By Brett McKay
January 19th 2010 @ 2:07am
Related coverage
The Roar’s Test cricket Team of the Decade
The Roar’s editors suggested an interesting challenge for me the other week: to come up with a Test cricket Team of the Decade.
Teams of the Decade are all the rage this month of course, just like Teams of the Century poured out from any possible source this time ten years ago. CricInfo named their Player of Decade – Ricky Ponting – just last week, but are yet to give him ten team-mates.
With a bit of luck, I’ll get my team out first.
So, keen to i) impress the editors, and ii) try and limit myself to a First XI, I took to the challenge with gusto.
Among the first notes I scribbled were “who captains?” and “who ‘keeps?”
Not ten minutes later, I had 33 names. And with 13 or 14 of those names having captained their country at some stage in the last ten years, as well as three wicket-keepers, I was no closer to answering my questions.
Maybe this won’t be as easy as I thought.
The problem with these sorts of discussions and debates (and I’m quite sure there will be debate) is not so much who you pick, but who you left out.
And I can see that is going to be the case here. I mean, pardon the pun, but how’s this lot for openers?
Langer, Hayden, Smith, Strauss, Gibbs, Sehwag, Jayasuriya…
How do you possibly pick just two of them?!
And right there, I’ve just opened myself up to the prospect of objectivity, or even just the perception of it. Is it wrong that the first two openers I’ve named are Australian?
But then again, surely it wouldn’t be unexpected that an Australian, writing for an Australian sports website, might include one or two Australian players?
No, of course it wouldn’t.
Especially when you consider that the decade in question included one complete 16-Test Australian winning streak, and a good chunk of another one. Think of the page reads, Brett, it’ll be fine. Just name the team.
So, a Test cricket team, made up of the best cricketers in the world from 1 January 2000, just after all the Y2K panic fizzled into New Year’s drinks, up until the completion of the 2009 Boxing Day Tests.
How hard can this be?
The openers in contention are already out there, so I might as well knock them out of the way. If I just looked at run aggregates, Matthew Hayden and Graeme Smith are the picks, with Smith a bit over five hundred runs ahead of Justin Langer and, unexpectedly, Chris Gayle.
But it’s just too hard to spilt Hayden and Langer as an opening pair, for mine. As a combination, they run second behind only Greenidge and Haynes in the history of Test cricket as the best pair to ever take on the new ball. They get the nod at the top.
I had a few preconceived ideas about who I wanted in the middle order, to the point where I wasn’t even going to look at the stats. I did eventually, just to confirm my preconceptions, and the top three run aggregates belong to Ricky Ponting, Jacques Kallis, and Rahul Dravid. So in the end, I don’t even need to shift them from that order.
Number 6 in the order is a little more difficult. Mahela Jayawardene, Kumar Sangakkara and Sachin Tendulkar all made within a thousand runs of each other in the ten years, all averaged more than 53, and all made more than 21 Test centuries.
Ultimately, I’ve gone with Sangakkara. In trying to separate the three, I’ve found that of the top fifty scores in the Naughties (from 400no to 222, mind you) Sangakkara has made five of them, against Jayewardene’s four and Tendulkar’s two. Sangakkara also played the least Tests of the three, and what’s more he evens up the number of left- and right-handers in the top six. As a leftie, that sounds fair to me.
Number 7 is probably no surprise. I was kind of joking about wondering who’d ‘keep, and I always assumed it would be Adam Gilchrist. Stats confirm it too; over a thousand runs ahead of Mark Boucher, and 14 more dismissals, though interestingly, Boucher took one more catch. The clincher – if it was ever needed – is that Gilchrist cleared the boundary 99 times in Test cricket over the decade, more than any other player. And really, how could I leave him out?
The bowling wasn’t too difficult in the end either. Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath pick themselves really, and I was pretty happy to let stats determine the last couple of spots.
Muttiah Muralitharan is light years ahead in terms of wickets taken, and so deserves a spot. With Kallis in the side already, and a more than handy seamer in his own right, he allows me to pick a second spinner. Picking Murali does mean McGrath doesn’t bat at No.11 though!
The last spot then, goes to Makhaya Ntini, who took the most wickets in the decade of all the quicks. What did surprise me was that Brett Lee is second on that list, just in front of McGrath. For that, Lee can be the 12th man.
Ricky Ponting is the Captain, and again, that wasn’t too hard a decision from the final eleven.
Notable omissions are obviously Jayawardene, Smith, and Tendulkar as already mentioned. Virender Sehwag would be another, having made three of the top nine scores of the decade. Shaun Pollock was one who I thought might have gone close too.
So there it is, the Team of the Decade done. A team I’d happily pay to watch, too.
But given I’m a selector, I’d like to think I might get a freebie.
The Roar’s Test cricket Team of the Decade: M.Hayden (Aus), J.Langer (Aus), R. Ponting (Aus – Captain), J.Kallis (SA), R.Dravid (Ind), K.Sangakkara (SL), A.Gilchrist (Aus), S.Warne (Aus), G.McGrath (Aus), M.Ntini (SA), M.Muralitharan (SL), B.Lee (Aus – 12th man)
Get Australia's best Cricket opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(106)
Brett McKay said | January 19th 2010 @ 5:56am | Report comment
For the stats-lovers, I’ll post links to the individual CricInfo 2000s records later in the morning. The main page is
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/records/index.html?id=200;type=decade
Brett McKay said | January 19th 2010 @ 7:19am | Report comment
the stats lists as promised…
Most runs: http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/batting/most_runs_career.html?class=1;id=200;type=decade
Most wickets: http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/bowling/most_wickets_career.html?class=1;id=200;type=decade
Most dismissals: http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/keeping/most_dismissals_career.html?class=1;id=200;type=decade
Opening partnerships in Test History: http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/content/records/283663.html
vinay verma said | January 19th 2010 @ 6:53am | Report comment
Brett, Firstly on your choice of captain in RP..I agree but have you changed your impression of him in the last 12 months. I know you never rated him as a great captain but merely “good”. Sangakkara would get my vote as vice captain under RP.
I would have Dale Steyn to partner Pigeon. Steyn has an average of around 23( Ntini is 28) and a strike rate of 39 (Ntini’s SR is 59) On batsman Friendly pitches since 2004 Steyn is far and away the most penetrative fastman.
Brett McKay said | January 19th 2010 @ 7:18am | Report comment
G’day Vinay, not quite the case about Ponting – it’s true I don’t have him rated as high as his predecessors, but I’ve never called for his head either, despite disagreeing with his field placements or bowling changes, etc at times. I think considering the cattle he’s had sine The Retirements, he’s actually done a reasonable job.
