India all time test XI

[Muloghonto]

4 minutes ago, Soldier said:

You sound like delusional fanboy who is too nostalgic to be able to think straight. Come back to me when you actually make some sense. 

 

Lmao at Murali said so.

 

Murali would have struggled to excel in modern era given how demanding it is.

 

Plus he is a chucker. 

 

 

You sound like a postmodernist who thinks that everything improves at mechanical efficiency as time goes on and there is no regress or that in elite sports greats dont sometimes clumpify in their arrival spread.

Murali would have given Ashwin and the rest a clinic on how to bowl FYI.  lack of respect for the elders is so un-Indian- you sure you aint a wannabe yankee, kiddo ??

 

[zen]

2 hours ago, express bowling said:

However,  Jadeja has a bowling average of 24 which is a "great " level average. While Mankad had a bowling average of 32.  Add to this Jadeja's superb fielding. 

 

As we know, no AT11 is ever going to take the field. It is a hypothetical scenario where people are accommodating (or trying to) the best across eras. What we are looking for is how the players handled challenges they were presented with in their respective periods. At times, we add players to recognize them.

 

If a player is an ATG, we assume that he can be a great in any era. An iPhone 12, due to evolution, will be better than the original iPhone, the 13 better than the 12,  but the original iPhone is a legendary phone that broke new grounds and will feature among the greatest phones of all time over whatever the current version is (unless the current version is groundbreaking too). If the iPhone were transported to today, it would likely be as good as the iPhone 12  and vice versa

 

If Mankad, who was a highly competitive cricketer, was born in this era, playing with modern training methods and on spin friendly pitches (remember Raju and Joshi used to do well to on the spin friendly pitches era post 1990), he would have a better bowling avg too. If Jadeja played at a time when pitches were not as spin friendly, along w/ facing challenges of that time, he could have a higher average 

 

If we just go by picking iPhone 12 over the original iPhone, AT11 loses interest because iPhone 13 or 14 or 15 due to evolution will  make the future list (Gupte -> the 4 great spinners -> Kumble -> Jadeja & Ashwin -> xyz. Kumble and Ashwin/Jadeja are closer so relatively easy to compare, while for Gupte, we would have to consider the challenges of his time and may be make some assumptions where applicable)

 

 

Talking about some of Mankad's achievements: 

 

 

 

• Highest test score for Ind - 231 (later broken by Gavaskar) 
• 100s overseas - in Eng (Mankad test) and in Aus (Mankading) iirc
• 8-ers v Eng and Pak 
• Batted in both top and middle order 
• Highest avg difference in wins for Ind 

 

Career averages

	Span	Mat	Runs	HS	Bat Av	100	Wkts	BBI	Bowl Av	5	Ct	St	Ave Diff
unfiltered	1946-1959	44	2109	231	31.47	5	162	8/52	32.32	8	33	0	-0.84	Profile
filtered	1952-1956	5	563	231	112.60	2	41	8/52	13.31	4	8	0	99.28

 

^ btw that bowling avg of 13.31 is the lowest for Ind with those with 40 or more wkts in wins: 

 

 

View overall figures

Primary team India

Opposition team Australia  or England  or India  or New Zealand  or Pakistan  or South Africa  or Sri Lanka  or West Indies

Match result won match

Qualifications wickets taken greater than or equal to 40

Ordered by bowling average (ascending)

Overall figures

Player	Span	Mat	Inns	Balls	Runs	Wkts	BBI	BBM	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10
MH Mankad	1952-1956	5	10	1945	546	41	8/52	13/131	13.31	1.68	47.4	4	2
JJ Bumrah	2018-2020	7	14	1537	664	48	6/27	9/86	13.83	2.59	32.0	5	0
EAS Prasanna	1962-1978	15	30	4083	1427	81	8/76	11/140	17.61	2.09	50.4	5	1
BS Bedi	1968-1978	17	34	5241	1713	97	6/42	9/70	17.65	1.96	54.0	6	0
N Kapil Dev	1979-1994	23	46	3973	1606	89	7/56	11/146	18.04	2.42	44.6	3	1
A Kumble	1993-2008	35	70	10690	4516	245	10/74	14/149	18.43	2.53	43.6	18	5
J Srinath	1993-2002	12	24	2176	922	49	6/21	8/68	18.81	2.54	44.4	1	0
BS Chandrasekhar	1964-1978	14	28	4451	1889	98	6/38	12/104	19.27	2.54	45.4	8	1
R Ashwin	2011-2020	39	78	11532	4994	249	7/59	13/140	20.05	2.59	46.3	23	6
RA Jadeja	2013-2020	30	60	7938	3135	149	7/48	10/154	21.04	2.36	53.2	7	1

 

 

Mankad, iirc, lost some of his best years due to WW2 as well ... If we factor in evolution, Mankad is a great pick and an opportunity to remember a legend! 

