Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[Tilal]

seasonal inspired post - all time India test X1

Gavaskar
Sehwag
Dravid
Tendulkar
Viswanath
Vinoo Mankad
Kapil Dev (c)
Kirmani(wk) 
Kumble
Srinath
EAS Prasanna


12th : Azharuddin


If Gambhir continues the way he has so far in his first 27 tests (avg 57) for another 50 matches, he will fight with Gavaskar to partner Sehwag.

[kban1]

If Gambhir continues the way he has so far in his first 27 tests (avg 57) for another 50 matches, he will fight with Gavaskar to partner Sehwag.

Nope, he wont

[Tilal]

If Gambhir continues the way he has so far in his first 27 tests (avg 57) for another 50 matches, he will fight with Gavaskar to partner Sehwag.

Nope, he wont

He won't play another 50 test matches? or he won't fight with Gavaskar?
The first seems definitely hard given the number of tests India plays these days.

[kban1]

If Gambhir continues the way he has so far in his first 27 tests (avg 57) for another 50 matches, he will fight with Gavaskar to partner Sehwag.

Nope, he wont

He won't play another 50 test matches? or he won't fight with Gavaskar?
The first seems definitely hard given the number of tests India plays these days.

I think there are 365 days of daylight between him and Gavaskar -- no matter how many tests he plays. Thats why he wont challenge Gavaskar as the best opener in an all time XI.

[keep-it-cool]

If Gambhir continues the way he has so far in his first 27 tests (avg 57) for another 50 matches, he will fight with Gavaskar to partner Sehwag.

well one never says never but if one were to say that ever, this would be a good time

[justforkix]

Srinath, the coconut breaker in the all time XI 

[dextrous]

Who else can bowl fast?

[CLR James]

Who else can bowl fast?

Mohammad Nissar

Amar Singh

[Tilal]

Who else can bowl fast?

Mohammad Nissar

Amar Singh

Amar Singh was considered and he was a strong contender.  A few things that went against him - he played half of his tests as a top 6 batsman.  He played as an alrounder in first class cricket.  He could not pip Kapil for that position in test cricket.
http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/player/26228.html


Nissar is a strong contender for the fast bowler's spot - stronger than Amar Singh.   He is one of the fastest India has produced according to seasoned  observers.
 

Coming to Srinath, Wisden and most experts think he  is India's  fastest-ever bowler and someone who started the era of genuine pace bowling in the country. (Kapil is credited with heralding the swing bowling tradition)

Zaheer comes closest to Srinath at this stage of his career. But his avgs don't compare all that good with Srinath.


The contenders are:  Amar Singh, Nissar, Srinath and Zaheer.

Zaheer is easy to exclude - he is behind Srinath and Nissar.
Amar Singh - Although can be included as a pace bowler alone, he mostly played as an alrounder and Kapil takes that spot.
Nissar is one of the fastest - but Srinath is considered fastest-ever.  Nissar will make the cut in all time test X1 on fast pitches(drop Prasanna and include Nissar)
 

[dextrous]

Who else can bowl fast?

Mohammad Nissar

Amar Singh

Sure, but there's little to judge them by other than nostalgia and flowery proses.

[vincent]

If Gambhir continues the way he has so far in his first 27 tests (avg 57) for another 50 matches, he will fight with Gavaskar to partner Sehwag.

Nope, he wont

He won't play another 50 test matches? or he won't fight with Gavaskar?
The first seems definitely hard given the number of tests India plays these days.

I think there are 365 days of daylight between him and Gavaskar -- no matter how many tests he plays. Thats why he wont challenge Gavaskar as the best opener in an all time XI.

I agree. There has not been an opener in India since Gavaskar, the one who can stay a day or two at the crease facing the fierce bowling of West Indies and Australia (without helmet I might add), which we do not see anymore and ensuring a respectable platform for India's innings. I do not have the statistics but I think he may have had also twice as many centuries as Gambhir at the same age.

In fact Gavaskar belongs to the opening slot of all time World XI and not that of just India.

[ganavk]

If Gambhir continues the way he has so far in his first 27 tests (avg 57) for another 50 matches, he will fight with Gavaskar to partner Sehwag.

