Greatest Test XI

[nightprowler10]

Anyway Anwar played 55 tests at 45. hayden has played 89 test at 53 and is still going. Hayden has also got a better one day average, has scored 380 and is just well...better?

I agree that in Tests Hayden may seem like a greater opener than Anwar, but a closer look at their stats might suggest otherwise. Hayden and Anwar played in slightly different eras. I say that because the quality of the bowling has declined somewhat and the amount of pitches that favor batsmen has gone up. You get a bigger abundance of batting tracks these days than 10 years ago when Anwar was in his prime.

Also, lets take a look at both players' averages against the best bowling attacks through their careers. I think it would be safe to say that South Africa has the best and most consistent bowling attack in the world at the moment followed by possibly England. Hayden averages in the 40s against both. Impressive. One of the best bowling attacks through Anwar's career? Australia I would think, as the West Indies were declining IMO through the early to mid-90s. He averages a whopping 59 against Australia. Though his paltry average against WI could be held against him.

I think any cricket enthusiast would agree that the mark of a good batsman is based on how well he does away from home compared to playing in his own backyard. So let's take a closer look at Hayden's average. He averages an impressive 53.0 overall but if you take away his home performances his average drops to 42.5, something that could be considered relatively mediocre in this day. Anwar on the other hand averaged 45.5 overall and 45.4 away from home. Now take into account the bowling each of them have had to face and the quality of pitches and I think Anwar's 45.4 is much better than Hayden's 42.5.

Needless to say, my selective analysis isn't the be all and end all of this comparison, but it does draw a better picture of how closely matched the two openers' careers are.

 

[Gunner786]

I agree that in Tests Hayden may seem like a greater opener than Anwar, but a closer look at their stats might suggest otherwise. Hayden and Anwar played in slightly different eras. I say that because the quality of the bowling has declined somewhat and the amount of pitches that favor batsmen has gone up. You get a bigger abundance of batting tracks these days than 10 years ago when Anwar was in his prime.

Also, lets take a look at both players' averages against the best bowling attacks through their careers. I think it would be safe to say that South Africa has the best and most consistent bowling attack in the world at the moment followed by possibly England. Hayden averages in the 40s against both. Impressive. One of the best bowling attacks through Anwar's career? Australia I would think, as the West Indies were declining IMO through the early to mid-90s. He averages a whopping 59 against Australia. Though his paltry average against WI could be held against him.

I think any cricket enthusiast would agree that the mark of a good batsman is based on how well he does away from home compared to playing in his own backyard. So let's take a closer look at Hayden's average. He averages an impressive 53.0 overall but if you take away his home performances his average drops to 42.5, something that could be considered relatively mediocre in this day. Anwar on the other hand averaged 45.5 overall and 45.4 away from home. Now take into account the bowling each of them have had to face and the quality of pitches and I think Anwar's 45.4 is much better than Hayden's 42.5.

Needless to say, my selective analysis isn't the be all and end all of this comparison, but it does draw a better picture of how closely matched the two openers' careers are.

now that is a hell of a good post

was just about to post stats of era's but that post is better than any old stat

 

[angryangy]

So Saeed Anwar was about 2 runs better away and 15 runs worse at home, but the 2 runs is the more important difference?

Fair enough point on averaging high against Australia, skill against the top team is always the mark of a true batsman. Did you know VVS Laxman has 6 fifties and 4 centuries against Australia?

One thing I think you over simplify is the difference between bowling strengths across what is not a long period of time.

90s England had Alan Mullally, Darren Gough, Andy Caddick and Dominic Cork. It wasn't too bad, but injuries permitting, the current England side is arguably stronger, both at strike bowling and being able to add pressure by scoring good totals.

90s New Zealand, well, they had Chris Cairns. 2000s NZ is miles more powerful; add Cairns to Bond and Vettori most notably, but Mills, Franklin, Oram and more recently, Patel are very capable. Compare an era where they were lucky to field one guy with an average around 30 to an era where they can actually field an entire attack.

Similarly for Sri Lanka, they have never been more difficult to bat against. The emergence of Vaas brought much needed backbone and became their first truly great paceman. Even the mighty Murali, he was averaging 27 at the start of 2000, but for the years since then he runs a shade below 19! Anwar practically faced a different guy. Since about 2005, they've had even more firepower, with Malinga slinging thunder and lightning; Australia were the first to witness the potential as he took 10 wickets in the two test series.

The West Indies have declined, certainly. Saeed Anwar took a pair from his first match against Walsh, Ambrose, Bishop and Marshall (though really, it only took Bishop and Ambrose's bowling). Hayden did come close to getting a pair from Ambrose once, but it seems highly unlikely that any batsman would make two ducks against the current team.

The other team that has seen noticeable losses is Saeed Anwar's own team. His contemporaries were Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Saqlain Mushtaq and Mushtaq Ahmed. Kaneria might come close to Mushie in leg spinning prowess, but none yet match either Wasim or Waqar, let alone both together.