 

 

 

Edited January 20, 2021 by zen

[zen]

7 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Yes, post Dravid's stats as #3 overseas and that of Pujara please, instead of making mickey mouse comparisons on how Cummins == McGrath 

 

Did you read why I have picked Pujara?

[express bowling]

47 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

And a lot of people have recency bias. 

 

 

 

Yes, some people have that too.

 

 In my mind, Tendulkar still remains the best Indian batsman ever. While Bumrah is the best Indian fast bowler ever. Diffetent eras.

 

I have a very high opinion about Marshall, Ambrose, Donald, Steyn, Cummins and Bumrah. Spread across eras too.

 

 

 

47 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

it still doesnt change the fact that the late 80s-early 2000s is the highest density of quality fast bowlers ever seen in the game. All sports have a golden age period - ice hockey, football, baseball, tennis etc all go through it.

High end talents are mostly fluke chances, not grown out of industrial production line like droids. The opposite also applies in all sports - some eras are distinctly weaker. 

 

People who form emotional attachment to their eras or suffer from recency bias have a very hard time accepting this simple truth of high end athletics.

 

 

 

You are comparing a 18 to 20 year period with 5 to 7 years.  The absolute number is bound to be more 

 

The 80s and 90s was also a period of rampant ball tampering. Many of the great pace bowlers would have worse numbers if they had to bowl fairly.

 

One thing I accept ... the quality of spinners in test matches was definitely better in the 1995 to 2010 period.

[Tibarn]

Gavaskar

Sehwag

Dravid

Tendulkar

Kohli

Dhoni

Jadeja

Kapil

Ashwin

Ishant/Shami

Bumrah

 

I'm not sure between Ishant or Shami...

 

[Muloghonto]

15 minutes ago, Soldier said:

No they don't. Just because a dimwit on the Interner said so doesn't make it true. 

 

 

For eg your hero Cummins.

 

34 tets + 13 FC matches, 90 List-As and 96 20/20  in 9 year span.  Yeilds 395 max playing days in 9 year span == 43.88 days of professional cricket per annum

 

Courtney walsh:  132 tests + 297 FC matches + 440 List As in a 20 year span. Yeilds 1991 max playing days i a 20 year span == 99.55 days of professional cricket per annum. 

 

And this is selling him short, since at least half the FC matches he played are in English FC circuit, which had 4 day FC matches, not 3 day ones like rest of the world.

 

Ie, LITERALLY played twice as much cricket per year for twice as long as this cummins. and that too, a solid 20% of the time cummins has spent on cricket is for T20- which is FOUR OVER EASY TIME ON THE BODY - not even a GODDAMN FULL OPENING SPELL in FC or ODI cricket.

 

Do your math - no modern bowler is fit enough to be the standard workhorse pace bowler of the 80s-90s and such.

 

Edited January 20, 2021 by Muloghonto

[express bowling]

10 minutes ago, zen said:

 

As we know, no AT11 is ever going to take the field. It is a hypothetical scenario where people are accommodating the best across eras. What we are seeing is how the players handled challenges they were presented with. At times, we add players to recognize them.

 

If a player is an ATG, we assume that he can be a great in any era. An iPhone 12, due to evolution, will be better than the original iPhone, the 13 better than the 12,  but the original iPhone is a legendary phone that broke new grounds and will feature among the greatest phones of all time over whatever the current version is (unless the current version is groundbreaking too). If the iPhone were made as iPhone 12 today, it would be iPhone 12 and vice versa

 

 

I know all this and have written about it too at other times on other threads.

