Aus-WI test team v ROW

[Vijy]

1 hour ago, zen said:

From the top of the mind recall, Lara helped WI draw a series in India in 94 (played a quick knock in the last test at Mohali to make a game out of what appeared to be a game heading for a draw). He did score 153* against Aus too … and Waugh helped Aus beat Pak in 98. There was a one off test in India where Mongia scored 150 odd where Waugh did well too for Aus (scored 60 or something in the 2nd inning when other struggled)

 

Pak was the only major test team in the 90s, so I am not much concerned with performances in Ind & SL unless a glaring weakness. 
 

Gooch struggled v Warne both in Aus (one of the top teams) & Eng. Playing in India, he appeared clueless against spin iirc. One of the reasons, I did not pick him in my ROW 11 as Aus-WI has Warne. 
 

 

indeed, there is no need to pick gooch. there are several openers above him who can be picked in non-Aus/WI XI. I picked gavaskar and sehwag, and also mentioned cook. boycott is another solid player.

 

unfortunately, the greatest opener of post 60s era cannot be picked based on your rules. Barry richards was so good he could even make Viv and Greg chappati look ordinary at times. and graeme pollock was slightly better than him. I have adjusted my XI slightly now; I think it is an incredibly strong one

[zen]

On 6/6/2023 at 1:36 AM, singhvivek141 said:

Aus-WI XI

Allen Border (c)

 

ROW

James Anderson

 

 

You haven't followed the rules so DQe  

 

Btw, good to know Border was an alien

 

 

 

[singhvivek141]

1 hour ago, zen said:

 

You haven't followed the rules so DQe  

 

Btw, good to know Border was an alien

 

 

 

Ah... Anderson is playing from eternity...refuses to retire.

I will replace him with Freddie. He comes to bat after KP

 

Freddie, Pollock, Wasim, Murli and Bond....5 bowlers.

 

For Border, I was typing on tab...it autocorrect to Alien. 

 

 

[Vijy]

13 minutes ago, singhvivek141 said:

Ah... Anderson is playing from eternity...refuses to retire.

I will replace him with Freddie. He comes to bat after KP

 

Freddie, Pollock, Wasim, Murli and Bond....5 bowlers.

 

For Border, I was typing on tab...it autocorrect to Alien. 

 

 

Alien Borders exist in space. Allen Border exists on Earth :P

[Majestic]

Aus - Ind XI ( beat that):

 

Gavaskar

Hayden

Bradman(c)

S Smith

Tendulkar

Gilchrist (wkt)

Keith Miller

Cummins

Warne

Lillee

McGrath 

 

2 Indians and 9 Australians.

[Vijy]

19 hours ago, Majestic said:

Aus - Ind XI ( beat that):

 

Gavaskar

Hayden

Bradman(c)

S Smith

Tendulkar

Gilchrist (wkt)

Keith Miller

Cummins

Warne

Lillee

McGrath 

 

2 Indians and 9 Australians.

can be beaten with a WI + Eng XI [no need for other countries]

 

Hobbes

Sutcliffe/Hutton

Hammond/Barrington

Headley

Weekes/Viv/Lara

Walcott (wk) -- for a 1-off match, he can do it since he was trained as a keeper

Sobers

Marshall

Laker

Barnes

Ambrose

 

5 Eng and 6 WI [near perfect balance]

 

Hobbes > Gavaskar

Sutcliffe/Hutton > Hayden

Hammond/Barrington < Bradman

Headley = Smith

Viv/Lara/Weekes = SRT

Walcott > Gilly

Sobers > Miller

 

therefore, batting is comfortably stronger.

 

Marshall > Cummins

Laker < Warne

Barnes > Lillee

Ambrose = McGrath

Miller > Sobers

 

bowling is about the same, or the WI/Eng team a bit stronger.

 

Edited June 12, 2023 by Vijy

[zen]

19 hours ago, Majestic said:

 

2 Indians and 9 Australians

Imo, there is not much point in having just 2 Indians among 9 Australians, and when Aus has similar options (Ponting, G Chappell, S Waugh, Border, etc.) 

