Ananth, Your statistical analyses are getting more interesting by the day. Another great one. A couple of quick comments.

1) Somehow i feel that Windies era should be restricted to 1995 and Aussies should begin from 1995. More than actually the bowlers, there is something that is statistically immeasurable that adds to the threat of the bowlers - that is called the AURA. The Windies had it upto 1995 and Aussies started building it from 1995. By 2000, Windies were clearly in decline and so i think that date is stretching things too far. Same with Aussies and 1985. A conservative estimate might be 1989 for Aussies and 1997 for Windies. A hard estimate might be 1999 for Aussies and 1990 for Windies. I prefer the average somehow. But i agree that setting a start and end date is a really, really dicey decision.

Contd...
[[
I take your point. Let me wait for quite a few days and many more readers' comments before taking a final view. There is no great problem in moving the book-ends.
Ananth:
]]

Wonderful analysis Ananth. The presence of Sehwag up there is a little surprising because he did really well only in one Test against a high-quality Australian bowling attack in Chennai 2004. The rest of his knocks including the 195 and later on in 2007-08 were against comparatively weaker bowling lineups. And interestingly, Miandad's average is much lower than his career show despite he being a major contributor to Pakistan's remarkable performances in the 1980s against WI.
[[
Sehwag has three 150+ scores and quite a few middling scores against Australia. He rarely has a run of a few innings in which he fails continuously.
Miandad had only one really good series against West Indies.
Ananth:
]]

Contd...

2) Aussies and India at the top against Windies is puzzling but perhaps because you have extended the period upto 2000s. If restricted only upto 1990s, i would guess Pakistan.
[[
Yes, the period plays a significant part. Let the comments come in.
Ananth:
]]

3) These tables say the one big question mark that will remain over Inzy and Kallis. They averaged much less against the No.1 team of their era.

4) Can you add the % decrease (i assume so !) in averages of the team analysis too ? That would give a fairer understanding of how the batting unit's have done.

Ananth-
Nice analysis.
No surprises that India is on top against the rampant Aussies. as India played just 2 series in the 90s in Australia ('92 and '99) when they were really bad travellers!

On the other hand, I'm very much surprised that India is 2nd against the Windies and that Pakistan is way down the pecking order. I believe, for a long time, Pak were the only teams that could compete with the pace batteries.

I think for WI, if you restrict the range as '75-'95 (when the WI were beaten by Aussies in WI to lay claim to world-champions), would the team-performance table show different results?
[[
Pl see the responses to Yogesh. Also Miandad had many average tests against West Indies.
Ananth:
]]

sachin viru,laxman and sunny top of the ladder no surprises none of the pakistani,srilankans

Aggressive batsmen like sachin,lara,sehwag have generally done well against the dominant teams...as for the weaker batting teams like pakistan,bangladesh have been well and truly mauled...in fact there should be a separate division for these weaker teams so that the intensity of cricket is maintained...

1. How come Gavaskar is shown to have a higher adjusted average when compared to his overall average, when the corresponding numbers are 47.83 and 51.12?
[[
The ratio is between the Career average an the unadjusted average which is the real average. I did not want to show a ratio against a derived figure.
Ananth:
]]

2. If you can take the West Indies peak period from the time they best England in 1976 to the loss against Australia in 1995, who would come on top? I remember reading a lot about Greg Chappell's struggles against WI in the 1980's...
[[
Greg Chappell played in 4 series against West indies and had only one bad series, the 1981-82 one.
Ananth:
]]

3. Also as suggested by a few of our friends, if we remove the 1999 series against Australia, Im sure even Steven Waugh would drop out of the top 10...can u authenticate that?
[[
Why should we remove one odd series?
Ananth:
]]

Anyways, great reading as always...Appreciate the effort put in..

Ananth,

Excellent analysis. Puts things into perspective. This type of analysis is definitely superior to simple averages. Like the other readers would like to see the WI range end around mod-90's and Aussies start around the sme time frame. Would also like to see how the batsmen fared against SA as well...from the time they returned to international cricket.
[[
SA never had a dominating length of time as the Windians and Aussies had.
Ananth:
]]

Nice analysis so thanks for it. I wonder if the bookend for windies is restricted to 1995 then maybe it will be Australia and Pakistan jostling for the top challenger's position with India falling to a distant 3rd.
[[
I have gone more on batsmen against Ambrose/Walsh/Bishop than the results. The results might dictate an earlier cut-off.
Ananth:
]]

As has been pointed out earlier, it's analysis like this which clearly shows why a colossal player like Jacques Kallis is not universally regarded in the same bracket of greatness as SRT and Lara.

Good analysis Ananth. Will you be doing an analysis of how bowling teams fared against these champion sides?
[[
The results for Win and Aus have been analyzed in the earlier articles.
Ananth:
]]

Hope this thread is as interesting as the previous two!
Ananth: I'll go with Yogesh's conservative estimate.
Aussies : 1989 Ashes to the beginning of 2008-09 home season
West Indies : 1974-75 tour of India to 1996-97 Frank Worrell trophy in Australia.
[[
I have already discussed the reason why I extended the periods, earlier for Australia and later for Windians. More to do with the bowlers than results. There is a case for starting the AUssie period later and cutting off the West Indian period earlier.
Ananth:
]]

By the way, shouldn't we define the ratio as Adj.Avg/Career avg?
Right now, it is calculated as : Unadj.Avg/Career avg.
The former makes more sense, since the data is after all sorted based on adjusted averages.
[[
I have already replied to this. I wanted the ratio to make sense as it is, based on a real life figure. Since Gavaskar's 51 is against all opposition, his 56 against Australia ought to stand out.
However the ordering of batsmen is on the primary value, which is the adjusted average.
Ananth:
]]

Ananth

Great analysis. I think Greg Chappell did play one WSC series in the West Indies, and his average was an awesome 69!? My guess is that if you add those numbers, he'll look even better. Much, much better.

Hi Anantha,
Good analysis as usual, and this been a pet subject of mine for long. I especially appreciate the insight you have shown in separating from just West Indies / Australian bowling attack vs. top quality West Indies / Australian bowling attacks.
Yogesh’s observations are spot on: Taking on say Craig McDermott and Merv Hughes, was relatively easier than McGrath, Warne, and Co.
[[
Already responded to in detail.
Ananth:
]]

I guess the icing on this exercise would be to form a combined top 6 that could take on a hypothetical 4 bowlers unit comprising the best of Roberts, Holding, Marshall, Ambrose, McGrath, Lillee, and Warne

My order would read: Gooch, Gavaskar, Chappell, Sachin, Lara, Laxman
[[
I think you are spot on.
Ananth:
]]

Thanks.
Vasu

The very fact that ratios for most batsmen hover between 0.8 and 1.2 bolsters the theory that we discussed in previous threads, i.e
Averages are not particularly sensitive to the quality of the opposition! Agree that this is a biased sample given the 800/1000 run cutoff. But I'd still argue that the cutoff is not too high given the duration of the eras considered. So that's not a problem.
[[
The cut-off is pproximately equal to 20 innings totals, for the concerned eras.
Ananth:
]]

Key takeaway: A batsman's primary battles are against himself and to some extent conditions! The "demons" in the opposition are invariably overrated. No wonder the ratios are flat.
[[
Against top attacks the failures are more significant than the successes. A top quality batsman is likely to reach his career level +- 10% againat even the toughest of opposition. Very few batsmen would go above +125%.. But if the batsman goes below 75%, then that is significant.
Ananth:
]]

Takeaway 2: The variance of ratios is slightly higher in the Aus list as opposed to the WI list! I wonder why.
It possibly suggests the greater homogeneity in international bowling attacks back in the 80s vis-a-vis the 90s/00s, in terms of reliance on seam bowlers.
There's possibly more variation in a batsman's averages against different teams in the current era, due to the wider variety of attacks? Just a hunch.
[[
It is true that there was a sameness in the 1980s attack as compared to the 2000s one, not just Win or Aus were concerned, but across the teams.
Ananth:
]]

Yogesh: For Aus, the problem with considering '99 as a starting point is that you miss out on the best years of Shane Warne, who was possibly the most difficult bowler in either team during the years '93 to '96. He did nothing wrong during those years. Hardly bowled a bad ball. Facing the Aus attack on the 4th and 5th days was a REAL challenge during the mid-90s. Possibly a greater challenge than facing a full-strength WI new ball attack.
[[
As far as I am concerned 1990 is absolutely the latest we can go. It is those 5 years before which are dicey.
Ananth:
]]

It's interesting that hardly anybody seems to have scored a lot of runs against Aus during the mid nineties ('93 to '96). Just goes to show how dominant Warne was during those golden years of his.