His selection was pretty easy in the end. Of the final XI, he’s by far the longest serving national captain, and of course now has more wins under his belt than any other Test Captain. There’s another guy in my side there who I think would have made an outstanding captain were it not for his over-active text-thumbs, and who I’d be interested to see how he’d go leading a side like this if it were ever to play, but in the end, Ponting was a no-brainer.
Steyn-Ntini was a close call, I’ll admit, and in the end I gave NtIni the nod for length of service and sheer number of wickets. If the side was over the last five years instead of ten, Steyn would be among the first picked…
Brett McKay said | January 19th 2010 @ 7:23am | Report comment
Vinay, by the way, I’m still struggling to cope with naming a team with McGrath batting at 9!!
vinay verma said | January 19th 2010 @ 7:29am | Report comment
Ntini at 11 and Murali at 9 would do me. Murali can be a thrashing machine and he has a good eye(make two of them)
Brett McKay said | January 19th 2010 @ 7:46am | Report comment
I’m not quite so sure about that Vinay. All three are genuine No.11s, but McGrath is certainly the most correct of the three. Murali and Ntini tend to jump around waving their bats all over the shop, as if they’re trying to guide planes in to land…
vinay verma said | January 19th 2010 @ 7:25am | Report comment
Hi Brett, fair enough on Punter. Yes,Warney would be a great Captain and Punter would have no hesitation playing under him. Sheek alluded to Captain’s taking more responsibility and over the last 12 months Ricky has been a strong advocate for the eminence of Test Cricket. I see that Kolkata have bought out his IPL contract and this only emphasises Ricky’s priorities. He is not about the big bucks and as I said a while ago, in time Ricky may well be considered one of our greatest Captains. I dont say he is there but the next two years will tell.
Kersi Meher-Homji said | January 19th 2010 @ 7:46am | Report comment
Brett, I realise it’s a tough call to select a team of the decade. But how can anyone exclude Sachin Tendulkar?
davido said | January 19th 2010 @ 1:37pm | Report comment
Agreed! Should be 3. Ponting 4. Tendulkar 5. Kallis (Just pipping Jaya because of his bowling.) What a team that would be!
Forget the Stats, Sachin is a match winner.
sheek said | January 19th 2010 @ 7:54am | Report comment
Brett,
“Among the first notes I scribbled were “who captains?” and “who keeps?” ” How very English of you, considering the captain first!
Traditionally, it’s said the difference in selecting English & Australian XIs is this: We Aussies pick our best XI, then choose a captain from within the group. The English pick the captain first, then build the team around him.
Re your team, there comes a point where perception overrules stats. I would have Sehwag batting with Hayden. You have two scoring ‘turtles’ – Dravid & Kallis. Since Kallis’ bowling is useful, Dravid ought to make way for Tendulkar.
Batting turtles will save matches, but they don’t necessarliy help win test matches. Which is why Kallis will never be seen in the same light as Sobers.
There will always be a question mark surrounding Murali’s bowling action, but his stats speak for themselves. I agree with Vinay, Steyn ahead of Ntini. Ntini was an honest toiler, but short of the very best.
IMHO, Brett Lee is way overrated. To be rated a genuine test bowler, your bowling average must be below 30. Lee was too wayward, & too inconsistent. Something for Johnson to consider also.
Anyway, great effort. Funny thing about cricket – the numerous stats are supposed to help, but sometimes they also get in the way!
Brett McKay said | January 19th 2010 @ 8:18am | Report comment
Quite right Sheek, and while the team came together pretty easily for me in the end, I wasn’t kidding about the 30+ names just on first thoughts. There’s just so many great players and performance over the last ten years that beg inclusion, yet plenty over them were over looked.
The “English” notion of captain first, team second was really only consigned to the notes, and again, it was more trying to think about the contenders. As I’ve said in the column, I actually picked the XI first, and from that Ponting was the standout option as captain.
Kersi asked above how I could exclude Tendulkar, but really, it was the same way I excluded Lara. In my mind, and looking at the figures for the decade, there were just better options. I actually had a harder time deciding between Sanggakara and Jayawardene than I did overlooking Lara and Tendulkar.
M1tch said | January 19th 2010 @ 7:55am | Report comment
I would go for Shaun Pollock over Ntini, better bowler and handy with the bat
Justin said | January 19th 2010 @ 7:59am | Report comment
Brett thanks for the link. Great topic and never easy to put together a side with so many talented players.
My side would be (minimum 50 tests)
Hayden
Sehwag
Ponting
Lara
Kallis
Sangakkara
Gilchrist
Pollock
Warne (c)
McGrath
Murali
In summary:
but hey he is still playing despite some tough times.
Hayden was phenomenal with 29 hundreds. Some say flat track bully but there werent that many. Check out his Indian series where he swept and swept.
Sehwag – how can you not have him? He wins matches in 2 sessions, a freak. Sometimes he is boom or bust but with this lineup you can afford to let him have a lash. Average over 50 with a s/r of 80 at the top!!!
Ponting – Best 3 since Bradman? If not he is very close, a great fighter and counter attacking bat.
Lara – Another all time great, could do it anywhere and was great to watch.
Kallis – An all rounder of the highest order, will need to do some bowling as the third seamer.
Sangakara – not sure what his average is when not keeping but I have read its up over 70! Hence he just bats for this team. Brilliant player in all conditions.
Gilchrist – one of the best bats ever, another match winner like VS at the top. Freak.
Pollock – One of the great bowlers and very handy with the bat as well.
Warne – Best LS of all time and a brilliant cricket brain. Handy bat and beautiful hands.
McGrath – Another all time, persistent line and length.
Murali – best chucker the game has seen
Skipper is a toss up really – I dont rate Ponting that highly yet none of the others have a heap of experience. I would love to watch SKW captain, he would bring a lot more though to it than most.
Sachin misses out, not by much but the bats in this side bar VS are far superior in other areas of the game, particularly fielding.
While I would have loved an express quick, none have played enough to warrant selection. Bond would have been brilliant and an all time if he had not been injured. Steyn will get there but only 34 matches so far.
Rusty said | January 19th 2010 @ 8:11am | Report comment
You wouldnt buy a fifth day ticket to watch these guys – this side would score alot of runs and with Pigeon and Pollock in tandem would be very difficult to score against. Over in 3 maybe 4 days tops
Justin said | January 19th 2010 @ 8:17am | Report comment
Yeah administrators would hate it but it would bring the crowds in
Brett McKay said | January 19th 2010 @ 8:19am | Report comment
and Rusty, that’s exactly why I’d be hoping for freebies!!
Brett McKay said | January 19th 2010 @ 8:22am | Report comment
Justin, in the end, I just couldn’t break the Langer-Hayden partnership. That’s not to take away from Sehwag and Smith (who I both mentioned), but more it was a simple case of the total of the pair being more than the sum of the parts…
Redb said | January 19th 2010 @ 8:44am | Report comment
Can’t put Langer in despite partnership with Hayden.
andrew said | January 19th 2010 @ 8:15am | Report comment
I agree with most of comments:
Sehwag before Langer and there has to be a spot for Tendulkar.
