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)
syedsaadjameel
Guest
1. Greame Smith (c) 2. Virender Sehwag 3. Rahul Dravid 4. Brian Lara 5. Kevin Pietersen 6. Adam Gilchrist (wk) 7. Andrew Flintoff 8. Shane Warne (vc) 9. Dale Steyn 10. Zaheer Khan 11. Glenn MGrath
Mykuhl
Guest
Here's my 11 to play that team. (not able to pick anyone from that squad) 1. Sehwag 2. Smith (c) 3. Tendalkur 4. Lara 5. Mohammed Yousif 6. Flower (k) 7. Flintoff 8. Pollock 9. Bond 10. Steyn 11. Mendis 12. Steve Waugh
Mykuhl
Guest
Some things you omitted. 1. Why pick 2 keepers? Is Gilchrist really a better batsman than Tendulkar or Jayawardene. If you already have Sanga in the team, you don't need Gilly. 2. Shane Bond. Sure NZ don't play as many test matches, and he was injured, and caught up in political debacles during a large chunk of the decade, but strike rates and averages are much more telling than total wickets. Bond and Steyn were miles ahead of the rest of the pack when you looked at these stats. 3. Is Ponting really a better captain than Sangakkara?!?!? He had a great team, helpful conditions and still managed to lose plenty of games.
therookie
Roar Pro
WHERE'S SACHIN OR SEHWAG? Here's mine: Hayden Sehwag Ponting Tendulkar Kallis G Smith Gilchrist H Singh Warne McGrath Murali 12th Man: Gibbs
Royce
Guest
Jesus - and you're a cricket writer? Yes, lets leave Tendulkar off the list of top performers - makes total sense (dripping sarcasm). Oh, and Langer is certainly better than Sehwag. I'm all for a bit of ol' fashioned jingoism, but this is frankly ridiculous.
GaryGnu
Guest
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.
Justin
Guest
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
Guest
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
Guest
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!
sheek
Guest
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?!
Brett McKay
Guest
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...
sheek
Guest
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..........
ohtani's jacket
Guest
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.
Justin
Guest
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.
Mick of Newie
Guest
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.
Mick of Newie
Guest
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.
Brett McKay
Guest
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!!
Kersi Meher-Homji
Guest
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
Guest
There would have to be some kind of weird cricket irony if this article finished in the 90s for comments.....
Brett McKay
Guest
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....