Ananth
As usual a very interesting topic and incisive analysis. While Gavaskar and Vengsarkar usually stood up well to the Windies pace attack, that India collectively was the 2nd best batting team is a bit of a surprise. Logically then India should have been #3 in the world, which it wasn't. Would it mean that the batsmen stepped while playing against the Windies or that the bowling attack was too weak?
[[
Look at India's bowling during those years.
Ananth:
]]

Ananth

Another observation is that if you look at the top 5 batsmen against these 2 teams, Windies bowling was conquered by grit and pluck while Aussies bowling was dominated by flair and flamboyance. All the more interesting because the 2 teams more or less embodied the other trait:)
[[
Also the attitude shown by Aussies who were prepared to lose the odd test to increase their overall winning chances
Ananth:
]]

Perhaps Pakistan lose out because only the batsmen's performances have been taken into account. If I remember correctly, Pakistan won several Tests against the mighty Windies by bowling them out cheaply. Besides, a number of crucial batting performances came from lower middle-order batsmen like Wasim Raja and Mushtaq Mohammed in the 70s, whose overall averages across entire series (including the lost and drawn games) against the WI would perhaps not be very high.
[[
This is not an analysis of which teams did well against the Aussies and Windians. This is on batsmen who did well against those bowlers.
Ananth:
]]

As always fascinating analysis. Thank you. I would echo the comments of others that I would restrict the durations for each of the teams a bit more i.e. 1975 to 1995 and 1995 to 2008.
[[
I will concur with the possible change for Aussie start from 1995 to 1992.
Ananth:
]]

Dear Ananth,

Thanks for yet another article that will stimulate a lot of debate! :)

Prima facie, Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Junior, Steve and Martyn would have significantly underperformed (relative to career - and "significant" in the sense of Steve waugh's average against WI vs his career average) against the WI attack over a sustained period. Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, Kallicharan, Lloyd (and Richardson?) would have over - performed (relative to career) against the Aus attack. Gilchrist vs Dujon - well, interesting. WI bowling would have cleaned up the australian tail (measured on underperforming extrapolation) while WI tail would have got a few runs against the Aust attack.

Looking forward to a 5 test series between them :)
[[
Depens on the locations. If Sydney and Eden Gardens are included, I fancy Aussis chances in both. Only at (old) Kinston would West Indies be clear favourites. I think 1 3-2 result in favour of one team (great insight you might say !!!).
Ananth:
]]

I believe that the reason Pakistani batsmen performed worse against the West Indies was because a different type of series was play, whereby West Indies could not afford to lose any tests as they found themselves trailing Pakistan in both the 1987/8 series. Thus, with all guns blazing, on quick pitches, or dusty reverse swinging ones, the match was more who can last out longer against two pretty exceptional bowling attacks, whereas India played on more batsmen friendly pitches against the West Indies when in India. When in West Indies,unless the match resulted in a highscoring draw, it seemed that only one of the Indian batsmen would get a memorable score, rather than a whole host of them. This is similar to a lot of otyher teams during the eighties, in which 1 batsman would score a high percentage of runs whilst the rest did not perform as well.
[[
Yes, it is true. India would never have set a seamer-friendly track since they had only Kapil then. However, my gut feel is that, if we go by results against West Indies, Pakistan would be ahead.
Ananth:
]]

Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, Kallicharan, Lloyd (and Richardson?) would have over - performed (relative to career) against the Aus attack

Aditya: What's the basis for this hypothesis?
Barring the odd Pak attack, none of them faced any attack as well-balanced as the Aus attack between '93 and '07, during their entire careers.

Prima facie, Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Junior, Steve and Martyn would have significantly underperformed (relative to career

Again, this sounds cynical. I'll back these batsmen to score well as a unit in both Aus and WI. The one place where they might struggle a bit is in England where the ball moves around a lot. Aussies have never been too comfortable against the moving ball.
But then, Aus is not going to play any mythical tests against WI in England!

This article of yours clearly shows that kallis is nowhere near
the class of Sachin and lara even though kallis is a good player.
Some people in comment section keep on trying to prove that kallis
is better than sachin but all along everybody knew the class of Sachin and Lara and your analysis has just proved it.thank you..
[[
Pl do not use my article to support such observations.
The comments by readers were on the value of Kallis as a player. In that regard, he is exceptional. Even as a batsman his overall record is comparable to SRT. Only against Australia does he drop off.
Ananth:
]]

Ananth: There could be a case for adding Sidhu as he scored 3 centuries against WI (2 away) during the period taken for this analysis (1975-2000). He made 718 runs @34.19 as against a career average of 42. (don’t know the adjusted average would work out). And since you have added others with averages b/w 26 and 35 against WI, Sidhu can be added to the list and he faced very good attacks in debut series and 1989 return series in WI.
[[
An exceptional adding of one player would mean such suggestions for others.
Ananth:
]]

@Shri, how’s you!, 4G Internet network (so called fastest in the world) has been crashing here often so not been able to take up some points in Ananth’s prev blogs.

While this analysis has proved a lot of things, it also shows how 2 Aussie titans “escaped” trips to select countries and end up being called all-time greats and also the fact that statistics does hide many facts. Greg C., due to circumstances (Packer and cricket calendar anomalies) did not have to face India in India and WI in WI and Lillee willfully and cos of Packer did not tour a few countries (just 6 wickets in WI, SL and Pak! –although only having played 5 combined Tests in these countries). At least, the same cannot be said about Warne and Ponting who were dismal against India in India but still kept coming to challenge themselves and try and conquer the composition and conditions (Ponting just about redeemed himself on his 5th tour finally with a century in 2010).Gooch’s record is quite fantastic and as I had mentioned earlier nearly spanned the full era of the WI pace dominance.
[[
Chappells practiced, or were allowed to practice, selective tours. However they were the losers by not doing that.
Anyhow coming on top of a table in my inconsequential blog does not confer the title of greatness. Based on the crireia set, Chappell is at no.1. However don't forget all his innings against West indies have been downgraded by 5%.
Despite Chappell's placement at no.1, as far as I am concerned Gooch was the best.
Ananth:
]]

It’s remarkable how all the other courageous (apart from the expected peerless Gavaskar) Indian batsmen such as Amarnath, Vengsarkar, Shastri, Gaekwad landed up in the list against WI pace. Gaekwad was the Mike Atherton (or vice-versa!) of that era chosen to open mostly against pace-oriented attacks. The averages as in the case of Atherton might not showcase the guts, fortitude and skills required to tackle the WI pace demons. Shastri, as I have been mentioning has a remarkable away record as an opener and just “gutsed” (his fav term) it out without bothering about strike rate while facing WI, Eng and Auz. Vengsarkar, as I have mentioned has simply not been lauded despite his quite fantastic returns against WI overall was cos of missing out on a century in the WI (coming close in 1983 with 94). Amarnath’s twin series performance against WI and Pak for a combined 1000 plus runs in 1983 (both away) is part of Indian Test history folklore.

Kapil (in the same list), of course I rated as the most naturally talented batsman (Yes!) of India during the 80s and excelled (rather thrashed WI pace attacks with impunity both in Tests and ODIs) against WI as per his whims and moods (and not discipline unlike top-order batsmen). Kapil actually deserves a unique place in ODI history for maintaining a stupendous strike rate of 95 (and better than V Richards) in that ERA- considered almost impossible cos of the way how ODIs were played, mindset of batsmen and the generally conservative scores piled up in 50/60 overs (compared to 2000 and beyond).

“Warne did nothing wrong during those years. Hardly bowled a bad ball. It's interesting that hardly anybody seems to have scored a lot of runs against Aus during the mid nineties ('93 to '96). Just goes to show how dominant Warne was during those golden years of his.”

Lucky Warne! No series against India precisely during that period. As for bad balls, I always wondered how most bad balls were bowled only against India by Warne. Or rather all his good balls were tackled with ease (by 3 generations of Indian batsmen such as Shastri, Azhar,Sidhu SRT, Laxman,Sehwag). Only Dravid and Ganguly had some problems against him (though Ganguly always looked to attack him in 1999 series in OZ).
[[
No player in history has performed at the top level against all opponents in all conditions. So we have to accept such caveats.
Ananth:
]]

I echo the huge dominating periods that you've set are a little too big. WI from 1975 to 1995 and Aus from 1995 to 2008 seems better.
[[
1975 to 1995 and 1992 to 2008 looks about the right years.
Between the first Aus-Ind test in 1991-2 and last Aus-Eng test in 1995, Aus played 39 tests and won 18, drew 13 and lost 8 (63%). They played 10 series and won 5, drew 3 and lost 2. These good numbers justify moving back the Aus start to Test # 1177.
Ananth:
]]

And I wouldn't rule out taking SA from say 1995 to 2001 either. Donald, Pollock and Fanie De Villers(to an extent) backed up by superb fielding.. I'd rather pick SA then Aus as the dominating team with this 6 year period. The fact that their batting was weaker compared to Aus but the results were about even(or maybe even better, will have to check it out) only shows that their bowling and fielding was fantastic. They also had good support bowlers in Kallis and Cronje. The only thing is that they lacked a world-class spinner but so did WI in their prime time.