Polllock is good but if you are going for a bowling all-rounder Flintoff is a far option. I kow Flintoff has his bad days but when he is on there is no one better.
Justin said | January 19th 2010 @ 8:19am | Report comment
Andrew – to me its about consistency when you are talking about such rarified company. Flintoff just didnt do it enough and I think Pollock was a superior player particularly with the ball. FF probably sticks in the mind for a couple of Ashes Tests but Pollock was brilliant throughout his career.
Rusty said | January 19th 2010 @ 8:36am | Report comment
I agree with you on this – FF had some brilliant moments, even managing to string them together for awhile but to my mind he was too inconsistent and statistically not that great. Ok he has had major injury worries but compare bowling FF managed 220 at 32.38 compared to Pollock 260 at 24.76. Freddie also only managed 3 5′fers compared to Pollies 6 x 5′fers and 1 x 10′fer.
sheek said | January 19th 2010 @ 8:26am | Report comment
Brett,
Here is another twist. Look at the figures for runs per test of the following batsmen (doesn’t take into account innings played or not outs, simply runs per test).
Brian Lara 91.24
Sehwag 86.30
Sangakkara 85.78
Hayden 83.74
Ponting 83.51
Pietersen 83.17
Dravid 81.59
Tendulkar 80.21
Kallis 78.81
Langer 73.30
To get an appreciation of this, Bradman averaged 134.54 runs per test he played. Make of this what you will!
Brett McKay said | January 19th 2010 @ 9:51am | Report comment
interesting Sheek. I’m surprised Langer is on that list actually, it’d make interesting reading to see what his runs per Test gigure was once he came back into the side as an opener. You’d imagine it would be better than what’s listed there…
Brett McKay said | January 19th 2010 @ 8:27am | Report comment
Several of you have mentioned Shaun Pollock now, and as I touched on in the column, he’s one I had in my mind going into this challenge. In the end though, Kallis was too good to leave out, and in the end proabably cost Pollock a spot…
andrew said | January 19th 2010 @ 8:38am | Report comment
Sheek they are some very informative stats, thankyou.
Brian said | January 19th 2010 @ 8:39am | Report comment
Firstly off topic – let me say Brett you were right on Hauritz I was wrong.
On topic that Langer & Ntini are in contention surprises me. Also interesting that no-one has mentioned Flintoff. I know his performances were haphazard but he has a winner’s mentality
My XI – Hayden, Sehwag, Ponting, Kallis, Dravid, Tendulker, Gilchrist, Pollock, Warne, Murali, McGrath 12th – Flintoff
BTW – I’m assuming this team is going to play against tough oppossiton, Guys like Langer, Strauus, Chanderpaul have great concentration but I wouldn’t back them against a great attack like the guys I’ve picked
Whiteline said | January 19th 2010 @ 8:43am | Report comment
Sheek – interesting list but I trust we all take into account the obvious….
Players such as the Aussies and Kallis probably batted less times per test on average than the others (due to their win/lose records) just as bowlers such as Warne, McGrath et al had more chances to take wickets than those from other teams.
sheek said | January 19th 2010 @ 9:46am | Report comment
Whiteline,
True what you say. I’m planning a post on allrounders. When I conducted one last year, I thought it was fair to allocate a value of multiple 10 for every wicket to a run, so that bowling allrounders weren’t discriminated against.
Another Roarer, JohnB, argued the value of wickets to runs ought to be a multiple 15, since the very best bowlers captured about 5 wickets a match, & the very best batsmen scored about 80 runs a match. I have found this largely to be true as a rule of thumb. Though of course, there are anomalies all over the place!
So the list above was devised with that in mind. Most of the batsmen above fall around the 80 runs plus per test mark. Great bowlers Warne, Lillee & Hadlee captured around 5 wickets a test each.
Sorry, slightly off topic…..
Ken said | January 19th 2010 @ 10:12am | Report comment
I agree with you on the batting front, dominating victories mean less batting opportunities but I don’t agree that the opposite is true for bowlers. There’s only 20 wickets available per test (for each side), Warne and McGrath were competing with each other for each one (alongside a bevy of other very handy bowlers like Gillespie, Kasper, Lee, McGill). If Warne, for example, was in an otherwise average team, I would expect he would have taken even more wickets
sheek said | January 19th 2010 @ 4:00pm | Report comment
Ken,
This is one of the conundrums of cricket. A bowler is limited to how many wickets he can take – 20 in a match, or 10 in an innings.
In theory, there is no limit on how many runs a batsman can score.
I tried giving wickets a value of multiple 20, but I found the results unsatisfactory. I think by most measures, a value of multiple 15 is fairly close to the mark.
I think if Warne had bowled in a team of ordinary bowlers, he certainly would have taken more wickets per test. But I also believe he would have taken them at higher cost. Eventually the workload would have told on him.
andrew said | January 19th 2010 @ 8:47am | Report comment
An interesting thought, you could choose a fielding specialist as 12th man, the way England did during the period..
Hammer said | January 19th 2010 @ 8:51am | Report comment
No Lara … a captain that’s lost the Ashes twice and Brett Lee sneaking in ahead those already mentioned – if it was at all possible to get him fit I’d have Bond in well ahead of Lee ??? … this can’t be serious
Brett McKay said | January 19th 2010 @ 10:11am | Report comment
Hammer, Lee’s only 12th man, and as I said in the piece, I was genuinuely surprised to see him that high up the wickets list for the decade. Bond was among the 30+ names I considered.
And it’s not about who’s the best or worst captain; Ponting got the nod because he was the standout candidate in that final XI…
Mic said | January 19th 2010 @ 9:14am | Report comment
Good team, my only thing is, if you are going to pick a team of the decade (any team) it shouldn’t just be about the stats you research. That kinda doesn’t make it ‘your’ team.
Brett McKay said | January 19th 2010 @ 10:09am | Report comment
Mic, it’s a mixture of opinion and stats, which I thought was pretty clear. In some cases, the stats just confirmed my thoughts; in others I ignored the stats completely and went with preconception…
coops said | January 19th 2010 @ 9:19am | Report comment
Great read Brett, and an article that I’m sure will promote plenty of discussion…
Now, as to your selections, you couldn’t be wronger! You couldn’t be wronger if you were Andrew Hilditch… actually, I’ve never seen you and Andrew in the same room. Maybe that’s why Jamie Cox was so interested in where we were sitting for the Sydney test! Hmmmm… but I digress…
Well done on picking Warne, Murali, McGrath, Ponting, Gilly and Kallis. These blokes basically pick themselves. How could a cricket freak such as you could get the other half of the team so wrong? Well, a little bit wrong anyway. Cricket is about much more than statistics and statistics alone do not tell the complete story of what a player offers a team.