But really, these are only the two main teams that have seen their bowling attacks weaken in this short time; the Windies and Pakistan. Perhaps you can make a case for some slight improvement in pitch and outfield conditions (albeit, scarcely any in the more developed stadiums) but for the two teams that have lost ground, does that really not compare with the overall gains across the globe?

 

[cricket_lover]

I agree that Anwar faced better quality attacks than Hayden. But the manner in which Hayden dominates the opposition (who are still pretty decent...the English or SA or even the spinners) is pretty good. He thus warrants a position.

Sobers was a world-class bowler, but the list already has some wonderful class bowlers. I'd say he should be the top-choice all-rounder.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Who exactly is 'great' who Anwar faced in his career but Hayden didn't?

Stats can be decieving, I think it should also be mentioned that the attacks Anwar faced against Australia sure weren't no slouches, but not as strong as the one we've had over the last 6-7 years.

Out of Anwar 3 Test Centuries against Australa, 1 was on a pitch which was somewhat very batsman friendly (Almost 600 was scored in both 1st innings) which didn't include Shane Warne, nor did the 2nd one & the 3rd one Warne had no real impact on the game (ie pace bowlers pitch in Brisbane) & Considering McGrath's average was a mere 24 to his career finish average of 21.

Hayden also reached 20 centuries in less 60 matches. Something I think, only Don Bradman acchieved.

Difficult to discount Hayden on batting outside of Australia. His had a good series at one time or another in any country other then probably England.

 

[Dave_the_Knave]

I love these debates, but unfortunately there is always some hint of bias that creeps into the final selections. To try to eliminate some of that, I've gone through all the players nominated and taken their highest ever LG ICC ranking (formerly PwC ratings) - a quick and dirty way to put a number on how great each player might have been. The ratings are meant to be adjusted according to opposition strength and pitch conditions, to a certain extent at least. I have always been a fan of the ratings. Some of you may not like them so much, but hey that's your prerogative. It's something interesting to look at anyway...

I reordered each category of nominations according to the player's best ever rating, but of course that number won't take into account other important things like fielding ability, cricket instincts/brain, if they are a good team player, whether the player was a useful part-time bowler/batsman or how long the player sustained a high level of performance for. Anyway, here's the data:


Opening batsmen (7 nominations):
Len Hutton (945), Jack Hobbs (942), Sunil Gavaskar (916), Herbert Sutcliffe (888), Arthur Morris (850), Gordon Greenidge (844), Geoff Boycott (764).

Best opener not nominated: Matthew Hayden (935).


Middle-order batsmen (20):
Don Bradman (961), Ricky Ponting (942), Viv Richards (938), Gary Sobers (938), Clyde Walcott (938), Graeme Pollock (927), Everton Weekes (927), Neil Harvey (921), Denis Compton (917), George Headley (915), Ken Barrington (914), Brian Lara (911), Sachin Tendulkar (898), Wally Hammond (897), Steve Waugh (895), Rahul Dravid (892), Javed Miandad (885), Greg Chappell (883), Allan Border (877), Frank Worrell (828).

Best middle-order batsman not nominated: Peter May (941).


Wicket-keepers (4) (Unfortunately there is not a WK rating, so only batting rating is listed):
Andy Flower (895), Adam Gilchrist (874), Alan Knott (650), Les Ames (619).

Best BATTING wicket-keeper not nominated: Kumar Sangakkara (857).


Allrounders (4) Batting then Bowling ranked by the combination score:
Ian Botham (811/911), Imran Khan (650/922), Keith Miller (681/862) , Kapil Dev (598/877).

Best Allrounder not nominated (and not nominated elsewhere either): Jacques Kallis (896/564), but I don't think he would deserve to play as one of only four bowlers (as the rules state). Gary Sobers (938/715) and Richie Benaud (623/863) would be the best all rounders who have been nominated elsewhere.


Spinners (6):
Muttiah Muralitharan (915), Derek Underwood (907), Shane Warne (905), Bill O’Reilly (901), Jim Laker (897), Richie Benaud (863).

Best spinner not nominated: Tony Lock (912).


Fast bowlers (15): Glenn McGrath (914), Curtley Ambrose (912), Malcolm Marshall (910), Richard Hadlee (909), Waqar Younis (909), Alan Davidson (908), Fred Trueman (898), Ray Lindwall (897), Allan Donald (895), Joel Garner (890), Dennis Lillee (884), Courtney Walsh (867), Michael Holding (860), Wasim Akram (830), Harold Larwood (720).

Best fast bowler not nominated: Sydney Barnes (932), but since his career was from 1901-1914 he may not count. Other than Barnes it is Shaun Pollock (909).


My personal greatest Test XI (according to ratings, with the odd minor tweak to add all-round ability and fielding skills AND of course I am assuming all the selections are in top form):

1. Len Hutton
2. Matthew Hayden (ahead of Hobbs for fielding and left handedness)
3. Don Bradman
4. Ricky Ponting
5. Viv Richards
6. Gary Sobers (ahead of May for all-round prowess)
7. Adam Gilchrist (ahead of Flower since he played as a batsman only sometimes)
8. Ian Botham (ahead of Lock or Ambrose due to batting ability)
9. Imran Khan
10. Muttiah Muralitharan
11. Glenn McGrath

Try beating that team!!