Your articles have suddenly hit topics which are very interesting. This article has been informative though results were along expected lines. A few observations

1. I think the cutoffs are fairly decent. The 1999 series was evenly contested by WIN and AUS. Ambrose and Walsh ensured that and Lara provided the batting support.

2. In the 90s WIN fought AUS for supremacy and AUS emerged on top. Hence the overlap in periods. This was the most sought after series in the 90s. It was close till Ambrose retired and Lara & Walsh lost all support.

3. 2000s were a tussle between Ind-Aus (Most keenly contested bilateral series) where IND has finally dominated towards the end. However, if it marks a dramatic change in supremacy is yet to be seen.

4. This relates to the weights you have applied in the adjustments. A 10% diff. for home and away is slightly less. I would favour +/-10%. Also the avg of bowlers are not in linear relation. An avg. of 25 is more than 20% better than 30.
[[
I feel personally that while a 10% differential might be slightly less, 20% is too much. We are talking of good teams. Not any weak team for whom 20% differential might be justified.
I understand that each differential of 1 below 25 is that much more difficult to achieve. I could complicate matters by working out a gradually increasing weight as the averages go below 25. But probably for a more all-inclusive analysis.
Ananth:
]]

“An exceptional adding of one player would mean such suggestions for others. Ananth”
Ananth, you did add Border, Jones and Reiffel later on merit in previous blog. My issue is not with the addition of an odd player, just that I foresee these 3 consecutive blogs (Caribbean Titans, Aussie Greats and now Best Batting performers) to become as vital reference points for future cricket historians and given the overwhelming popularity and influence of these being posted on cricinfo portal. Just that future fans, enthusiasts and even connoisseurs (not all of whom have the patience or resilience of dip sticking or ferreting out player stats) might think that Sidhu (or whoever else not on this list by default) had never performed against WI. When facts are otherwise.
[[
Let me put in another way. 718 at 34 does not make it worthwhile to do the exception. 718 at 50 might be worthwhile.
Ananth:
]]

Ananth:on that note, is there a case for tweaking your blog title of “Eight genial giants: a pictorial view across 28 years” to Eight West Indian/Caribbean Genial Giants Across 28 Years.” to epitomize the cricket entity WI (and so as to garner even more clicks and readership at later dates) just like your blog “24 Great Australians…” clearly has Australia in title and so represents Australia.

Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, Kallicharan, Lloyd (and Richardson?) would have over - performed against the Aus attackBarring the odd Pak attack, none of them faced any attack as well-balanced as the Aus attack between '93 and '07, during their entire careers.
WI in 1988 and 90 (without Lloyd of course) faced much better balanced attacks against Pak . You don’t get much better balance, variety and perhaps in attack than Imran, Waqar, Wasim and Qadir. In fact in 1 match they also had 1 offie to make it possibly the most varied attack in Test history comprising left arm fast Wasim, right arm fast Waqar, leggie Mushtaq and offie Raja (lordly Imran practically had stopped bowling after 1989 playing as an orthodox top-order batsman). Even leggie Mushtaq replaced Qadir to complement the 2 Ws in 1992-93 tour of WI. For that matter even in 1986 in Pak, Pak had Wasim, Imran (at peak), offie Tauseef and leggie Qadir against WI. So for about 6-7 years between 1986- 1994 or CONTD.

thereabouts (which is a fairly long period in Tests), Pakistan has had balanced attacks accounting for their very good Test performances (if not outright dominant ones).
Just the addition of leggie Warne to complement generally Aussie seamers/pace during your period metioned does not only make for an well-balanced as Aussie attacks (though Bevan, Border at various times added variety as effective part-timers).

While a lot of effort goes into these type of analyses,it does injustice to the immeasurable.How many of the great knocks can match Vishwanath's 97* at Chennai in 75-76...and in the performance in the just previous match at Kolkata if i am right?...and performances on other occassions against them and other quality sides around the world...with all due respect to some of the others,how many of them can claim to have won test matches against the mighty windies on their own batting?...even 3-4 match winning performances against such an imposing side and those days of less intl. cricket should do enough to qualify the likes of Vishwanath among greats...but when such analyses discounts them and fails to give the perspective to the present generation,one has to question their need in the first place.
[[
Very narrow view. One wonderful innings by Vishwanath is brought into the discussion and is used to invalidate the entire analysis, the theme of which is quite different. Which batsmen faced the awesome bowlers of West Inies and Australia the best. There is no doubt Vishwanath has done that. But there are others who have also done it often and consistently. If the discussion was on the best innings played against West Indies, I can assure you the 97 would come in. It was the highest sub-100 innings in the Wisden-Hallmark-100. But we are not talking of innings.
Ananth:
]]

1)
Nice to see Chanderpaul there. Just shows how quietly he went about doing his thing- although completely overshadowed by Lara’s flash and genius. At least Dravid often gets his due- Chanderpaul never seems to.
Also ,surprising seeing Ijaz Ahmed within the top. I recall him as being somewhat of a hacker- A slightly cruder form of a Sehwag.

2)
In any case fine observation by “ Sudarshan P.N. at May 5, 2011 4:37 PM”- Seems to be quite right and I wonder why so.

3)
Ananth, regarding the old saw about “bowling quality”- since we are considering essentially the “top batsmen” would it make sense to only consider how bowlers bowled against the 1-6 batsmen – and use those stats in determining the best bowlers?
I say this again because of the old examples of averages,strike rates etc. A bowler may have his strike rates, averages etc improve because of performances vs. lower order batmsen.
Using performances against just the 1-6 batsmen may atleast it may help differentiate between the old problem regarding bowlers with the same average but different strike rates.
[[
Other than dismissals which I almost always take into account in my bowling evaluations, where is the actual data of bowling at top order batsmen.
Ananth:
]]

The quality aspect of your analyses is certainly on the up! It is this kind of statistical analysis that a fan can use in his discussion. Not just those career average and team average numbers. Wonderful work!

I have one particular request. Often I have fought with my friends that Ponting's innings' haven't come against the same kind of quality bowlers like Sachin's or Dravid's. (Like for example : Ponting vs a Pakistan containing both Wasim & Waqar, or a Ponting against a SA containing Donald / Pollock). Have I missed such an analysis or if you haven't, can you take my request?
[[
The average quality of bowling faced by Tendulkar is 35.11, Ponting 34.18 and Dravid 34.65. So you are probably not correct in your assumption. Ponting has faced top quality bowling.
Just to compare the figures for Jayawardene is 36.48 and Sangakkara 36.62.
Continuing further, the best is Atherton 31.82. Gooch and Stewart are just above this.
Ananth:
]]

I have re-posted the figures with a slight tweak of the cut-offs. I have been influenced by Yogesh's and Shrikanth's suggestions and these changes more or less follow these.
Win: 764 (1975) to 1371 (1997).
Aus: 1121 (1989) to 1879 (2008).
There are no major changes other than that Gooch's adjusted average has crossed 50.

With cricket, and other sports, what we still have to remember is that excellent performances against one side does not translate into matchwinning performances. If Graeme Gooch is scoring 153 out of a total of 270, no opposition will mind that too much. I was wondering whether you could look at players, who more often than not, seemed to contribute to their country's cause in drawing or winning when it came to playing these powerhouses.
[[
Oh! the opponents would certainly have to mind Gooch's innings since it came in a match the following were the scores.
Eng: 198, Win: 173, Eng: 252 (Gooch 154) and Win: 162.
Ananth:
]]

Because, there has always been a Big Match factor, especially in someone like Kevin Pietersen, who, depite his over acheivement in England's wilderness after the 2005 ashes did not seem to pull off wins for England or help raise the games of players around him, in the way Viv Richards, post Clive Lloyd seemed to, albeit, with a far stronger team than Kev's.

@Hariharan Sriram
I would agree with you.The “mathematical” averages of bowling quality faced as calcultated in this blog notwitstanding. This bit about bowling quality is a long standing issue and is a far from finished product. A few simple excercises:

1)How Ponting has fared vs. the same team India – in Australia avg. 79.4 , in India 26.5 (similar bowling quality.) Factors such as home/away are not accounted for in bowling quality.

2)Tendulkar’s long career has seen him play more matches vs. minnows too such as Bangladesh. This would brought down his “overrall” bowling quality faced. But this does not mean that facing all those guys in the ‘90s was easier than what Ponting and co. faced in the 2000s.

3)”Form” a vital ingredient for most players is also not yet factored in. Facing Donald/Pollock in top form is quite a different from playing them when they are past their primes etc.

There are several other such points and the bowling quality thing has been a long standing issue. Take it with a pinch of salt. In my opinion if Tendulkar had debuted in the mid ‘90s and stayed injury free his stats would be in the stratosphere by now.
[[
But not 32000 runs or 100 centuries !!!
Ananth:
]]

Good analysis. A typo, Ananth.