OK… the openers. There is no doubt Langer and Hayden were the standout combination of the last decade. However, the mission was to pick the team, not combinations. As such, Smith has to be there. I thought of it like this; if I was to pick a team to play for my life, who do I want saving me? The answer is Smith and Langer. I thought long and hard about Gayle because of his ability to change a test in one session, but ultimately went a little more conservative and took Langer for his tenacious ability to bat all day.
3 and 4, Ponting, Kallis. No question. Now, as to 5 Andrew, you and I have some issues. I’m dropping Dravid for Sachin. He is a once in a generation batsman and has to be in this team. I believe he offers more as a five than Dravid. He has played more than 160 tests and still averaging around 55. Interestingly he has also just surpassed 30000 runs in international cricket. You can’t go past that sort of experience. Furthermore, and it goes without saying, he is magnificent to watch (Give me a ‘hell yeah!’ Kersi). I’ll back Sangakkara at 6, his record speaks for itself. In fact the only other change I will make is; I’m doing a straight South African swap, and am in complete agreeance with Vinay, Steyn in, Ntini out. Again, it came down to whom I would want bowling for my life, and Steyn has more variety and wicket taking potential.
I’m definitely sacking your skipper. Ponting! Please! His stubborn refusal to even consider bowling first and his record as only the second Australian skipper to lose consecutive Ashes series in England means he is disqualified from consideration. I’ve gone for Smith. I like the way he plays the game and the way he leads his men.
That’s my 11. I want to see a test between my 11 and your 11! I’ve rung my… ahhhh… numbers man in India, Shobhan Mehta, and he has my team at $1.40 favourites to beat your team at $2.60. In fact he told me Mark Waugh has already put 10 large on my team to towel up your team inside 4 days! I’ve also contacted the BCCI and they are happy to see the test played, as long as it’s a 20twenty and it’s played in India and televised in America!
Oh crap! I almost forgot the twelfth man… wait for it… are you ready… P. Siddle (I told you I’d find a spot for him!). The Australian Selectors and the brains trust that is the channel nine commentary team keep assuring us that Siddle is a first rate, top class international cricketer. Evidence would suggest that this talent is not as an opening bowler so I submit that more than any other cricketer in the last decade, the bloke must carry the hell out of a drink!
Brett McKay said | January 19th 2010 @ 10:22am | Report comment
Coops, mate, that’s just too good a rant to even attempt retorting…..
vinay verma said | January 19th 2010 @ 9:24am | Report comment
Brett,you have to have a team that is capable of taking on your nominees,who I mostly agree with. My team to take yours on would be: Sehwag and Smith for Openers followed by Jayawardne,Tendulkar,Pietersen,Flintoff,Dhoni(Capt),Kumble,Harbhajan,Steyn and Morkel. I would have Symonds as the 12th Man. This team would go close.
Brett McKay said | January 19th 2010 @ 10:04am | Report comment
Hard to argue with that Vinay, that’s also a pretty handy side. I might suggest Vettori rather than two leggies, but other than that, no arguements at all (again!)
We’d have to play it at Lord’s wouldn’t we?? Melbourne on Boxing Day perhaps??
vinay verma said | January 19th 2010 @ 11:26am | Report comment
Actually,Brett,theres no leggies in there.Kumble is a medium pace off spinner..seeing as he only bowls a wrong ‘unand a top spinner.
I would play this at Eden Gardens for the symbolism and also to make Harbhajan feel right at home.I understand why you left out Tendulkar but he really straddles both decades.As does Ponting. Dravid is definitely this decade and because of that he would rank in your team ahead of Tendulkar and Lara.
rljw said | January 19th 2010 @ 9:25am | Report comment
interesting side Brett
no tendulkar, Lara, Styen, Sehwag
i think that Daniel Vettori may have made the team with his left arm spin and test hundreds instead of murali.
my side would be as follows
1. V.Sehwag
2. G.Smith (vc)
3. S.Tendulkar
4. J. Kallis
5. K. Petersien
6. B. Lara
7. A. Gilchrist
8. S. Warne (c)
9. D. Vettori
10. Z. Khan
11. D. Steyn
12th man: AB de Villers
Z. Khan was picked over G. McGrath because he is a left arm bowler and he adds variation to the attack.
sheek said | January 19th 2010 @ 9:56am | Report comment
rijw,
A lesson I learnt a long time ago, is that variety is a poor substitute for quality. It’s fine when everything else is equal, & only then….
The Windies persisted with a spinner in the into the mid-70s because of tradition. It eventually dawned on them, 4 great pacemen was a much better option than 3 great pacemen & an ordinary spinner, purely for the sake of tradition!
You’ve picked Zaheer Khan ahead of McGrath for reasons of variety. But Khan isn’t even close to McGrath in ability. Wasim Akram would have been a better option of this type of consideration.
Justin said | January 19th 2010 @ 9:58am | Report comment
In the same vein Vettori is nothing on Murali as a bowler and turns the ball the same way as Warne.
davido said | January 20th 2010 @ 12:12am | Report comment
How can you leave out Ponting? He scored near 2500 runs more than Sachin at no.3 (vs. no.4 spot for ST) over the decade.
He is also a much better captain and a way better fielder.
Brett McKay said | January 19th 2010 @ 10:01am | Report comment
Just out of interest’s sake, and maybe to ease some minds, I thought it might be worthwhile naming the 33 or 34 names from the first thoughts I gave this piece: (in no particular order or specialty)
S.Waugh, Ponting, Smith, Vaughan, Fleming, Gilchrist, Boucher, Sangakkara, Warne, Muralitharan, Vettori, Kallis, Pollock, Flintoff, Bravo, McGrath, Lee, Donald, Bond, Vaas, Steyn, Shoaib Akthar, Johnson, Langer, Hayden, Strauss, Gibbs, Sehwag, Dravid, Laxman, Tendulkar, Lara, Martyn, Clarke, M.Hussey.
sheek said | January 19th 2010 @ 10:08am | Report comment
Brett,
One thing we can be assured of is that there is likely to never be unanimous agreement in these exercises!
Brett McKay said | January 19th 2010 @ 10:20am | Report comment
nevermind unanimous agreement Sheek, I’ll take agreement in the singular at the moment!! Not one person so far has said they’ll take the team as is – everyone’s got at least one change!!
Kersi Meher-Homji said | January 19th 2010 @ 10:16am | Report comment
Sheek,
When writing my book “Cricket’s Great All-rounders” in 2008, I tried a Point System to rank Test all-rounders. I gave one poit for every run scored, 15 points for every wicket taken, five points for every catch or stumping made, 5 points per century, 5 points for 5 wickets / ings. Then added up the points and divided by number of Tests played by the all-rounder. But I was not satisfied with the results I got. So I dumped the system.