 

10 minutes ago, zen said:

 

If Mankad, who was a highly competitive cricketer, was born in this era, playing with modern training methods and on spin friendly pitches (remember Raju and Joshi used to do well to in the spin friendly pitches era post 1990), he would have a better bowling avg too. If Jadeja played at a time when pitches were not that spin friendly, along w/ facing challenges of that time, he could have a higher average 

 

If we just go by picking iPhone 12 over the original iPhone, AT11 loses interest because than the iPhone 13 or 14 due to evolution will make the new list. To make the list, as I said, it should be groundbreaking too in some sort of the way 

 

 

Taking about some of Mankad's achievements: 

 

 

 

• Highest test score for Ind - 231 (later broken by Gavaskar) 
• 100s overseas - in Eng (Mankad test) and in Aus (Mankading) iirc
• 8-ers v Eng and Pak 
• Batted in both top and middle order 
• Highest avg difference in wins for Ind 

 

Career averages

	Span	Mat	Runs	HS	Bat Av	100	Wkts	BBI	Bowl Av	5	Ct	St	Ave Diff
unfiltered	1946-1959	44	2109	231	31.47	5	162	8/52	32.32	8	33	0	-0.84	Profile
filtered	1952-1956	5	563	231	112.60	2	41	8/52	13.31	4	8	0	99.28

 

^ btw that bowling avg of 13.31 is the lowest for Ind with those with 40 or more wkts: 

 

 

View overall figures

Primary team India

Opposition team Australia  or England  or India  or New Zealand  or Pakistan  or South Africa  or Sri Lanka  or West Indies

Match result won match

Qualifications wickets taken greater than or equal to 40

Ordered by bowling average (ascending)

Overall figures

Player	Span	Mat	Inns	Balls	Runs	Wkts	BBI	BBM	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10
MH Mankad	1952-1956	5	10	1945	546	41	8/52	13/131	13.31	1.68	47.4	4	2
JJ Bumrah	2018-2020	7	14	1537	664	48	6/27	9/86	13.83	2.59	32.0	5	0
EAS Prasanna	1962-1978	15	30	4083	1427	81	8/76	11/140	17.61	2.09	50.4	5	1
BS Bedi	1968-1978	17	34	5241	1713	97	6/42	9/70	17.65	1.96	54.0	6	0
N Kapil Dev	1979-1994	23	46	3973	1606	89	7/56	11/146	18.04	2.42	44.6	3	1
A Kumble	1993-2008	35	70	10690	4516	245	10/74	14/149	18.43	2.53	43.6	18	5
J Srinath	1993-2002	12	24	2176	922	49	6/21	8/68	18.81	2.54	44.4	1	0
BS Chandrasekhar	1964-1978	14	28	4451	1889	98	6/38	12/104	19.27	2.54	45.4	8	1
R Ashwin	2011-2020	39	78	11532	4994	249	7/59	13/140	20.05	2.59	46.3	23	6
RA Jadeja	2013-2020	30	60	7938	3135	149	7/48	10/154	21.04	2.36	53.2	7	1

 

 

If we factor in evolution, Mankad is a great pick and an opportunity to remember a legend! 

 

 

 

 

 

At the end of the day ... I am picking a 2nd spinner cum 7th batsman in the team.

 

So, the only thing that matters to me is who is more suitable for that role. Who has done what as an opener or in certain peak performances have much lesser relevance.

 

Since I have not seen Mankad, it is difficult to give an informed opinion.

 

But there were many bowlers in that era with low bowling averages. So, it is not a given that Mankad's bowling average would be much lower nowadays. 

 

Jadeja's ability to hit big shots when set is also a surety I am getting. Mankad's ability in this regard is unknown. And it is needed for a 7th batsman.

 

Jadeja is a safer pick for the 2nd spinner cum 7th batsman role.  (  Mankad might be a better pick if I were choosing a No.1 to No.5 batter who can bowl too ... but I am not choosing someone for that role in this team  )

 

 

[Muloghonto]

22 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

 

Yes, some people have that too.

 

 In my mind, Tendulkar still remains the best Indian batsman ever. While Bumrah is the best Indian fast bowler ever. Diffetent eras.

 

I have a very high opinion about Marshall, Ambrose, Donald, Steyn, Cummins and Bumrah. Spread across eras too.

 

 

 

 

 

You are comparing a 18 to 20 year period with 5 to 7 years.  The absolute number is bound to be more 

 

The 80s and 90s was also a period of rampant ball tampering. Many of the great pace bowlers would have worse numbers if they had to bowl fairly.

 

One thing I accept ... the quality of spinners in test matches was definitely better in the 1995 to 2010 period.

 

Except for the Pakistani, there was hardly any ball tampering. And even excluding them, the pool of quality fast bowlers was the strongest in the 85-2000 period. West Indies alone put out as many top quality speedsters as 50% of the pool today.

[Majestic]

Dravid is better than Pujara. He is better than Pujara in England, West Indies and New Zealand while Pujara is better at home on spinning wickets, Sri Lanka and Australia.