"during the 2000s, India have been the most successful team against India"

Dear Ananth,

You seem to be working overtime, isn't it? Wonderful Analysis.

Kindly correct the follwing typing mistake in the above analysis:

-In team analysis against WI, ENGLAND is the only other team averaging above 30 against WI and not NZ, as you have mentioned in the para below the Team Table.

2)

great analysis and lots of talking points. Is it worth adding in a factor for support? e.g. India = Tendulkar+Sehwag+laxman+Dravid+ . . . .; WI = Lara+100.
[[
A very good point. Maybe worthwhile looking at in a more composite analysis.
Ananth:
]]

Brilliant analysis Ananth,
Another very good analysis. I urge all readers to applaud Ananth's patience, drive and capabilities to incorporate vastly different and interesting ideas and requests into a logically correct and statistically involved analysis. Needs a lot of thought and time put in. My commendations to you.
Now to the article at hand. At the risk of sounding a pedant I ask if there are ball-by-ball records available for these matches. They will tell how many balls from these top bowlers each batsman faced (BF). The BF will be particularly higher for opening batsmen.
As I type I am thinking that batsmen no. 3 and 4 might also have a considerable BF if the openers were dismissed early (which must have happened regularly). Still the no. 3 and 4 will have faced 1 top quality bowler (brought on for the 2nd spell in tandem with say a spinner or a change bowler) not 2.
I emphasise this really isn't a request to put down/up any one batsman.
[[ Thanks for the compliments. These mean a lot for me.
Have repeated this often. The b-b-b data is available with Wisden-Cricinfo for the past 10 years. It is proprietary data and not open to the public. Even in the 5% chance that I could gain access, the formats would be totally incompatible.
Derivation of this type of analysis from scorecard data is a task beset with pitfalls, most of which would be unclear now.
Ananth:
]]

Ananth, An interesting observation is how Gavaskar, Gooch, Javed, Azhar and Sachin have faced and fared against BOTH the strong bowling attacks! Also surprised a bit abou Vaughan's rank against Australia and that Stuart Broad is above Freddie Flintoff vs Aus.
[[
I do not see Stuart Broad's name at all in the table. It is the father Broad. Even he is not there in the revised report with different cut-offs which will be uploaded shortly.
Ananth:
]]

Looking at the list of batting performances against Australia, the presence of a lot of Indian names does not come as a surprise to many. I suggest that in one of your future analyses, you do a comparative assesments of cricket's all time most powerful batting line ups. It would be interesting to know how Sehwag + fab4 compare with some of the best batting line us ever like the 1948 Aussies and the Windies of the 1970s and 1980s.
[[
How is it that I have done the exact analysis you have asked for a few months back and you have missed it. Please look at the recent posts.
Ananth:
]]

Ananth,

I really appreciate your reader friendliness and patience in responding to all comments as well as incorporating them.

@Shrikanth, Yes, Warne was at his best from '93 to '96. I used to get up early morning to watch him. But Aussies were not messing up opposition minds even before entering the field itself. They were thrashed in India in the one off test in 96 and the '98 series. But from '99 on, they did frighten the opposition before setting foot on the field. Same with Windies before and after 1990s. Of course, acquisition of the "Aura" is not a sudden process. The bowling attack's aura is increased by the batting line-up and vice-versa. It is tricky to set a good starting date for it. My 2 cents : For Aussies, it started from early 1990s and by 1999, undoubtedly they had it. With Windies, they started losing it around 1990's and by 1997, they lost it totally. I would not crib if anyone bookends with either of the dates.
[[
You would have seen my modifications.
While Australia 1989-95 were not the same they were during the next 10 years, it is essential for us to look the 1989-2005 period since this is a batsmen-centric article and McDermott/Warne/McGrath are key boelers in thsi anslysis.
Similarly even though West Indies had lost their sting by early 1990s, it is essential to get to 1997 since Ambrose/Walsh/Bishop were still bowling during these later years.
I think the current cut-offs are very good.
Ananth:
]]

@Ananth,

I am perhaps asking too much of you but if possible do put up tables with the hard cut-off dates i.e, 1999 for Aussies and 1990 for Windies. I can completely understand if you ignore this request.
[[
Problem, Yogesh, is not the work. However incorporating these in the article is tough. What I may do is to do the work and put them up as a link. I may not be able to do this immediately since I am travelling for four days. Probably on Wednesay. I will try for tonight.
Ananth:
]]

Yogesh, I liked your request of really looking only at the real peak periods of these two teams. DSo I have completed the tables and provided a link for these at the end of the article. This was a valuable request since it has enabled England to be shown as the best performer against Australia during these years. This is not including the recent win.

To all readers:
I will be out of station for four days starting Saturday. So my perusal of comments would be sporadic since I have to depend on the notorious Tata Photon connection which may play truant in Kerala.
Do not worry. Come what may, all your comments would be seen and responded to.

On the subject of Kallis, a couple of points:

Firstly the cut off date just misses the two series South Africa played Australia at the end of 2008 where he averaged 48.

Also his average jumps more than anyone above him, meaning that he played against higher quality attacks than Tendulkar and Lara did.

I lament for Alex who triggered this off with comments about the "real" australian and WI attacks. My own assessment was to filter out the real WI as the ones which included Holding. He was invariably accompanied by another good quality bowler like Roberts, and at other times, Clarke, Daniel, Croft, Garner. Similarly, the strongest Australian attacks were the ones which included McGrath+Warne or McGrath + Gillespie etc. This is what your analysis of great Australians brought out last month. The attacks even within that team varied greatly, which is how i am isolating McGrath + Gillespie+ Warne/McGill as the best combos.

I think, against WI, it should be GS Chappell, Gooch, Gavaskar and Wasim Raja. Against the "real" Australians, it should be Saeed Anwar, Laxman, Lara.

Gavaskar's 205 etc will be filtered out if one takes only elite attacks. If one defines periods and includes all attacks, the picture is clouded. Lastly, Ambrose's last great series was 96-97 OZ. Afterwards he slowed

How can we include attacks like the 1997-98 australian attack, which had no real fast bowler? Agree warne was there, though with a damaged shoulder. But Warne is not equal to Warne + McGrath + Gillespie. Further, against that attack, Tendulkar made many runs, but so did Azharuddin, a player noted for inability to face top pace.
My point is that if one makes a harsh cut-off of what constitutes a top quality attack, by looking at which bowlers were there, and carefully considering their peak periods, the result will be different than considering bowling quality measured by average.

One reader has pointed out "match winning innings". Was Gavaskar's 220 (maiden double century) one? Not really. But was it an innings of significance? You bet. It won the series for us, and was practically a lone hand. But not against an elite attack, so all such attacks must be removed, for this analysis to bring out performence against elite attacks. So Ananth, good work, but totally disagree.
[[
I think you are way off mark.
If we start taking attack after attack saying this guy was not there that guy was not there etc we will be left with 23 Tests in which there were four quality bowlers, the match was relevant and the batsmen played match-winning innings.
I am not doing innings anal;ysis here but an analysis of the bowling attacks over a time span and which batsmen played well across years. What you want is totally different.
I have to take Laxman's 281 at face value, played at home and against a very good bowling attack. That is all. I cannot bring in the other relevant (but not to this analysis) aspects like match-result, position at entry, lead faced, follow-on, support received, series status et al.
And where is Warne's shoulder injury recorded in a scorecard.
Anyhow the addendum asked for by Yogesh has answered a number of your quesries.
Ananth:
]]

This is excellent - congratulations! You have to publish all your work as a book.
You mentioned earlier that an analyses for bowlers against these teams was done earlier. I can't find it - can you post a link? It would be great to compare and have both bowling and batting as a set.
[[
The previous two articles analyzed the careers of the two sets of bowlers. However that was on overall graphical look and not an in-depth analysis. Maybe such an analysis is warranted.
Ananth:
]]

Lucky Warne! No series against India precisely during that period.

Correlation does not imply causation!
Anyone who "knows his Warne" will tell you that he was at his best during the mid-nineties prior to the '96 World Cup.

In '96, he had the finger injury and later the shoulder injury in '98. He was a very weak force during the years '96 to '01 thanks to injuries. Unfortunately, he played a lot against India during that period.

Post '01, he returned with a vengeance thanks to his fitness which improved. However, he still wasn't quite the bowler of '95.
You could say that he lost his flipper almost completely. The Wrong-un became rarer than ever before. Yet, Warne being Warne managed to take another 300 wickets in the present millennium!
That's the stuff legends are made of.

How can we include attacks like the 1997-98 australian attack, which had no real fast bowler?

Fair enough. But Gerry - we shouldn't be bothered by blips to the extent that we ignore the larger trend.