Other permutations-combinations also did not work.
sheek said | January 19th 2010 @ 10:29am | Report comment
Kersi,
My approach is a simple add the runs & wickets (x 15), then divide by tests, or matches (first class). Any system, as you suggest, is not fool-proof.
But what I like about it, is that it gives you a good “ballpark” feel for where allrounders stand in relation to each other.
For example, applying my system to tests, jack gregory just shades Keith Miller as our best test allrounder. What the system doesn’t tell us is that each of Gregory’s wickets cost nearly 10 runs more than Miller’s.
Also, Simpson & Warne came in 3rd & 4th, ahead of Benaud & Davidson, while guys like Noble, Armstrong & Giffen were further down the list.
Which raises the question, can Simpson & Warne be considered genuine allrounders?
But I like the exercise because it gives a reasonable ‘ballpark’ appreciation for different players. Also, there are wide variations between test allrounders & first-class allrounders.
Sorry, off-topic again…..
Justin said | January 19th 2010 @ 10:27am | Report comment
Just a side note. There seems to be a thought Sachin must be in the side somewhere. No doubt he is a great player but perhaps he wasnt in the best 3 middle order bats of the past 10 years.
If you look at just about all his stats (no they are not the be all and end all) he is not near it. Not in the top 10 for average, not in the top 6 for strike rate, his 100s per inning is not in the top 6 either (at rough estimate). He sneaks in on runs scored. Interestingly he has scored more 100s outside tis period than in it – 22 v 21.
He is one of my favourite players but its entirely possible that we all over estimate how good he is. Lara is every bit as good yet Sachin is the one who gets all the “must be in” votes.
In essence there is little to suggest he is so much better than his competitors to make him a certainty for the period 2000-2009
Brett McKay said | January 19th 2010 @ 10:42am | Report comment
Whiteline said | January 19th 2010 @ 10:39am | Report comment
Hi Ken
Like any drama, there are two sides and I acknowledge your points. In reagrds to Warne taking more wickets in a poorer side? Who knows? Maybe the presence of McGrath etc made his job easier, not harder.
sheek said | January 19th 2010 @ 11:25am | Report comment
Kersi,
I should add when I added the runs & wickets (x 15) divided by tests/first class matches I arrive at what I call a ‘productivity quotient’ which simply gives an appreciation of an allrounder’s contribution to his team. Like any system, far from conclusive…..
Kersi Meher-Homji said | January 19th 2010 @ 11:48am | Report comment
Coops,
“Hey yeh!” for including Sachin in your team. He will be in my all-time great World XI , in bating order:
Hobbs, Gavaskar, Bradman, Hammond, Tendulkar, Sobers, Miller, Gilchrist (wk), Warne, Lillee, SF Barnes. 12th man Viv Richards.
Lillee and Miller to open the attack, then Barnes and Hammond. Warne and Sobers will be the spinners.
What, Gavaskar ahead of Trumper and Ponsford, I can hear you roar? But look at the attack Gavaskar faced in 1970s and 80s as an opener, the five terrifying Windies fast bowlers, the Aussie legends Lillee and Thomson, and Pascoe, Imran, Snow… All these without a helmet for 90% of his career. The 5′5″ giant was the first to reach 10,000 Test runs.
Does including five Australians and two Indians in my XI give away my dual nationality? I hope not.
Brett McKay said | January 19th 2010 @ 12:28pm | Report comment
Kersi, you’re just encouraging him now!!
sheek said | January 19th 2010 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
Tendulkar is showing the wear & tear of playing test cricket for close to two decades. Clearly, he’s plateau-ing out. It’s an old ‘Beatles vs Stones’ argument – do you go for the fleeting comet, or the meandering river?
Two decades is hardly fleeting though, but we need to remember when Tendulkar was at his absolute peak. That’s the key. Ditto any other player.
On another tack, the guys at crininfo selected Pietersen ahead of Compton in their alltime England XI, as did the readers poll. Drats! On both occasions I think they have jumped the gun…..
Kersi,
On his retirement from the game in 1987 (at age 43!), Bradman accorded Graeme Pollock the accolade of probably being the best left-hander (batsman) in the history of the game, just ahead of Sobers.
Barry Richards only played 4 official tests, but in 1970/71 as just one example, scored over 1500 first class runs for South Australia at an average of over 100. He scored 224 & 146 against the touring Englishmen, & 356 against WA. The WA bowling attack included veteran English test spinner Tony Lock, then current test paceman Graham McKenzie, past test paceman Laurie Mayne, & future great test paceman, a young Dennis Lillee.
Just goes to show difficult these exercise are. The there’s the ‘black Bradman’ George Headley……….
ohtani's jacket said | January 20th 2010 @ 1:27am | Report comment
If Tendulkar is slowing down then he has to be one of the greatest “past his prime” athletes of all time. There was a point where he looked done and plenty of people thought he should retire, but he’s been scoring heavily in the past couple of years and is a guy who you still expect to score centuries. That’s a remarkable comeback considering it’s Sachin Tendulkar we’re talking about. It’s not like Sangakkara, Chaunderpaul or Yousuf. When their form dips, everybody says “oh, it was just a purple patch they went through.” A guy like Tendulkar is held to different standards. Lara was the same and managed to perform this decade. Neither played quite as well as they did in the 90s but mentality I think they were two of the toughest batsmen around and of a higher quality than a lot of batsmen who cashed in on the batting friendly pitches.
Brett McKay said | January 19th 2010 @ 12:26pm | Report comment
Sheek, Tendulkar’s “wear and tear”, as you put it, was one of the main reasons he ran third in my deciding on a no.6. It was my perception over the decade that he – and Lara, for that matter – seemed to be in and out of their teams regularly, for rest purposes, injury, or even contractual reasons (for Lara).
Truth be told, I was surprised Tendulkar featured as high up the 2000s lists that he did, and it was always the likes of Dravid or Laxman that I had the recollections of perfomance about over the decade.
In the end, this has been a lot of fun, this exercise, and it’s a good thing we have The Roar to debate such pressin matters!
Tinnie said | January 19th 2010 @ 12:29pm | Report comment
Nice article, not an easy task to say the least, glad to see it’s produced some healthy debate.
Interesting to see 4/5 of the top bowlers are spinners.
Style wise i think McGrath and Pollock are very very similar and equally effective, but Pollock shines though with the bat. For me
McGrath/Ntini out, Pollock/Steyn in.
Surprised not to see Kaspa on that bowling list.
sheek said | January 19th 2010 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
“Such pressin (sic) matters”???
Don’t know why, but that amused me greatly, probably because we all leave a word out here or there.
However, I think you have created a wonderful new word. Just got to figure what it exactly means…..