 

I would say Dravid is a Kallis level lower tier ATG batsman although Kallis also has 295 wickets to his name which makes Kallis a greater test player.

 

Pujara is more of a Geoffrey Boycott, Alastair Cook, Younis Khan level batsman. But a bit surprised though that he only has 6100 test runs. He should get that to 8K test runs. Cook and Yk have 11K runs while Dravid has 13K runs.

[Muloghonto]

3 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

 

I know all this and have written about it too at other times on other threads.

 

 

 

At the end of the day ... I am picking a 2nd spinner cum 7th batsman in the team.

 

So, the only thing that matters to me is who is more suitable for that role. Who has done what as an opener or in certain peak performances have much lesser relevance.

 

Since I have not seen Mankad, it is difficult to give an informed opinion.

 

But there were many bowlers in that era with low bowling averages. So, it is not a given that Mankad's bowling average would be much lower nowadays. 

 

Jadeja's ability to hit big shots when set is also a surety I am getting. Mankad's ability in this regard is unknown. And it is needed for a 7th batsman.

 

Jadeja is a safer pick for the 2nd spinner cum 7th batsman role.  (  Mankad might be a better pick if I were choosing a No.1 to No.5 batter who can bowl too ... but I am not choosing someone for that role in this team  )

 

 

 

 

I think Jadeja- Ashwin vs Bhajji-Kumble or Bhajji-Kumble vs Warne, the spin quartet vs underwood prove one simple fact - that spinners who have good pacers to play along with ( as in wicket taking pacers at a good average) tend to have much better averages - which makes intuitive sense too - you are much likely to end up with good numbers as a spinner if you come on when the score is 30/3 than 50/1

[express bowling]

20 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Gavaskar

Sehwag

Dravid

Tendulkar

Kohli

Dhoni

Jadeja

Kapil

Ashwin

Ishant/Shami

Bumrah

 

I'm not sure between Ishant or Shami...

 

 

 

Shami 2.0 is a great in Asia and good to decent outside Asia.

 

Ishant 2.0 is very average in Asia and good outside Asia.

 

Shami is a more complete pacer as result.

[Majestic]

2 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

 

Shami 2.0 is a great in Asia and good to decent outside Asia.

 

Ishant 2.0 is very average in Asia and good outside Asia.

 

Shami is a more complete pacer as result.

I think Ishant 2.0 is excellent outside Asia. Look at his average in SENA since 2016. I think it's around 22 while for Shami it is 28-29.

 

Ishant 2.0 is a world class bowler. It takes a lot to take your average from 36 to almost 31 now.

[express bowling]

3 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

 

I think Jadeja- Ashwin vs Bhajji-Kumble or Bhajji-Kumble vs Warne, the spin quartet vs underwood prove one simple fact - that spinners who have good pacers to play along with ( as in wicket taking pacers at a good average) tend to have much better averages - which makes intuitive sense too - you are much likely to end up with good numbers as a spinner if you come on when the score is 30/3 than 50/1

 

 

I agree.

 

But as none of us have actually watched cricket in that era, it is difficult to give an informed opinion about Mankad.

 

I think Jadeja would be a safer pick from this viewpoint. You are guaranteed a low average bowler in Asia and a quick scorer when set  ... in case of Mankad, it may or may not be so. 

[zen]

5 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

 

I know all this and have written about it too at other times on other threads.

 

 

 

At the end of the day ... I am picking a 2nd spinner cum 7th batsman in the team.

 

So, the only thing that matters to me is who is more suitable for that role. Who has done what as an opener or in certain peak performances have much lesser relevance.

 

Since I have not seen Mankad, it is difficult to give an informed opinion.

 

But there were many bowlers in that era with low bowling averages. So, it is not a given that Mankad's bowling average would be much lower nowadays. 

 

Jadeja's ability to hit big shots when set is also a surety I am getting. Mankad's ability in this regard is unknown. And it is needed for a 7th batsman.

 

Jadeja is a safer pick for the 2nd spinner cum 7th batsman role.  (  Mankad might be a better pick if I were choosing a No.1 to No.5 batter who can bowl too ... but I am not choosing someone for that role in this team  )

 

 

 

Those bowlers w/ lower avgs would be from stronger teams. For Ind, in 50s, it was mainly Gupte and Mankad iirc, who lost his best years in war, so could be like lone warriors relatively in that period 

 

Jadeja is a good pick too.  My point was on not writing off Mankad because of the era. I looked at your 11.  For e.g. to play Mankad , he could slot in at #6, with Dhoni at #7 (though my 11 would be a lot different as I like to accommodate as many players form different era as possible, unless I am doing an 11 for a time period or players that I saw) 

 

[rkt.india]

8 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 

 

1. At home Pujara isnt ahead at comparative stages of career. Plus Dravid faced far tougher bowling home and away than Pujara day in day out.