The '98 attack against India was weak I agree. But in '97, McGrath and Gillespie were in top form against England!
Same thing holds for Warne between '93 and '95.
The Reiffell-McGrath-Warne combo was a damn good attack in '95 against WI.

The '90-91 attack of Reid-McDermott was more than a handful against a decent England side.

That's why we got to consider the era as a whole.

Gerry
I fully understand where you are coming from. Vaughn,Lara and Laxman have had their best ever series vs. the “real” attacks you speak of. But somewhere along the line they seemed to have slipped vs. the apparently “not so real” attacks Aus. put up over the years.
Re. Warne, Tendulkar has pasted him from debut to retirement. Yes ,he did have a shoulder prob. in between there. But the same was the issue in the ’99 WI series where Lara ruled and Warne was way off, Mcgrath overbowled ,Gillespie hardly a “legend” then with less than 50 wickets etc. As Ananth has stated so often he is looking purely at the scorecards.
[[
Lest someone may get the impression that I cannot do these derivations, let me state that I can do and have done the calculations relating to aspects like contribution to match-result, position at entry, lead faced, follow-on, support received, series status et al, using the scorecards. It is just that this was not such an analysis.
However injuries or on-and-off-the-field distractions, certainly no.
Ananth:
]]

In the 2 full series vs. the “real” Aus attacks Tendulkar has avg. 46 “away” and 51 at “home”. In these 2 series there were several dicey decisions. In the 2004 series, Tendulkar wasn’t supposed to play in the first place due to injury rehabiltation- but was dragged out for the last 2 Tests. No wonder he performed miserably.What about those injuries? Where do we draw the line?
As Ananth has often stated , once we go down that road- then the objectivity vanishes.

Michael
I suggest you ignore the “anti” Kallis comments.The guy is an alltime great. As others have pointed out, as the greats get the “hang” of bowlers over time, however good the bowlers may be, they have the skills to adapt . Kallis , if he had played vs. Aus more and more would have adapted.He may well be “boring” to watch relative to some of the more gifted geniuses- but he is a Fort.

Jim
Et tu Brute? As mentioned, What about poor Chanders? Feller avg. 50+ against the best Australia has to offer and again he simply seems to fade into the shadows.

@gerry the merry

good that you made apoint abt warne shoulder injury. did u comfortably forget that warne was dropped during 1999 series against wi due to poor form. then how come lara have had big series against the real australians

@gerry the merry

good that you made apoint abt warne shoulder injury. did u comfortably forget that warne was dropped during 1999 series against wi due to poor form and was replaced by macgill for one test match. then how come lara have had big series against the real australians. Point to note abt ur injury thing sachin palyed with one hand during 2004 series. every player plays with niggles and there is no point in complaining abt those.

Greg C., due to circumstances (Packer and cricket calendar anomalies) did not have to face India in India and WI in WI and Lillee willfully and cos of Packer did not tour a few countries (just 6 wickets in WI, SL and Pak! –although only having played 5 combined Tests in these countries)

Pallab: I sense a strong anti-Australian (or dare i say anti-western) streak in you!

Do you seriously think Chappell would have found Indian conditions of the late 70s/80s a great challenge? What with the declining spin trinity and a raw Kapil on the flattest tracks imaginable?

The analogy with Warne and Ponting is misplaced. Warne and Ponting had to battle against FAR superior Indian sides than the ones that were around in the late 70s/early 80s.
[[
Chappells not touring India was a personal decision and not because of any fear factor. In fact late 70s/early 80s was the time when touring India was the easy option to pick up loads of runs.
Ananth:
]]

Re Lillee: The series against Pak in '79-80 was perhaps his ONLY failure in a 14 yr career at the top. He toured WI only in '72-73 I think. That's when he suffered potentially career-threatening injuries. It would be churlish to hold that performance against the man.

Here's a guy who averaged 5 wickets per test in an era when his side boasted of several wicket takers! What more can one ask for.
I can't readily think of any other bowler with that kind of a wickets/test ratio who played in a side as strong as Lillee's Australian sides!

Lastly, let's not forget Lillee was the man who made fast-bowling fashionable yet again at the dawn of the 70s when it seemed the art was on the verge of decline. By the late 60s, Hall and Griffith had quit the scene. Aus had McKenzie, England had Snow. That was about it. India was showing the world that it was possible to compete with spinners alone. Suddenly Lillee emerged and changed the face of the game for the next 20 years!

@ Yash Rungta `And I wouldn't rule out taking SA from say 1995 to 2001 either...I'd rather pick SA then Aus as the dominating team with this 6 year period.`

Not quite sure what cricketing universe you were living in. Between 1995 and Feb 2002 Oz played SAf in 4 test series (2 in Oz, 2in SAf). Australia won all 4. Australia won 8 tests, 2 were drawn, South Africa won 2 tests - both dead rubbers.

@Pallab. I note with interest your claim that the Australian `titan` G.S.Chappell `escaped` tours of the West Indies (your inverted commas). Apart from his well-earned place at the top of Ananth`s table, and as @Pragmatic pointed out earlier, he did in fact tour the Windies for 5 Supertests in 1978/9. Against possibly the most fearsome bowling attack of all time (Holding, Garner, Roberts, Croft, Daniel) he averaged almost 70, and scored 620 runs, including 3 centuries. In the 5 test series, the next highest run scorer (including Lloyd, I Chappell, IVA Richards, Greenidge, Haynes) was Roy Fredericks with 360 at an average of 45. Only 5 other centuries were made in the series. At this time the pitches in the West Indies were probably the fastest in the world.

It is not without reason that many Australians regard him as our greatest after Bradman, and one of the greats of all time.
[[
And a graceful batsman to boot. Unfortunately he blotted his batting sheet with his up-and-down coaching stint in India. WSC Tests could be considered as a foot-note.
Incidentally in the period considered Chappell scored nearly 900 runs in the first 7 tests, upto end of 1979, at an average of nearly 90. He failed later and still had a 57 average..
Ananth:
]]

Not quite sure what cricketing universe you were living in. Between 1995 and Feb 2002 Oz played SAf in 4 test series (2 in Oz, 2in SAf). Australia won all 4. Australia won 8 tests, 2 were drawn, South Africa won 2 tests - both dead rubbers

Heh. Boll! You echoed my thoughts!
Aus has always had the better of SA until '08-09 when they lost at home, thus signaling the end of the Australian equivalent of Pax Brittanica!

There is simply NO comparison whatsoever.
A lot of people have this misconception about SA as a cricketing superpower during the 90s based on their ODI record! But we're talking tests here. Not pyjama cricket.

@Ananth: Thanks for a very informative article. Like all, it also has its caveats (e.g., Gerry's observation on the Aussie attack of '98 in Ind).

1. However, it does address the most important aspect: what is really important is that the _teams_ (WI circa '76-'97 and Aus circa '91-'07) were truly great, often --- but not always --- supported by great bowling attacks.

2. On that ground, I would discount the performances against Packer series depleted WI ... it wasn't a case of one or two top players missing (e.g., McGrath & Gillespie vs Ind in '98) but fully 6-7 top players missing.

3. Is Gerry claiming that Anwar was better vs the real Aussies? Anwar was a class act but not above SRT. Ponting got it right when he said a few months back that VVS and SRT are undoubtedly the two batsmen who have hurt Aussies the most over a number of years. Perhaps he should have added Lara to that list.

It is not without reason that many Australians regard him as our greatest after Bradman, and one of the greats of all time.

Well said. It is strange that Chappell's name does not crop up as often as it should while discussing the greatest of Post-War batsmen. Another similarly overlooked figure is Neil Harvey from the 50s. In my opinion, these two are the greatest Australian batsmen since Bradman. With Ponting being a close third.

Ananth: I don't see how the coaching stint can possibly "blot his batting sheet"!!
[[
A better wording would have been "Chappell's image was spoilt". There is no doubt that quite a few Indians see Chappell through the coaching "coloured glasses" and that influences their judgement of him as a top-flight batsman.
Ananth:
]]

Definitely, an analysis of the best bowlers against these two great teams is warranted
As it is, this analysis is only batsmen and that's half the fun. How did Donald, Wasim, Hadlee, Willis, Lillee and the rest do against these teams? I want to know!

And finally @Pallab, your sarcastic application of the term `titan` to the great DK Lillee is quite simply without any justification. He toured the Windies in the 78/79 series, and took 23 wickets (one fewer than Holding, the highest wicket-taker) at 28, and suffered an almost career-ending injury in his only other chance to tour. Quite apart from his statistics in a particular series, or over a memorable career, interviews such as this reveal the stature of the player, and the man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOkalrwRA6c

Sir Richard Hadlee talks about DK.