Brett McKay said | January 19th 2010 @ 12:39pm | Report comment
pressin (n) pres-sin – from the Latin term presis, meaning to really, really need a spell-check function on The Roar
M1tch said | January 19th 2010 @ 12:37pm | Report comment
If Shane Bond didnt get so injured he’d be someone to make the best of the noughties
Tinnie said | January 19th 2010 @ 12:42pm | Report comment
Didnt he get dropped from the nation team for defecting to the rebel Indian League?
M1tch said | January 19th 2010 @ 1:02pm | Report comment
back in 2007 or so after been injured for a long time
Brett McKay said | January 19th 2010 @ 12:50pm | Report comment
quite true Mitch. Bond only played 18 Tests between 2001 and 2009, but took 87 wickets at a tick over 22, and with a strike rate of 38.7
Just on average alone, of the top 20 or 25 wicket-takers for the decade, only Murali and McGrath top him. In terms of SR, only Steyn and Shoaib (surprisingly) get anywhere near him…
M1tch said | January 19th 2010 @ 1:04pm | Report comment
yeh, such a shame for NZ cricket as well.
thats incredible 18 matches in 8 years..probably missed something like 50 or so?>
Brett McKay said | January 19th 2010 @ 1:09pm | Report comment
50 would be nearly spot on – Vettori played 69 Tests from 2000, so roughly the same period (give or take a couple of Tests), and took 222 wickets…
sledgeross said | January 19th 2010 @ 1:15pm | Report comment
I would probably lean towards Smith over Langer, and actually have him as skipper.
Brian said | January 19th 2010 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
Averages also discriminte against good players from poor sides. e.g. Yousouf & Lara never gets to be dropped 3 times by the opposition fielders. Murali doesn’t have nearly all catches taken from his bowling like Warne or Steyn.
Wasim & Waqar are generally thought of as great bowlers yet their stats aren’t that amazing. I supect this is due to their poor fielders.
sledgeross said | January 19th 2010 @ 1:48pm | Report comment
True Brian, but when we deal with intangibles, you could argue that Murali was aided by way of an extremely flexible elbow joint (no fault of his own). Im not calling him a chucker, just saying that he also had an advantage if we start talking about coulda, woulda, shoulda’s.
Tinnie said | January 19th 2010 @ 3:16pm | Report comment
Not to mention origins, its a pretty well known fact that the sub-continent has very spin friendly pitches. Murali would have played a good chunk of his carrer in India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangledesh. The same can be said about Australia’s fast bowlers, it’s one of the main reasons i think we’re so formidble at home. But given the pitch conditions in the last two campaigns in England, it’s fair to say they all struggled to some degree and their stats as a result would certainly been a little less flattering than usual. I think Warnie was one of those rare players that could something to work for him in most conditions.
southernwaratah said | January 19th 2010 @ 1:54pm | Report comment
Great Article Brett!
One of my issues with Hayden & Langer rating as opening bats is the same as Greenidge & Hayes. The best bowlers in the world at the time were playing in their team. Would H&L been so great against McGrath, Gillespie & Warne? Hayden only started pounding attacks after Ambrose & Walsh retired…. That in mind G.Smith never scored a hundred against Australia until McGrath, Gillespie & Lee were over, all the while he was smashing hundreds against England & Co…
Sehwag killed it against every attack (short of his sabbatical when he went of saving Orangutan’s in Borneo or where ever he went when he was out of the team) Who can forget his 195 at Melbourne in about 4 hours of play…
Not too sure about Ntini, I would sooner have a fully fit Flintoff in my side, Imagine him coming in after Gilchrist….
Brett McKay said | January 19th 2010 @ 2:55pm | Report comment
g’day Tah of the South, glad you enjoyed the read. I really thought you were going to be the first “great team, wouldn’t change anyone” comment, but then I got to your last line…
A lot of changes suggested here today has been along similar lines, in that they’d have this guy on 2005 form, or this guy if fully fit (both of which apply to Flintoff, ironically), and of course anyone would, but it overlooks the whole purpose of the exercise.
As much as possible, I’ve picked performance over the whole (or close to the whole) decade, rather than chunks of it. And just to prove how subjective this really is, we’re now into the 70s for comment numbers, and still no-one’s agreed with me entirely!!
southernwaratah said | January 19th 2010 @ 3:22pm | Report comment
That’s the thing about stats B-Mac, John Benaud as a selector campaigned for Shane Warne to be in the Test side not on shield stats but a gut feel. Allan Border as a selector campaigned for M.J.Clarke to be in the Test side not on shield stats but a gut feel. Both have been proven right.
All I’m saying is give me a fully fit & at their peak Flintoff or Ntini and I’ll take Freddie, by no means is he the greatest all rounder ever, but if I needed an old ball bowler to thunder them down for my life I’ll take Flintoff.
Brett McKay said | January 19th 2010 @ 3:26pm | Report comment
quite true Southo, I’m not really disagreeing with you. Ben Conkey just below mentions Shane Bond and Simon Jones. It’s the great unknowns that make these debates interesting!!
sledgeross said | January 19th 2010 @ 2:17pm | Report comment
Good point Southo. Early in there careers,Hayden and Langer failed against the better attacks. You could argue that when they came back, they were better prepared AND were also facing lesser bowling.
Benjamin Conkey said | January 19th 2010 @ 3:08pm | Report comment
Great article Brett, and some nice debate. I agree with several on here that Sehwag should get a gurnsey ahead of Langer.
Langer was a great batsman but Sehwag, like Gilchrist takes the game away from the opposition so quickly.
That 195 he scored against Australia in Melbourne was breathtaking, and he did it well inside a day.
The rest of your team is solid. It’s a great shame that bowlers like Shane Bond and Simon Jones were so beset by injuries in the decade. Who can forget the Ashes in 2002/03 when S.Jones suffered that sickening leg injury on the boundary.
One wonders how many wickets Bond and Jones would have taken without injuries.
I have a question Brett. Use your crystal ball. Who will be the players of this decade? Will young players like Mohammad Aamer, Mendis, Phil Hughes, Umar Akmal and Steve Smith stand up?
Tinnie said | January 19th 2010 @ 3:27pm | Report comment
I think Aamer is packed full of potential, really hope he does well. I’ve had big raps on the young Kiwi Southee since he’s bobbed up on the scene too, i think both those guys could be very successful on the world stage in the future.
Brett McKay said | January 19th 2010 @ 3:24pm | Report comment
wow Conks – it took me two weeks to put the previous TotD together, and with the new decade 19 days in you want a 2010-19 TotD?!?! Let me see, who’s impressed me in the last fortnight…..
nah, it can’t be done yet. The U19s WC in NZ currently is probably just as good a ground to pick from too, and just in the Aust side, you’ve got the likes of Mitch Marsh, Josh Hazelwood, Alistair McDermott.