 

There is no collaboration here and it appears as if the 2 Indians are trying to leverage on the Aus team (Imagine BD sneaking in its 2 players in ab Ind or Pak or Eng or whatever team and showing that BD-X 11 is strong).

 

 

[Vijy]

4 minutes ago, zen said:

Imo, there is not much point in having just 2 Indians among 9 Australians, and when Aus has similar options (Ponting, G Chappell, S Waugh, Border, etc.) 

 

There is no collaboration here and it appears as if the 2 Indians are trying to leverage on the Aus team (Imagine BD sneaking in its 2 players in ab Ind or Pak or Eng or whatever team and showing that BD-X 11 is strong).

 

 

the 2 indians chosen are not that remarkable either. greg chappati is nearly as good as tendu. and arthur morris nearly as good as sunny

 

My Eng-WI will give this team a beating

Edited June 12, 2023 by Vijy

[Majestic]

10 minutes ago, Vijy said:

can be beaten with a WI + Eng XI [no need for other countries]

 

Hobbes

Sutcliffe/Hutton

Hammond/Barrington

Headley

Weekes/Viv/Lara

Walcott (wk) -- for a 1-off match, he can do it since he was trained as a keeper

Sobers

Marshall

Laker

Barnes

Ambrose

 

5 Eng and 6 WI [near perfect balance]

 

Hobbes > Gavaskar

Sutcliffe/Hutton > Hayden

Hammond/Barrington < Bradman

Headley = Smith

Viv/Lara/Weekes = SRT

Walcott > Gilly

Sobers > Miller

 

therefore, batting is comfortably stronger.

 

Marshall > Cummins

Laker < Warne

Barnes > Lillee

Ambrose = McGrath

Miller > Sobers

 

bowling is about the same, or the WI/Eng team a bit stronger.

 

I would like to restrict this to post 70s players as the pre-70 era players didn't had to deal with the varied conditions and challenges a player has to deal with while touring nations away from home. Pre-70s, India, Pak, NZ, SA were all minnows.

[Vijy]

2 minutes ago, Majestic said:

I would like to restrict this to post 70s players as the pre-70 era players didn't had to deal with the varied conditions and challenges a player has to deal with while touring nations away from home. Pre-70s, India, Pak, NZ, SA were all minnows.

Don't be hypocritical and change the rules randomly. you added keith miller and bradman -- when do you think they played for Oz?

Edited June 12, 2023 by Vijy

[Majestic]

6 minutes ago, zen said:

Imo, there is not much point in having just 2 Indians among 9 Australians, and when Aus has similar options (Ponting, G Chappell, S Waugh, Border, etc.) 

 

There is no collaboration here and it appears as if the 2 Indians are trying to leverage on the Aus team (Imagine BD sneaking in its 2 players in ab Ind or Pak or Eng or whatever team and showing that BD-X 11 is strong).

 

 

Gavaskar is an opener and I think he is a better opener than any Australian that has played the game.

 

Tendulkar is also a better batsman than the names you mentioned ( probably Chappell the closest) but purely on skills, Tendulkar's bowling is as good as say, Hardik Pandya so would be a good 6th bowling option or a second spinner.

[zen]

Just now, Vijy said:

the 2 indians chosen are not that remarkable either. greg chappati is nearly as good as tendu. and arthur morris nearly as good as sunny

Yeah, an unnecessary 11 w/ Aus having similar (or better) options. Rather just have an all Aus 11 to maintain its “OZness”. 

[Majestic]

2 minutes ago, Vijy said:

Don't be hypocritical and change the rules randomly. you added keith miller and bradman -- when do you think they played for Oz?

They were the greatest of their era and way ahead of their peers. That counts for a lot. But I can't say the same about guys like Arthur Morris, Barrington and some other English players( except for Hobbs, Hutton, Barnes).