@shrikanthk - regarding my comments about (in general) Aust batsmen under performing (rel to career) when facing the WI and WI batsmen over-performing when facing the Aust attack, it is based on 2 observations. One, look at the runs/wkt for top batsmen. Batsmen have done much better against the Aust attack than against the WI attack. Two, look at the packet tests. It was extremely difficult to bat against the WI attack. As a team, no one dominated that attack.
[[
However please remember that the Australian attack was more balanced. As Shri would say, it is difficult to dominate an attack if four giants keep on coming at you over after over 75 times a day.
Also remember that the overall Australian results were better. At one stretch of 50 Tests they achieved over 90%.
Ananth:
]]

Ananth,

Always enjoy reading your insightful analyses. Couple of comments/suggestions:

1) Two of the greatest batsmen in the history of the game Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock missed out against the two great attacks that you mentioned. Is there any possible way to predict (statistically of course) how well they might have fared against these outstanding bowlers had SA not been isolated from international cricket? (Possibly by using their first-class/WSC records as a basis?)

2) It would have been a mouth-watering proposition for the all-conquering SA team of the 1970s to have taken on these AUS/WI teams. Is there any way you could similarly predict the performance of that great SA team against the other great teams of the era (1970-92) when they were banned from cricket? (Again, by possibly extrapolating the first-class records of their players?)

I know this is an enormously difficult proposition but would really appreciate any analyses that could provide some insight.
[[
As and when I get my Test simulation going I can provide wings to such flights of fancy, wonderful they are.
Ananth:
]]

Ananth-
This is an outstanding piece of analysis.
It is indeed a matter of regret that one never got to see Greg Chappell play in India. After the 69-70 tour by Bill Lawry's team, India did not play the Aussies until 77-78 (in Aus) during which Chappell was in the Packer series. Kim Hughes' team toured India thereafter without Greg C (or for that matter Lillee/Thomson as well). The 74-75 and 83 WI teams to tour India were a treat to watch. Also, great to see the elegant left-hander David Gower in the top 12 against WI.

Ananth, the point is 1) i am saying the same thing as you - not to consider match conditions, results, winning innings etc but be blind to all that 2) not to include attacks like the 1979 packer depleted West Indians or the 1997-98 Australians merely because of their falling in the period of dominance, but instead exclude them because they did not include the elite set of bowlers (e.g. an attack of only Warne cannot be compared to McGrath + Gillespie + Warne, or Holding/Roberts or Marshall / Garner).

Anwar did score a hat-trick of centuries against this attack, but while it elevates him in a narrow sense (vs elite Aussie attacks) to the top of the heap, he just did not deliver the numbers needed to qualify a comparison with the greats like Tendulkar against all teams. Same with Wasim Raja.

I would say that all attacks with two or more outstanding bowlers should be included, including Wasim Waqar, Imran Qadir, Donald Pollock. But not once they have passed their peak. So pre-83 Imran

Batsmen have done much better against the Aust attack than against the WI attack.

Aditya: Look. That's true. But that's not a reflection on the Aussie attack. It is a reflection on the difference in the eras.
In the 90s/00s, overrates were markedly better than they were in the 80s. Pitches, in general, got better for batting across the world (besides India possibly, where we started making pitches to suit Kumble). Helmets came along. Umpires become tougher on bouncers and physical intimidation. All that accounts for the difference in the batting averages between the 80s and 90s/00s.

Ofcourse, the Australian strokemakers might have had lower career averages had they played in the 80s. Yet, there is no reason to believe that their performance against WI vis-a-vis their hypothetical 80s career average would've been too different.

Another observation is that if you look at the top 5 batsmen against these 2 teams, Windies bowling was conquered by grit and pluck while Aussies bowling was dominated by flair and flamboyance. All the more interesting because the 2 teams more or less embodied the other trait:)

Sudarshan: Firstly, in the last line, are you equating WI with "Flair" and Aus with "Grit and Pluck"?
That would be unfair to both WI and Aus!

I think the WI team was more conservative than it is generally given credit for being. What with their reliance on pace and toleration of slow overrates. Aus was definitely a less risk-averse slide. Especially the ones under Taylor, who often used to declare sportingly to give Warne a chance to have a go at the opposition on the 5th day.

You often saw them choosing aggressive option of two spinners on turning pitches, instead of playing safe with 3 steady seamers. Based on what I've seen and read, it appears Aus was less averse to losing than WI!

TBC

WI attack does seem more "utilitarian" in approach compared to the Aussie attack. Raw pace-short of a length-on and around off stump.

The Aussie bowlers offered more run-scoring opportunities, primarily because of the presence of a spinner.
Warne was so very different from a conventional leggie. Typically, a leg spinner bowls a middle-and-off stump line, making it difficult for the batsman to work him on the leg side. Warne's line was fundamentally more aggressive, drifting the ball to leg often from over the wicket, without necessarily having a packed leg-side field.

This naturally offered batsmen more opportunities to work him on the leg side as Laxman did so well in '01. A more conservative-minded leggie would have changed his line to off-stump and enjoyed better economy rates. But not Warne.

This guy loved taking wickets. No wonder he was dominated by batsmen who loved to hit the ball around! No way Warne would allow a batsman to "grind" his way to glory! He was too proud!

@Boll: Yeah I agree, with head to head analysis, South Africa are a no contest for Aus. But if you see their performances against other teams, South Africa were quite good.

As for bowling attack(backed up by superb fielding), I think South Africa was as good as Australia if not better. It is in their batting that they suffered a little bit compared to Australia. Since we're talking of bowling, SA isn't far behind.

And in ODIs, they had the best record for that period(except ofcourse in World Tournaments where they'd usually choke although they did win the inaugral Champions Trophy in Dhaka) but obviously we're talking of Test Matches here...

To me, Australia's real dominance started from 1998 onwards and ending in exactly 10 years. Best I'd say is to pick the best period of 100 tests for both WI and Aus for the analysis... Ananth has done something similar on Yogesh's suggestion.. So we can leave SA out since they didn't dominate for a period of 100 Tests..

@shrikanthk: One of Ananth's year 2009/10 articles shows that Harvey had a prodigious first 33% of his career but woeful middle 33%. From all accounts, he must have been a joy to watch either batting or fielding but probably on the level of a M Waugh or Martyn or Clarke.

1. I would be very happy if Ananth removes the Packer series depleted WI in this analysis.

2. On Greg Chappell, all great fast bowlers and great batsmen of his era rated Ian Chappell to be the better batsman of fast bowling and the better batsman under pressure.

3. GC's PR skills need a real upgrade. His first comment when somebody struggles seems to be on the lines "maybe you should retire"! Still, arguably one of the 3 best Aussie batsmen since the Don -- to me, he is the #1 together with Ponting.

Know-who: Shane warne was dropped because Lara blasted him out. He would have been dropped in India in 1997-98 too had Australia had their usual riches, since every batsman murdered him. I agree that Lara did not domimnate Aussies other than in 1999.

Abhi, I respect your judgement, and Tendulkar did play well in 1999 (away) and 2001 (home). but in 2004, he did cream Bangladesh and Pakistan either side of the failure against Australia (which really cannot be called a failure as he played a mamtch winning innings in one of the two tests). But more to the point, as Ananth says, where are the injuries in the scorecard? I should not have mentioned Warne's injury at all, as the main objection to including such series is that the elite fast bowlers were not there in that series, similarly Gavaskar's WI series in 78-79.

As per Ananth's calculation, a 75% factor ought to be applied to Gavaskar's runs in 78-79. Hence he would avg 68 here, stunning but misleading. This was not an elite attack.

In my opinioin, the only way this can be done is to draw an objective criteria of what an elite attack is - my definition is two great bowlers, unless a different bowler (say Damien Fleming) outperforms in a series. There is some subjectivity here. Should Pollock / Ntini / Nel be classfied as an elite attack? They delivered the goods almost every time. But by clubbing together performances against ALL attacks, some error elimination can be achieved. Then the averages against these attacks and excluding these attacks can be compared, and thus, the time-era factor can be taken care of to some extent.
The result wont prove who the greatest batsman was, but will certainly throw up who performed best against the best.

@shrikhanth I am guessing because of your age, but you really seem to have no clue about how phenomenal those legendary West Indian teams really were, and seem to be underrating them by about 30%. In a hypothetical match up between these two teams, the vast majority of cricket experts believe that the West Indies would win, and win royally.

You have said that that you would back the Australian batsmen over the West Indian bowlers which leads me to conclude that you have an extraordinary amount to learn about cricket history. You do realize that any one of Marshall, Holding, Roberts, or Ambrose is a serious contender for the title of the greatest fast bowler of all-time, and that both Garner and Walsh are also in the top dozen fast bowlers in cricket history. No batting unit is ever going to master that type of bowling, but particularly the Australian batting line up who feasted on flat pitches and mediocre bowling after the year 2000.