Benjamin Conkey said | January 19th 2010 @ 3:35pm | Report comment
yeah bit tough I must admit, but I remember Roebuck doing a similar column ages ago, predicting the future stars. From memory he said Haddin would make it.
Tim Paine looks like he’s the next keeper/explosive batsman.
You’re right the under 19 world cup is a very good guide. I remember watching Rohit Sharma a couple of years ago dominating in that tournament. He could blossom this decade.
sheek said | January 19th 2010 @ 4:32pm | Report comment
BTW Brett,
Did you catch cricinfo’s test & one day team of the 2000s? (published 01/01/10).
Test XI: Hayden, Sehwag, Ponting, Tendulkar, Dravid, Kallis, Gilchrist (k), Pollock, Warne, Muralitharan, McGrath, Flintoff (12th).
OD XI: Tendulkar, Jayasuriya, Ponting, Kallis, Symonds, Flintoff, Gilchrist (k), Pollock, Lee, Muralitharan, McGrath, Warne (12th).
Brett McKay said | January 19th 2010 @ 7:48pm | Report comment
Sheek, I’d not seen that at all, in fact as you may have been able to tell from my reference in the column, I was expecting them to name their sides this week, having already named Ponting as PotD. That’s a little embarrassing, I must admit…
But I’ll take that, only three different to their Test XI, and despite unanimous DISagreement, I’m sticking with my team..
If you think the disagreement on here has been entertaining today, you should have heard the stick I copped at training tonight!!
“How did you leave out Tendulkar?”
“Where was Pietersen?”
“How could you possibly have Langer and not Sehwag?”
“Ntini?!? No way…”
sheek said | January 19th 2010 @ 8:04pm | Report comment
Brett,
Let me just say Pietersen is overblown hype. The problem with the guy is that he believes his own press….. !
Brett McKay said | January 19th 2010 @ 8:12pm | Report comment
don’t worry Sheek, I blew off the Pietersen comment with “pah, I didn’t even have him in my 33-man squad!”
My favourite line on Pietersen was from Jonathan Agnew, I think, who said that Pietersen “was the sort of guy who would join the Royal Navy so the world could see him…”
sheek said | January 19th 2010 @ 9:46pm | Report comment
I like that….. !
vas said | January 19th 2010 @ 5:25pm | Report comment
Nice selection Brett.
Personally, I think Sehwag should partner Hayden, as he has shown to be the most destructive pure batsman of the last 10 years. the mere fact you can make McGrath and Warne look ordinary speaks volumes, so Sehwag in for me.
My Test XI: Sehwag, Hayden, Ponting (c), Kallis, Dravid, Yousuf, Gilchrist (w), Warne, Vettori, Steyn, McGrath
Alec Swann said | January 19th 2010 @ 9:21pm | Report comment
Brett
I enjoyed your article. Not the easiest of tasks given the wealth of talent available to choose from.
Just a couple of points. No place for Tendulkar or Lara? You’re a hard man to please.
And no Englishmen? Not even Richard Dawson, Darren Maddy or James Foster? Shame on you.
Brett McKay said | January 19th 2010 @ 9:26pm | Report comment
g’day Alec, nice to hear from you. No Englishmen I’m afraid, though a few did make my “squad”. Someone above mentioned picking a fileding specialist as 12th Man, so maybe Garry Pratt could come into calcs!!
ohtani's jacket said | January 20th 2010 @ 12:47am | Report comment
There’s too many Australians in the side and I don’t like the liberties you’ve taken by having both Ponting and Dravid in the side. They’re both threes and I think you need to make a call about one over the other.
sheek said | January 20th 2010 @ 10:40am | Report comment
OJ,
Did you fall out the wrong side of the bed?
The reason Brett’s team is full of Aussies is because they were the dominant cricket team of the 2000s. Indeed, since the mid-1990s. Crininfo made the same “mistake” with their best XI of the 2000s!
I would suspect the best rugby team of the 2000s would be full of All Blacks for much the same reason – they have mostly been the dominant team.
There’s no problem picking 2 number 3s. In fact, all four of Brett’s middle order have played number 3 at one time or another. A middle order batsman requires the technical & mental flexibility to bat anywhere between 3 to 6, as well as the technical & mental flexibility to come in to bat after a half hour or a day & a half, sitting & waiting.
How can you cap the number of players from a particular country, & retain credibility? If the Aussies, or anyone else, deserve all 11 positions, so be it. Although you would hope that would never be the case……….
Brett McKay said | January 20th 2010 @ 10:59am | Report comment
Sheek, congrats sir, you’ve brought up the hundred for me. Add another to your beer tab, I think that’s a few I owe you now…
I make no bones about the 6 Australians named, as I made it pretty obvious that it was a concern going into the challenge too. In the end, in my opinion, it reflects the dominance of “that” Australian team of the 2000s. And as you note, CricInfo have done exactly the same.
Also OJ (just to condense a couple of replies), Sangakkara hasn’t ‘kept for a number of years now, and indeed as was pointed out here somewhere, his batting average has skyrocketed since ditching the gloves.
I understand your concerns though, and you’re certainly not the first to present a contrary opinion to me on this thread…
ohtani's jacket said | January 20th 2010 @ 1:32am | Report comment
Oh, and Brett, I think you missed this — http://www.cricinfo.com/decadereview2009/content/story/441878.html
Cricinfo Test XI — Matthew Hayden, Virender Sehwag, Ricky Ponting, Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, Jacques Kallis, Adam Gilchrist (wk), Shaun Pollock, Shane Warne, Muttiah Muralitharan, Glenn McGrath
Brett McKay said | January 20th 2010 @ 7:34am | Report comment
OJ, I did indeed miss it, Sheek pointed that out to me last night. I had even trawled around CricInfo prior to writing this after they named Ponting as PotD, to see if they had given him team-mates (hence the comment). I’d say it was an oversight, but I just didn’t even see any reference to a team being named!! Can you miss something that seemingly doesn’t exist?!?
On your comment above re Ponting and Dravid, I concur that Dravid has spent the majority of his time at 3, but as tends to be the case in the Indian batting order from time to time, he’s also spent a good deal of time at 4 and 5. VVS Laxman, for eg, was used at 3 for period there at one stage too.
And as for the number of Australians, well as I said in the column, I don’t think that’s too unreasonable considering Australia’s relative dominance over the decade. The breakdown, as you’ve probably already counted is Aus 6 (+ Lee), SA 2, SL 2, Ind 1.
That ordering/breakdown follows the order of % of wins over the 2000s (with the exception that England is just above India), which is not to say Australia won three times as many Tests as SA and SL, just that a lot of Australian wins would obviously equate to a reasonable representation here.