Nope, he wont

He won't play another 50 test matches? or he won't fight with Gavaskar?
The first seems definitely hard given the number of tests India plays these days.

I think there are 365 days of daylight between him and Gavaskar -- no matter how many tests he plays. Thats why he wont challenge Gavaskar as the best opener in an all time XI.

I agree. There has not been an opener in India since Gavaskar, the one who can stay a day or two at the crease facing the fierce bowling of West Indies and Australia (without helmet I might add), which we do not see anymore and ensuring a respectable platform for India's innings. I do not have the statistics but I think he may have had also twice as many centuries as Gambhir at the same age.

In fact Gavaskar belongs to the opening slot of all time World XI and not that of just India.

I agree that SMG is probably is the best but most of his best centuries have come against WI team which devoid of any of the famous fast bowlers. Right away, I can recall SMG's debut series ( 1971), 1978 Home series against WI ( Marshal on debut!) , did not do too well in 75 ( home series) , 74 away series ( did well in Port of Spain) and 1983 home series ( ok performance with Delhi century being Sehwagsuqe)
Gambir of course has not played tests in most of the major test nations ( Aus, Eng, WI and SA)

[dextrous]

the "bad" windies team was still MILES ahead of most bowling attacks of today

[ganavk]

the "bad" windies team was still MILES ahead of most bowling attacks of today

sure..they were better but miles ahead can certainly be argued.

[Tilal]

In fact Gavaskar belongs to the opening slot of all time World XI and not that of just India.

All time words X1 - ahead of Sutcliffe, Hutton and Hobs!    SMG surely would have been in word X1  in his time , but he does not belong to all time word X1.   

In addition Sutcliffe, Hutton and Hobs,  Hayden and Sehwag are ahead as well.

[dextrous]

In fact Gavaskar belongs to the opening slot of all time World XI and not that of just India.

All time words X1 - ahead of Sutcliffe, Hutton and Hobs!    SMG surely would have been in word X1  in his time , but he does not belong to all time word X1.   

In addition Sutcliffe, Hutton and Hobs,  Hayden and Sehwag are ahead as well.

Hayden and Sehwag ahead of Gavaskar?! How and why can this happen? are you going by averages? have you seen the number of batsmen in gavaskar's time who averaged > 50 versus those who do so today?

[WicketView]

I would like to see Hayden walk down the pitch as he so often does with the 70-80s protection against those fast bowlers.

[ramshorns]

In fact Gavaskar belongs to the opening slot of all time World XI and not that of just India.

All time words X1 - ahead of Sutcliffe, Hutton and Hobs!    SMG surely would have been in word X1  in his time , but he does not belong to all time word X1.   

In addition Sutcliffe, Hutton and Hobs,  Hayden and Sehwag are ahead as well.

Nice point Tilal.  I agree to that.

I do not have the time right now but to support your contention when he was facing the best challenge of his career in the tour's to Australia, NZ and WI in the early 80's after the post-packer era he really struggled.  Now that can be rubbed off as a blip on the rader or when one really gets to see the quality of those attacks it does tell a thing or two on his overall batting.

I am not sure of Haydo or Sehwag being much better than him - may be I can see someone like a Hayden or even Gordon Greenidge preferred over him but NOT Sehwag at this stage.   I will take Gavaskar over Sehwag as of now.

But there will be no issues based on cricketing merits that he is not in the class of Hutton and Hobbs when it comes to the all time greats openers.  I said that a few times myself on this DG.

[Tilal]

In fact Gavaskar belongs to the opening slot of all time World XI and not that of just India.

All time words X1 - ahead of Sutcliffe, Hutton and Hobs!    SMG surely would have been in word X1  in his time , but he does not belong to all time word X1.   

In addition Sutcliffe, Hutton and Hobs,  Hayden and Sehwag are ahead as well.

Hayden and Sehwag ahead of Gavaskar?! How and why can this happen? are you going by averages? have you seen the number of batsmen in gavaskar's time who averaged > 50 versus those who do so today?