Lets look at the facts here: A guy like Matthew Hayden struggled to reach double figures when he had to face Curtly Ambrose and Allan Donald. His average in the 90s is 21.7, and he has 9 scores of less than 15 in 11 innings against Ambrose and Donald. This is a guy who struggled against fast bowling his whole life. In the 2005 Ashes, he was also terrible. Damien Martyn has an average of 28.8 and Justin Langer an average of 36.2 in the 90s when the quality of fast bowling was excellent.

And then here's what happened: Around the year 2000, Ambrose, Akram, Donald, Walsh, and Waqar all retired from international cricket, and pitches around the world became universally lifeless. Then all of a sudden, all of these average batsmen who struggled in the 90s against quality bowling started cashing in on obscenely flat pitches against mediocre bowlers.

@Ananth: They often go unmentioned in the discussions but your tables show that Wessels and Martin Crowe did extremely well in 7-8 tests vs the real WI. The much loved Boycott too! I am sure M Crowe averages near 50 vs the best Pak attacks as well.

Still, I guess 7-8 tests is too small a sample set ... Laird had top-scored at ave=70+ vs the WI in a 3-test series and got sorted out quickly a year later by the WI quartet.

So while the likes of Hayden, Langer and Martyn were scoring their runs against Andy Caddick, Simon Doull, and Irfan Pathan on pitches as flat as a pancake, the West Indies were scoring their runs against Dennis Lillee, Jeff Thompson, Richard Hadlee, Imran Khan, and Kapil Dev.

You see the difference?

If you transported any of those great West Indian batsmen into the 2000s against such average bowlers and flat pitches they would all comfortably average over 50.

The only time Australia was challenged was during the 2005 Ashes series and everybody saw that they struggled against an incredibly average fast bowling attack of Harmisson, Flintoff, Hoggard, and Jones. If they had so much trouble against those guys, they had absolutely no chance against Marshall, Holding, Roberts, Garner, Ambrose, and Walsh.

In the 2005 Ashes, Martyn averaged 19.7, Gilchrist averaged 22.6, Katich averaged 27.5, Hayden averaged 35.3, and Ponting averaged 39.8.

And you expect these guys who had so much difficulty with an average English attack to master those legendary West Indian fast bowlers?

In 1992/93, this was the batting line-up that Curtly Ambrose decimated by himself to win the series in Australia: Taylor, Boon, Steve Waugh, Mark Waugh, Border, and Martyn/Langer. And yet they were all completely powerless in the face of the onslaught from the extraordinary Ambrose as he almost beat them by himself. There was no Marshall, no Holding, no Roberts, and no Garner. It was just Ambrose, with a little bit of help from Courtney Walsh.

In that 92/93 series in Australia, Steve Waugh averaged 25.3, Taylor averaged 24.2, Border averaged 33.1, Mark Waugh averaged 37.1, Langer averaged 21.2, and Martyn averaged 28.1, which shows they all struggled as they lost the series to the West Indies.

That Australian batting lineup in 92/93 was every bit, if not stronger than the one from the 2000s. If they had so much difficulty negotiating Ambrose and Walsh, and they also looked completely out of their depth in the 2005 Ashes, what makes you think they had any chance of surviving Marshall, Holding, Roberts and Garner, who were all arguably better than the others?

They had no chance.

It makes your argument that you would back the Australian batsmen to score well both home and away completely nonsensical.

You have also questioned the quality of attacks that the West Indies faced, which is again completely inaccurate.

The West Indies won in Australia 2-0 in 1979/90 by 408 runs and 10 wickets. The Australian attack of the late 70s, early 80s featured Lillee, Thompson, Max Walker, Alerman, Len Pascoe and Ashley Mallett. Many Australians rate that attack as better and more complete than the one featuring McGrath and Warne. Lillee is one of the top 3 fast bowlers of all-time, Thompson the fastest bowler ever, both Walker and Alderman wonderful swing bowlers and Mallett was a very effective off-spinner.

The Pakistan attack that they faced featured Imran Khan, Sarfraz Nawaz, Abdul Qadir, and later Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis. That is one of the most complete and varied bowling attacks you will ever see. Imran, Wasim, and Waqar are three of the greatest fast bowlers in history, Sarfraz was a brilliant swing bowler, and Qadir was a mesmerizing leg-spinner.

@Abhi: Can you pl give examples of series in which Lara and VVS slipped vs the real Aussie attacks? I recall only the '96-'97 and '00-'01 series down under in which Lara averaged only 33 ... even then, he managed two truly great centuries.

Likewise, I don't remember VVS being anything other than spectacular vs Aussies after he hit the hundred in '99 at SCG.

Anyways, it is good to see Salim Malik do well in this analysis. He was probably the first to take Warne to the cleaners.

A nice article once again.
However I would like to make few suggestions:
1. Can you pls make the averages based on performance of batsmen in the home of WI and Australia. I mean it is easier to dominate in your own backyard. For instance someone named Nayan Mongia scored a 100 against Aussies in India however it was always difficult for most to play again Aussies in Australia. Would love to have an anlysis based on the averages of batsmen in the WI & Australia which will show their true talent;
2. I think it is easy to call it SRT plus Viru plus blah blah blah and for the WI Lara only. How people tend to forget the likes of Shiv, Richie & Hooper who could perform in Australia as well. Why do we always forget that Indian bowling always used to put the Indian batsmen under great pressure by allowing the oppositions like Aussies to score 400+ most of the times in Aust. It always becomes a tougher task for the batsmen to chase down such a huge score. The WI has Walsh & Ambrose till late 90

Excellent observations Abhi!

Ananth : Taking forward your point and Abhi's observations, and to make it a little more clear, maybe rather than just average bowling quality, we would require a more focussed research on the topic. As I had indicated, maybe very specific with regards to the bowlers. As Abhi said, playing so much cricket against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe is bound to have an effect on average bowling quality.

Continuing with my ealrier remarks..
3. I dont think there is any way around through which we could possibly put a weightage for expectations of people. As Lara once remarked "I can socre a 0 and go out in the eve to have beer but Sachin cant even dream of the same".
4.The Aussie dominace had started before 1987 and then they had bowlers like Mcdermott, Alderman and Hughes in 1990 as well. So I thin starting with 1990 is a good idea. Warne had also come in early 90s and we cant say it should start when Warne became a great coz that is a process only.
5. I would once again love it if you can come out with the averages of batsmen in opposition's home.

I am doing this on road, with a fickle and moody Data card. Hence I am not able to send detailed responses. However I have read most of your comments on my mobile.
I get the feeling there is a need for an analysis of the best batting against really powerful bowling attacks, across the years. If a Pakistani attack with Imran/Wasim/Waqar/Qadir was there they should also be included. Why restrict to a narrow period of 15 years. Let me look at the entire 135 years. Let me think over it. That would automatically answer most of the objections.
Ananth

The English attack that the West Indies faced was also excellent. It included John Snow who was a powerhouse fast bowler, Bob Willis and Ian Botham who were both brilliant swing bowlers, and Derek Underwood who was one of the most accurate and greatest spin bowlers in history, as well as accurate medium pacers such as Mike Hendrick, Chris Old, and the fine all-round talents of Tony Greig.

Underwood took 297 wickets at 25.8, Snow took 202 wickets at 26.6, Willis 325 at 25.2, Botham 383 at 28.4, and Hendrick and Old averaged 25.8 and 28.1 respectively.

As I said at the outset: You really have a lot to learn about cricket history because you are making a lot of ignorant and blatantly inaccurate statements. You appear to have absolutely no idea about how truly phenomenal those legendary West Indian teams really were, or the high quality of opposition they hammered all over the world.

Put simply, most of us who have seen both teams would back the West Indies every day of the week.

Many many thanks, Ananth. English batsmen topping the table against Aussies is a big big shocker to me. Given that they were trashed well and even Windies having a better average than Saffers is a suprise.

The other is Pakistani batsmen truly at the bottom against Windies but still being the only team to compete with the Windies. That is remarkable.

James, where have you been all this while? Your comments being tears my eyes, which were anyway quite sore arguing the same point again and again - the Aussies failed against the 2005 English attack, which is the closest approximation to the WI we have seen in the last 20 years. The other points that you mention, are so close to my own observations that i feel obliged to point out that i am not writing under a different name (unlike tin pot analyses in Sydney Moorning Herald).

Ambrose was a devastating bowler, for exactly the reason mentioned by James. He decimated, largely by himself, a top class Aussie line up. Anyone who tells me that Boon / Taylor / Waugh / Waugh / Border / Jones / Healy was inferior to ANY modern batting line up ought to take a walk.

Ambrose clocked 80 wickets in Australia in 14 tests, played between the age of 25 and 33. Averaging 19. NO ONE ELSE COMES CLOSE. Not even Marshall (though he was every bit as good and dangerous). WI would have beaten OZ easy.

@shrikanthk: One of Ananth's year 2009/10 articles shows that Harvey had a prodigious first 33% of his career but woeful middle 33%.