[Vijy]

Just now, zen said:

Yeah, an unnecessary 11 w/ Aus having similar (or better) options. Rather just have an all Aus 11 to maintain its “OZness”. 

agreed. In fact, Sid Barnes (the Aus opener) was reportedly another great player, statistically with a much better record than Sunny. likewise, as I wrote, having seen Greg Chappati, he was only slightly lower than Tendu in my book.

[Vijy]

1 minute ago, Majestic said:

They were the greatest of their era and way ahead of their peers. That counts for a lot. But I can't say the same about guys like Arthur Morris, Barrington and some other English players( except for Hobbs, Hutton, Barnes).

You are just evading and distorting your claims here. first you include a couple of 30s-50s players, then you disallow others to include people from that era.

 

Hammond was the 2nd best bat of his era, just after bradman. barrington was the best batter of the 60s. Barnes with 110-120 kph spin/seam would be a handful in any era. Hobbes on the crappy wickets he played would likewise be amazing; ditto for hutton and sutcliffe.

 

everyone I selected has plenty of merit, regardless of which era they are from.

 

When your rules are this arbitrary, I see no point in continuing the conversation... good day to you

[zen]

1 hour ago, Majestic said:

Gavaskar is an opener and I think he is a better opener than any Australian that has played the game.

 

Tendulkar is also a better batsman than the names you mentioned ( probably Chappell the closest) but purely on skills, Tendulkar's bowling is as good as say, Hardik Pandya so would be a good 6th bowling option or a second spinner.

I don’t think the 2 Indian players add much value to the Aus 11. But that is going off topic. 
 

In tests, I would pick S Waugh over any Indian MO (#4-7) batsman  (Probably one of the reasons that I back gusty players like Pujara, who take body blows, wear teams down, and play above their potential)! 
 

PS btw, Tendulkar does not bowl at 145, use bouncers effectively, etc. I don’t see a point in comparing him with a pace bowler (then he might as well be as skillful as most pace bowlers). 

Edited June 12, 2023 by zen

[Majestic]

4 minutes ago, Vijy said:

You are just evading and distorting your claims here. first you include a couple of 30s-50s players, then you disallow others to include people from that era.

 

Hammond was the 2nd best bat of his era, just after bradman. barrington was the best batter of the 60s. Barnes with 110-120 kph spin/seam would be a handful in any era. Hobbes on the crappy wickets he played would likewise be amazing; ditto for hutton and sutcliffe.

 

everyone I selected has plenty of merit, regardless of which era they are from.

 

When your rules are this arbitrary, I see no point in continuing the conversation... good day to you

I don't see Eng- WI XI beating the Ind-Aus XI. Bradman is alone equivalent to two batters and Smith > Headley. Also, Tendulkar> Chappell. Gavaskar> Greendige.

 

You can include players from any era no problem but I will always rate players post 70s higher because fast bowling was revolutionized by Dennis Lillee. Rest it is upto you whether you agree or not.

[zen]

27 minutes ago, Vijy said:

Barnes with 110-120 kph spin/seam would be a handful in any era.

Barnes, from what I have watched of him in clips some time ago, appears to me is like a Kumble type of bowler who can not only spin the ball but also swing it. He would be devastating in most conditions (and could cause havoc on rank turners). 
 

He would be one of the key options in my AT11!

Edited June 12, 2023 by zen

[Vijy]

8 hours ago, zen said:

Barnes, from what I have watched of him in clips some time ago, appears to me is like a Kumble type of bowler who can not only spin the ball but also swing it. He would be devastating in most conditions (and could cause havoc on rank turners). 
 

He would be one of the key options in my AT11!

I think of him more like rashid khan (who turns the ball more than kumble) but 10-15 kph faster and more turn/movement as well.

[zen]

Just now, Vijy said:

I think of him more like rashid khan (who turns the ball more than kumble) but 10-15 kph faster and more turn/movement as well.

Rashid is in a slightly different mould. He was tall like Kumble with a similar run up (Kumble was once a medium pacer iirc). Probably would have a slight more extended run up when bowling quick than when bowling spin.