I'm not going by technique and style - Gavaskar was a technically superior player (say, compared to Sehwag and Hayden and lot of others).
The primary criteria is effectiveness in getting runs against good opposition.
ICC player ranking is the most rational and very fine metric  that we have.
It takes into account the quality of bowlers, the quality of the pitch (high scoring matches give less points to the batsmen etc) etc.

We have more number of players with 50+ avg now.  We also have more test players compared to SMG's era - 10 test playing nations compared to 6(SL and RSA played very few tests during SMG's time). That's in increase of 66% in the total number of players.  Special onetime exception to SRT, Lara, Pointing and Dravid - very rare set of players.  But Gavaskar's era had a good share too - Richards, Miandad, Chappel, Greame Pollock, Sobers.  (one time exception should apply to Sobers too).  A few lost out  because of packer series and RSA's exclusion from international sport.

[inoc]

Nice point Tilal.  I agree to that.

I do not have the time right now but to support your contention when he was facing the best challenge of his career in the tour's to Australia, NZ and WI in the early 80's after the post-packer era he really struggled.  Now that can be rubbed off as a blip on the rader or when one really gets to see the quality of those attacks it does tell a thing or two on his overall batting.

I am not sure of Haydo or Sehwag being much better than him - may be I can see someone like a Hayden or even Gordon Greenidge preferred over him but NOT Sehwag at this stage.   I will take Gavaskar over Sehwag as of now.

But there will be no issues based on cricketing merits that he is not in the class of Hutton and Hobbs when it comes to the all time greats openers.  I said that a few times myself on this DG.

get back to this post when you have time.

[sudzz]

In fact Gavaskar belongs to the opening slot of all time World XI and not that of just India.

All time words X1 - ahead of Sutcliffe, Hutton and Hobs!    SMG surely would have been in word X1  in his time , but he does not belong to all time word X1.   

In addition Sutcliffe, Hutton and Hobs,  Hayden and Sehwag are ahead as well.

Nice point Tilal.  I agree to that.

I do not have the time right now but to support your contention when he was facing the best challenge of his career in the tour's to Australia, NZ and WI in the early 80's after the post-packer era he really struggled.  Now that can be rubbed off as a blip on the rader or when one really gets to see the quality of those attacks it does tell a thing or two on his overall batting.

I am not sure of Haydo or Sehwag being much better than him - may be I can see someone like a Hayden or even Gordon Greenidge preferred over him but NOT Sehwag at this stage.   I will take Gavaskar over Sehwag as of now.

But there will be no issues based on cricketing merits that he is not in the class of Hutton and Hobbs when it comes to the all time greats openers.  I said that a few times myself on this DG.

I fail to understand why one forgets that cricket is a team sport, therefore its a sum total of what every individuals effort. In case of a Gavaskar he always knew that after him there were probably one or maximum two people that can be relied upon, where as all of the others named here came in from settled teams with a plethora of players.

In that context where all of his own team mates struggled to make runs, SMG not jus scored but scored heavily and equally against all oppositions all over the world.

Whatever one may say about technique, quality et all, according to me he walks into any world XI right on top simply because of his ability to absorb pressure and yet thrive.

[vincent]

If Gambhir continues the way he has so far in his first 27 tests (avg 57) for another 50 matches, he will fight with Gavaskar to partner Sehwag.

Nope, he wont

He won't play another 50 test matches? or he won't fight with Gavaskar?
The first seems definitely hard given the number of tests India plays these days.

I think there are 365 days of daylight between him and Gavaskar -- no matter how many tests he plays. Thats why he wont challenge Gavaskar as the best opener in an all time XI.

I agree. There has not been an opener in India since Gavaskar, the one who can stay a day or two at the crease facing the fierce bowling of West Indies and Australia (without helmet I might add), which we do not see anymore and ensuring a respectable platform for India's innings. I do not have the statistics but I think he may have had also twice as many centuries as Gambhir at the same age.

In fact Gavaskar belongs to the opening slot of all time World XI and not that of just India.

I agree that SMG is probably is the best but most of his best centuries have come against WI team which devoid of any of the famous fast bowlers. Right away, I can recall SMG's debut series ( 1971), 1978 Home series against WI ( Marshal on debut!) , did not do too well in 75 ( home series) , 74 away series ( did well in Port of Spain) and 1983 home series ( ok performance with Delhi century being Sehwagsuqe)
Gambir of course has not played tests in most of the major test nations ( Aus, Eng, WI and SA)

What about Michael Holding? Perhaps the greatest WI bowler in terms of style and class. Here is a video of Michael. I do not know how successful Gavaskar was aganist him.

