. They still couldn't beat NZ in 1989 in Chatfield's last series as NZ went the entire decade undefeated at home and won away in England and Australia - and won a series at home against WI and drew one. You're entitled to your 1980's opinion, but on the performances - NZ was second best on the Wisden table for the decade. But everyone was trailing the WI by a long margin. Talent-wise you may well be right, as NZ was perceived to 'punch above its weight' with only Crowe and Hadlee internationally recognized as true stars of the game (A Jones rarely gets a mention from non NZC fans to this day).

New Zealand won the 1984/85 series against Pakistan 2-0 where Coney had his finest hour. Pakistan did not host NZ in the 1980's at all.

But I agree with you that Pakistan was certainly on the rise, and much respect was earned by their 87/88 series draw in the WI. That was quite an achievement as was the WC win in 1992. But Pakistan's run was over by 1992/93 being thrashed in WI. Basically - the wheels fell off as shortly after Imran retired. Yeah, Was and Waq tormented England with reverse swing in 1992 - but the Pakistani batting was in decline, and the captaincy influence of Imran was gone.

For NZ it was worse - same thing with Hadlee - his final year saw NZ win a series vs Aus in 1990 and India, then as soon as he retired - the team for intents and purposes became limp but with some 'solidish' batting (made to look ordinary whenever Was and Waq turned up) - 1991 thrashing of SL in NZ (just before Murali) and a 1992/93 series draw with Australia cushioned the fall. But once Crowe injured in 1993/94 in a drawn test in Aus - it got really ugly for NZ, really fast.

The worst thing is - there was some talent (Wilson, Nash, Cairns, Thomson), but the management, coaches and players just weren't all on the same page. There was drama, walkouts, and scandals.

But if you based your 80's opinion on Was and Waq wrecking NZ in NZ - it wasn't the 1989 series. That was 92/93 and 93/94. The NZ team was so weak in 1990 post Hadlee, Bracewell, Snedden with Wright missing the tour - that Imran refused to play NZ and moaned that the PCB would arrange such a tour. Not his finest hour. I'm actually grateful that Pakistan play in NZ so often - it is a nice break from playing Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. But it'd be really nice to get Afg here for a 1 test and limited overs tour. Afg have some exciting talent - which is so rare for a new team. SL took forever and for a long time it Aravinda and club quality cricketers (bit harsh on Ranatunga and Gurusinghe here). Zim less so but Houghton retired so soon that Flower and Streak were solo albeit 'all-round' acts.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.

User avatar
raja
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 29596
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:14 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
Pakistan

Re: Stats XI: Best England XI of last 50 yrs

Postby raja » Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:35 am

No, I didn't base my 80s opinion on Wasim and Waqar at all.
Theirs was an early 90s show.

And I agree that NZ, thanks mainly to Hadlee and Crowe, had their golden period in the 80s.

My response was more to the point where you say "no Asian team was considered big - the closest was Pakistan in the 1992 WC era."
To that I wanted to respond that Pakistan in the 80s WAS considered big.
Miandad was easily one of the best batsmen in the world, Imran one of the best allrounders, Qadir one of the best spinners (probably THE best), Wasim an upcoming star.
Plus they had useful cricketers like Salim Malik.
So purely as opposition, they were not taken lightly by any team.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 5267
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Stats XI: Best England XI of last 50 yrs

Postby Paddles » Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:34 am

raja wrote:No, I didn't base my 80s opinion on Wasim and Waqar at all.
Theirs was an early 90s show.

And I agree that NZ, thanks mainly to Hadlee and Crowe, had their golden period in the 80s.

My response was more to the point where you say "no Asian team was considered big - the closest was Pakistan in the 1992 WC era."
To that I wanted to respond that Pakistan in the 80s WAS considered big.
Miandad was easily one of the best batsmen in the world, Imran one of the best allrounders, Qadir one of the best spinners (probably THE best), Wasim an upcoming star.
Plus they had useful cricketers like Salim Malik.
So purely as opposition, they were not taken lightly by any team.


Oh I agree - that Pak late 80's to 92 was close to big but as 92/93 shows, not quite. I am talking the same era as you - but for me it ends in 92 and starts 87/88 with WI series draw.

Imran was bowling less and less after 89 but Waqar debut'd. Look to Pak tour of Aus for clear evidence (Imran takes new ball and not much else).

Only WI were big in that era. They were huuuuuuuge.
Law 31.6 - benefit of the doubt for an dismissal appeal goes to the batsman
A third umpire call for a run out or stumping is a referral, not a review.