The 1990s-early 2000s was the highest quality of bowling ever seen on average in test cricket - so much so that it lead to flattening of the wickets in the mid 2000s. 

 

2. Australia Dravid faced was a consistently ATG bowling attack. Not like the one Pujara faces, where 3-4 years ago it was a good but not great attack etc.

 

Except 99, Dravid didn't face a great attack in Aus. Though I consider Dravid better than Pujara. Also Pujara faced better attack in England and New Zealand. SA attack has been equally good for both.

[express bowling]

9 minutes ago, Majestic said:

I think Ishant 2.0 is excellent outside Asia. Look at his average in SENA since 2016. I think it's around 22 while for Shami it is 28-29.

 

Ishant 2.0 is a world class bowler. It takes a lot to take your average from 36 to almost 31 now.

 

 

Yes.

 

But my point is that Shami is a more versatile pacer. If we are choosing 1 for all conditions then Shami is a safer pick.

 

While if we choosing based on conditions then Shami in Asia and Ishant outside Asia would be perfect.

[express bowling]

14 minutes ago, zen said:

 

Those bowlers w/ lower avgs would be from stronger teams. For Ind, in 50s, it was mainly Gupte and Mankad iirc, who lost his best years in war, so could be like lone warriors relatively in that period 

 

Jadeja is a good pick too.  My point was on not writing off Mankad because of the era. I looked at your 11.  For e.g. to play Mankad , he could slot in at #6, with Dhoni at #7 (though my 11 would be a lot different as I like to accommodate as many players form different era as possible, unless I am doing an 11 for a time period or players that I saw) 

 

 

 

What I am saying is ... people who pick players who they have actually watched are taking more informed decisions  ( unless one is picking a GOAT like say Bradman )

 

These close cases are difficult to evaluate objectively.

 

Since we have not watched Mankad bowl, we don't really know whether he was a better spinner than Jadeja.  

 

I know what I am getting when I am choosing Jadeja.

Edited January 20, 2021 by express bowling

[Muloghonto]

12 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

Except 99, Dravid didn't face a great attack in Aus. Though I consider Dravid better than Pujara. Also Pujara faced better attack in England and New Zealand. SA attack has been equally good for both.

The english attack of this era isnt a better attack than the ones of previous era by much- its marginally better. Their stats are better because they have way longer careers.

But clouderson is still a same level bowler as Angus Fraser or Darren Gough- just way way more durable.

Thats why one has 600 wickets @ 27 while the others have 200-250 wickets @ 27

[Muloghonto]

21 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

 

I agree.

 

But as none of us have actually watched cricket in that era, it is difficult to give an informed opinion about Mankad.

 

I think Jadeja would be a safer pick from this viewpoint. You are guaranteed a low average bowler in Asia and a quick scorer when set  ... in case of Mankad, it may or may not be so. 

Fair enough.

IMO the gap between Jadeja and Mankad narrows significantly once one consider their roles in the side : both are slated to be #2 spinners in a 5 man bowling attack. And as such, one thing Mankad offers way more utility than Jadeja, is in bowling forever - that man IIRC had a few tests in his careers where he himself bowled 70-80 overs !!!! 
Jadeja is a holy terror as a spinner on Indian wickets but he has never struck me as the type who can bowl for the whole day, like Ashwin could before his injuries and age or like Mankad/Kumble can.

 

In most 5 man bowling attacks that does a 3+2 format, the job of the 2nd spinner often ends up being the guy who is to plug up one end forever.

[rkt.india]

3 hours ago, express bowling said:

 

 

If we compare by types of bowlers. .. 

 

Cummins >>>> Gillespie 

McGrath >>> Hazlewood

Lee = Starc

Warne >>>> Lyon

 

I think this pace attack is as good as any they have had ... but the presence of Warne makes the 2000 attack better.

 

The Aussie commentators were choosing their best pace attack in the last 25 years. This consisted of big names like Border, Warne, Gilchrist, Healy and Hussey ...  Cummins and McGrath were the unanimous choices. Johnson was the 3rd pick albeit not unanimously.   :  )

 

I would compare

 

 Cummins=McGrath

Hazelwood>Gillespie

Starc>Lee

Lyon<Warne