                                    <a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/MhYnYbvF9fo&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/MhYnYbvF9fo&rel=0</a>



                           

[ganavk]

SMG is certainly better than Sehwag who is better than Hayden IMO. SMG better than Hobbs is arguable but cannot be rejected outright. Remember Hobbs faced 1-2 countries in his whole career and played against 'not so good' bowlers all the time!

[Tilal]

In fact Gavaskar belongs to the opening slot of all time World XI and not that of just India.

All time words X1 - ahead of Sutcliffe, Hutton and Hobs!    SMG surely would have been in word X1  in his time , but he does not belong to all time word X1.   

In addition Sutcliffe, Hutton and Hobs,  Hayden and Sehwag are ahead as well.

Nice point Tilal.  I agree to that.

I do not have the time right now but to support your contention when he was facing the best challenge of his career in the tour's to Australia, NZ and WI in the early 80's after the post-packer era he really struggled.  Now that can be rubbed off as a blip on the rader or when one really gets to see the quality of those attacks it does tell a thing or two on his overall batting.

I am not sure of Haydo or Sehwag being much better than him - may be I can see someone like a Hayden or even Gordon Greenidge preferred over him but NOT Sehwag at this stage.   I will take Gavaskar over Sehwag as of now.

But there will be no issues based on cricketing merits that he is not in the class of Hutton and Hobbs when it comes to the all time greats openers.  I said that a few times myself on this DG.

I stumbled upon this article on cricinfo - a "scientific" way to rate openers which takes into account  home/away average,  average weighted by the quality of bowling attack, scoring rate, quality of the top 3 pace bowlers, quality of batting support etc.

Top 5 openers according these calculations:

 Sutcliffe,  Sehwag, Simpson,  GC Smith and Hobbs.


The only surprise (to me of course) is Bobby Simpson - but if you dig deeper his numbers as opener is much superior to his career avg (he was a converted opener like Sehwag).


http://blogs.cricinfo.com/itfigures/archives/2009/01/a_ranking_system_for_test_open.php

[12th_Man]

In fact Gavaskar belongs to the opening slot of all time World XI and not that of just India.

...
But there will be no issues based on cricketing merits that he is not in the class of Hutton and Hobbs when it comes to the all time greats openers.  I said that a few times myself on this DG.

I stumbled upon this article on cricinfo - a "scientific" way to rate openers which takes into account  home/away average,  average weighted by the quality of bowling attack, scoring rate, quality of the top 3 pace bowlers, quality of batting support etc.

Top 5 openers according these calculations:

 Sutcliffe, Sehwag, Simpson,  GC Smith and Hobbs.


The only surprise (to me of course) is Bobby Simpson - but if you dig deeper his numbers as opener is much superior to his career avg (he was a converted opener like Sehwag).


http://blogs.cricinfo.com/itfigures/archives/2009/01/a_ranking_system_for_test_open.php

 
You have Sehwag in there. Most wont trust it.   

[Tilal]

In fact Gavaskar belongs to the opening slot of all time World XI and not that of just India.

...
But there will be no issues based on cricketing merits that he is not in the class of Hutton and Hobbs when it comes to the all time greats openers.  I said that a few times myself on this DG.

I stumbled upon this article on cricinfo - a "scientific" way to rate openers which takes into account  home/away average,  average weighted by the quality of bowling attack, scoring rate, quality of the top 3 pace bowlers, quality of batting support etc.

Top 5 openers according these calculations:

 Sutcliffe, Sehwag, Simpson,  GC Smith and Hobbs.


The only surprise (to me of course) is Bobby Simpson - but if you dig deeper his numbers as opener is much superior to his career avg (he was a converted opener like Sehwag).


http://blogs.cricinfo.com/itfigures/archives/2009/01/a_ranking_system_for_test_open.php

 
You have Sehwag in there. Most wont trust it.   

Numbers don't lie.