And I see Tendulkar made 105* overnight in India’s 245 all out in the first Test v Bangladesh, which will undoubtedly be used to remind me of my overlooking him….
ohtani's jacket said | January 20th 2010 @ 10:28am | Report comment
I can understand the theory behind so many Australians but six out of eleven is a bit much. I would cap it at 4. People will remember Ponting, Gilchrist, McGrath and Warne more than they’ll remember Hayden and Langer. Those four guys would be enough for any side to win a match.
As for Ponting/Dravid, I would put Ponting at three because Dravid had a three year slump. I don’t agree with having two wicketkeeper batsmen either. Ultimately, I think I’d just go with the most entertaining side possible.
Brett McKay said | January 20th 2010 @ 7:44am | Report comment
There would have to be some kind of weird cricket irony if this article finished in the 90s for comments…..
Kersi Meher-Homji said | January 20th 2010 @ 8:12am | Report comment
Brett, Now you know what Watson and Katich felt when dismissed in nervous 90s. But both eventually got their hundreds and so will you.
Will this be your first ‘century’?
But you were helped by excluding Sachin in your team. Had you included him, you would have been hovering in the 70s. Only kidding!
Brett McKay said | January 20th 2010 @ 8:27am | Report comment
Kersi, I have cracked the 100 a few times, and I already have a string of 40s plus a 96 and a few 80s. I have a strict policy of not making the milestone comment, so I’ll let nature take over from here…
Actually, I should be thankful for the complete lact of agreement in general – even those who said they enjoyed the article had at least one change!!
Mick of Newie said | January 20th 2010 @ 8:57am | Report comment
Is there not a risk that both this list and the cricinfo are over represented by players that played the whole decade. Are players whose careers started half way through the decade ommitted (like Steyn) for players who covered the whole of the decade (Ntini). Certianly Steyn has shortened up more Aust batsmen in his 6 years than Ntini did in his 10 years.
Kallis is an enigma for me. Great numbers but did he ever deliver a series for RSA against the odds (happy to be shown wrong on this as I can’t say I followed RSA that closely.
This applies less to batsmen as their careers often span 15+ years. I am pretty sure Tendulkar and Lara would have been in the team of the 90’s.
Mick of Newie said | January 20th 2010 @ 9:24am | Report comment
Stats are a dangerous thing. I just looked at the cricinfo stats for the decade.
How does Mohammed Yousef stack up 6,439 @ 58. I could mount an argument he is at the top of the pile for batsmen. Best conversion rate in the top 10 (23 100’s and 23 50’s). Punter 32 100’s and 40 50’s). Best centuries per test of 0.32 (far better than Punter 0.3, Dravid 0.21, Kallis 0.27, Tendulkar 0.24, Hayden 0.3, Sanga 0.24).
He is a victim of playing so few tests 71 and playing for an unfashionable side. Much of those runs would have been made away from home.
Further to my Ntini and Steyn comment, Ntini averaged 4 wickets per test to Steyn’s 5 wickets per test.
Justin said | January 20th 2010 @ 9:44am | Report comment
Mick thats why I put a 50 test minimum on the team above. I dont think a guy who has played 34 Tests should be in a team of the decade. That only 3 and a bit years of cricket. Longevity has to be a KPI for me.
sheek said | January 20th 2010 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
Justin,
A good thing you’re not picking alltime Saffie XIs. The isolation of the 70s & 80s coincided with probably (arguably) SA’s greatest cricket team.
Sure thing opener Barry Richards played just 4 official tests. Sure thing allrounder Mike Procter played just 7 official tests. Potential selection, giant paceman Vincent van der Bijl was denied the opportunity of playing a single test. Ditto blond paceman Garth le Roux, who wowed Aussie fans during WSC. Not to mention allrounder Clive Rice.
At least Graeme Pollock played 23 tests & older brother Peter 28 tests. Peter’s son Shaun was able to accumulate 108 tests in the post re-unification period. Before 1992, only one Saffie reached 50 tests, keeper-batsman John Waite.
The Saffie 3rd test team in 1970 against Australia, is arguably the greatest XI in their history: Barry Richards, Trevor Goddard, Ali Bacher(c), Graeme Pollock, Eddie Barlow, Lee Irvine, Denis Lindsay(k), Tiger Lance, Mike Procter, Peter Pollock, John Traicos, Pat Trimborn(12th).
Genuine batting depth down to number 10! Procter batting down at #9 is totally crazy!! 5 fast to fast medium pacemen to call upon – P.Pollock, Procter, Goddard, Barlow & Lance. Brilliant fielding side. Only weakness was lack of a great spinner, Traicos being the custodian here (he later played for Zimbabwe).
Funny how we apply different standards today. You’re a pup if you haven’t played 50 tests. But 50 years ago, reaching 50 tests was the equivalent of reaching 100 tests today?!
Justin said | January 20th 2010 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
Sheek
Great stuff and wonderful we now have SA back in the fold. I am only too aware of the difference in playing schedules today and the amazing players SA had.
My father would wax lyrical about the Pollocks any chance he got!
GaryGnu said | January 23rd 2010 @ 10:41am | Report comment
I was going to write a detailed post earlier with mulltiple suggestions but ran out of time.
I do have one name that everyone seems to have forgotten, perhaps due to the sands of time partially obscuring his record.
Andrew Flower – Zimbabwe.
He had the highest test batting average of the 2000s – 63.25 from 24 tests of which only 4 were against fellow strugglers Bangladesh.
He was named a Wisden Cricketer of the year in 2002 for a 2001 season that also saw the omnipotent Australian team tour England.
He was probably the only world class player and captain/wicketkeeper of a struggling side.
However, sadly, but most importantly in this sort of discussion, his Test career was cut short because he had the courage and strength of character to stand by his beliefs and publicly refute the legitimacy of the Mugabe Government in his home country during its time in the International spotlight.
It was an act of professional suicide but one of great integrity. He and Olonga were involved in the murky intersection of cricket and politics in a way that no other players have been, save for the Sri Lankan team in Pakistan, and came out of it with their reputations enhanced. That is the sort of stuff that great leadership is made of and is why I would choose him above any other national captain named in a team of the decade.
Controversial I know but the stuff of great conversation.
Justin said | January 23rd 2010 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
GG – Fantastic player and strong individual as you have exhibited. Hard to put someone in for just 24 tests although his circumstances are unique. Would he play just as a batsmen?
GaryGnu said | January 23rd 2010 @ 11:00pm | Report comment
Justin,
If we are to take Brett’s team as a starting point then yes. I see him as a similar sort of player to Sangakara. Solid, dependable in the midle order and he just happens to keep a bit.
Flower at No 6 and captain in the field. I have already pointed out what I believe his leadership credentials are based on but thought I might add that he, like the other captains in the team, has the tactical acumen as demonstrated by his involvement in the Ashes campaign of 2009.