My apologies for the long post, but I found my research to be interesting

 

[feverpitch]

Very interesting post, Dave.

 

[aditya123]

The rating points do not take into account the opposition the runs were scored against or the conditions they were scored in , do they ?
If they do, they are a decent benchmark .

 

[ronny_kingsley]

My personal greatest Test XI (according to ratings, with the odd minor tweak to add all-round ability and fielding skills AND of course I am assuming all the selections are in top form):

1. Len Hutton
2. Matthew Hayden (ahead of Hobbs for fielding and left handedness)
3. Don Bradman
4. Ricky Ponting
5. Viv Richards
6. Gary Sobers (ahead of May for all-round prowess)
7. Adam Gilchrist (ahead of Flower since he played as a batsman only sometimes)
8. Ian Botham (ahead of Lock or Ambrose due to batting ability)
9. Imran Khan
10. Muttiah Muralitharan
11. Glenn McGrath

Get a life dude.

How do you know Hobbs wasnt a better fielder than Haydos.Hayden himself isnt anything special on the fileld.


Ricky Ponting another of those jokes that most Aussies cant digest.Get over him. Even he himself would take Lara or Sachin before him in the team.

No Akram , he is the best left arm bowler ever and arguably the best ever
.What made you not pick him is beyond me (other than your "Aussieness").

Botham well he is joke too.You could have done with Akram instead of him cos Akram would be far more effecient at no.8/9.

 

[nightprowler10]

@angryangy - Top post. In hindsight, my selective analysis may have been too selective, though I certainly did not mean to make it seem like Hayden's home average doesn't count for much. My only point was that Hayden may be a better opener compared to Anwar, but not by as much as some people make it seem.

 

[Will_NA]

Get a life dude.

How do you know Hobbs wasnt a better fielder than Haydos.Hayden himself isnt anything special on the fileld.


Ricky Ponting another of those jokes that most Aussies cant digest.Get over him. Even he himself would take Lara or Sachin before him in the team.

No Akram , he is the best left arm bowler ever and arguably the best ever
.What made you not pick him is beyond me (other than your "Aussieness").

Botham well he is joke too.You could have done with Akram instead of him cos Akram would be far more effecient at no.8/9.

That's interesting as Botham was a much better batsman :

and Ponting is class, his stat prove that and if you watched him, you would know.

How is Akram the best bowler ever? Have you heard of 'Shane Warne'?

 

[nightprowler10]

Never did post my greatest XI (changes all the time though):

1. Jack Hobbs
2. Sunil Gavaskar
3. Don Bradman
4. Garfield Sobers
5. Vivian Richards
6. Imran Khan*
7. Adam Gilchrist+
8. Wasim Akram
9. Malcolm Marshall
10. Sydney Barnes
11. Muttiah Muralitharan

 

[playkid12]

Wow..a list of the best players ever w/o W.G. Grace? I'm awestruck. He'd be the second one to go on my list after Bradman. I mean, he only played 22 tests and didn't do service to his name because he was past his prime, but his first class record was legendary. He's a no-brainer on my list.

As far as the T'dulkar bashing, it's because he's on the decline now. He very much deserves to be called one of the greats in tests and especially in ODIs (which, he can't be criticized for even by the most cynical of critics). It's easy to bash him now because the bandwagoners have abandoned him, and he isnt as great as he was, but he had no critics in his prime. He used to be the one man army of India in the 90's - the fact that bets weren't placed until he was certainly out supported that claim even further. For test cricket, he's not as great as ODIs, but he'd still make my list, but so would Lara and Ponting - 'tis an era full of great batsmen. I also think it's pretty futile to compare these three. Lets just say that they're in a league of their own and leave it at that.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Get a life dude.

How do you know Hobbs wasnt a better fielder than Haydos.Hayden himself isnt anything special on the fileld.


Ricky Ponting another of those jokes that most Aussies cant digest.Get over him. Even he himself would take Lara or Sachin before him in the team.

No Akram , he is the best left arm bowler ever and arguably the best ever
.What made you not pick him is beyond me (other than your "Aussieness").

Botham well he is joke too.You could have done with Akram instead of him cos Akram would be far more effecient at no.8/9.

Hayden's a brilliant slips fielder. Fielding has only been allout standard for the last 15-20 years.

Ponting has a batting average of 59. The highest ever average to of played over 100 Test Matches? I don't think Ponting would choose a world XI over any batsman because that'd be purely putting unneeded pressure on his batting with the media these days, etc.

I agree Akram is the best bowler ever. Well from what I've seen. Botham's a better batsman though.

 

[nightprowler10]

I've been ostracized before for not including Grace in my all time XI. There's no doubt about the impact he had on cricket as a whole, maybe even greater than The Don in that regard. I agree its not quite fair to judge him on his test average considering he was almost 50 by the time Test cricket came along, but I think it would be unfair to other batsmen who did get to show off their talents in the test arena to rank WG ahead of them as a Test cricketer. It would be comparable to King being ranked ahead of Barnes, though both Grace and King are in my all time cricket greats, if that makes any sense.