Alex: I know that. Look. We all get swayed by statistics. Harvey averaged 48 in Tests. Suppose he had averaged 50 (just 2 runs more), we'd all be regarding him as one of the greats since 50 is a psychological barrier to cricketers and critics alike.

This guy Harvey played nearly all his cricket against the best bowlers of his era. Bedser, Trueman, Laker, Statham, Tyson, Gupte, Tayfield, Heine and Adcock.

By most accounts, he was his dominant self against most of them, though probably not always prolific. The "woeful" middle happened in the mid-fifties ('56) in England when he had to face Laker on dusty, designer tracks, which are not to be seen in the modern era.

Definitely a better player of spin than Ponting. And yes. As far as pace goes, Harvey faced better bowlers overall, unlike Ponting who had it relatively easy in the early-mid 2000s.

You have said that that you would back the Australian batsmen over the West Indian bowlers..... you have an extraordinary amount to learn about cricket history..

James: I agree with you that we are all here to learn cricket history!!!

Re Aus bats vs WI bowlers: Look. Facing WI pacers in 1980 isn't quite the same as facing the same set in 2010, given the current overrate regulations, better bats, flatter wickets and lower levels of bouncer-toleration.

They will still be hard to dominate. But there is no reason to conclude that Aus will average significantly lower than their career avgs against the WI attack.

Re 2005 Ashes: It's not about the "quality" of attack. Conditions matter a LOT. A very similar English attack was bulldozed by Aus in 2006-07, on different wickets.

WI struggled against some ordinary Aus spinners (Holland and Bennett) in 1985 Sydney test. Should I conclude that WI batsmen couldn't play spin based on that one test??? Ofcourse I can't.

As you can tell from the name, I will always support the West Indies 1979-80 and 1983-4 sides that toured Australia as arguably the best ever. However, I find it incredible that people forget about the Australian powerhouse of 1974-6, which containd arguably the most potent bowling attack, Pascoe, Lillee, Thompson, Gilmour, Walker, Mallet all featuring, but also a very tough skilled line up, e.g Redpath Walters Chappells etc. Even though I am not quoting stats to back up this statement, I still cannot see Australia of the 2000s beating this side. Ananth and the rest, any comments on how true you believe this to be?

The idea behind that Bennett-Holland example in the previous comment was to drive home the point that we ALWAYS overrate the impact of "bowling quality". Given the right conditions, even the most average of bowlers can be more than a handful for the world's best.

You have also questioned the quality of attacks that the West Indies faced, which is again completely inaccurate

I didn't cast any aspersions on WI batsmen. My comment in that regard was made in a different context. It was in response to Aditya who said that "WI batsmen are quite likely to better their career averages against Aus attack of the 90s/00's".

The underlying assumption behind that statement was that the attacks faced by WI on an average in the late 70s/80s were significantly better than the Aus attack of the 90s/00's, which I don't buy at all.

I agree Aus batsmen would've averaged lower in the 70s/80s. But that's because of the difference in conditions!
Read my earlier comment on May 7, 2.46AM.

The Pakistan attack that they faced featured Imran Khan, Sarfraz Nawaz, Abdul Qadir, and later Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis

I did mention Pak attack in the previous comment. So don't know why you are picking me on that. That WAS a damn good attack.

Lemme quote the line from one of my previous comments and clarify the verbiage.

Barring the odd Pak attack, none of them faced any attack as well-balanced as the Aus attack between '93 and '07, during their entire careers

Firstly I did acknowledge the Pak attack. Secondly, all I wanted to say that the "Average" quality of attacks faced by Richards and co in their careers wasn't necessarily better than the Aus attack of the 90s/00s. Instead, I gave the false impression that the WI batsmen "never" faced any attack as well-balanced. Sorry for not wording my thoughts too well.

Tendulkar's record against tbe best Australian attacks is in the 40s, if I recall correctly. The majority of Tests in his time against Australia were against a 2nd-choice attack - or 2nd-rate if you prefer. I think only 7 of his 27 tests were actually against both Warne and McGrath where he averages 42. Also, including the Australian attack from 1985 is simply going to skew this. It wasn't until McGrath that Australia had anything like a WIndies all-time attack. You should probably start considering the Australian attack from 1994 onwards.

I say the above because in the figures Tendulkar is superior to Lara but Lara faced the best Australian attack far more and was much more successful against them.

Gavaskar also has a similar peculiarity in his record against the WIndies - where he doesn't face the "great" WIndies attack very often.

@James: you seem to surpass me on adulation for the great West Indians. However, note that Ambrose had plenty of help in '92-'93 in Bishop and Walsh. He was at his absolute peak 1988-93 and during this period, his supporting cast was excellent, esp. when Bishop was anywhere close to, say, 80% fit.

@James: re your comments on Hayden et al, another explanation could be that Hayden simply matured late and made the most of his opportunities in the 2000's, having spent most of his 20's outside the national team. He was excellent and always dominated the Indian spinners on their home tracks.

@Ananth: the big difference in the great Pak attacks and the great WI & Aussie attacks is the standard of fielding and batting that backed it up. Also, Pak rarely had 3 great bowlers bowling in tandem except for brief periods of 1987-89 (Imran, Wasim, & Qadir near their peaks) and 1998-2000 (Wasim, Waqar, Mushtaq). They often had 2 great bowlers in tandem though ... more like the great Aussies.

In 1992/93, this was the batting line-up that Curtly Ambrose decimated by himself to win the series in Australia...

I don't see a lot of relevance in this remark. Are you implying that since the '92 WI team defeated the '92 Aus team, that somehow seals the debate on which dynasty was better??

Ambrose, one of the greatest fast bowlers of all time, was at his peak in '92. In the Australian side, you had a whole bunch of batsmen who were yet to mature into the world-beaters they eventually became! How can this be a fair comparison? How can we possibly compare the Martyn of '04 with the Martyn of '92?

Btw, that 92 series was a close one at 2-1. It could've been 2-2 if Aus had won the 1st test at Brisbane (which they nearly won).
WI won at Adeleide by 1 run. And defeated Aus comfortably only at Perth!

Add Gilchrist, Ponting and the maturer versions of Warne/Martyn/M.Waugh to that '92 side. The most likely result in that case would have been 3-1 in favour of Border's Aus!!

Interesting but flawed, a quick look at the match records shows that india had a very poor win loss ratio against WI during that period yet ranked second in adjusted batting average! Pakistan were much more competitive yet ranked at the bottom. If you were to adjust batting averages, surely match records should have been taken into account?

@James: You are spot-on. I am not sure about shrikanth's age. He might have probably seen only the Australian dominance the way he puts them above all seemingly underplaying WI domination. He hasn't seen those quicks and the terror they unleashed. A Malcolm Marshall round the wicket is more potent than Mcgrath or Warne (no doubt Warne & Mcgrath were great bowlers too). The way Viv dominated fast bowlers around the world would give goosebumps to anyone watching it. Talent-wise WI stand head and shoulders above the dominant Aussie teams. But you have admit that Aussies had that single-minded devotion to winning which WI might have lacked a bit. Aussies stepped on to the field to win and to win only.

Hi Ananth,

"I get the feeling there is a need for an analysis of the best batting against really powerful bowling attacks, across the years."

If you split the quality of bowling attacks into 4 categories than you only need to post 4 tables in your next article.
By using same reciprocal method, If bowling quality index is less than say, 30.0, than it is really good attack.
2nd table, between 30.0 and 35.0, it is good attack
3rd table, between 35.0 and 40.0, average attack eg, Ind, NZ, SL.
4th table, above 40.0, mostly minnows eg. zim, Bangladesh.

One real example i can give you is of Moin Khan and Rashid Latif.
they both played almost in same era, but their adjusted average will reveal that moin khan played toughest of bowling attacks and rashid latif quite opposite.

In Ist table, You only show actual career record of batsman in which they played bowling attack index of less than 30.0.
Similarly you post other 3 tables.

Arjun

seems like a good idea.
did you see that I have used your tweak.
cannot post detailed responses.

Alex
This what I said : "But somewhere along the line they seemed to have slipped vs. the apparently “not so real” attacks Aus. put up over the years."
Clearly if Lara's great series yielded an avg. of 91 and Lax's great series yielded an avg. of 84....And then their final avg.vs Aus is 50 something- then the rest of the series/matches vs.Aus have resulted in their averages being brought them down roughly to their long term career means?

@Shrikanth is trying hard to be different from others by vehemently downgrading ODIs and going gaga over Test cricket. Everyone in this forum agrees that test cricket is the ultimate but nobody speaks ill of IDIs. Many great test cricketers have played ODIs and played it well. They might not like one bit if someone degrades that form of cricket. They would definitely root for Tests but calling ODIs 'pyjama cricket' is taking it a bit too far. If Shrikanth is so passionate about tests and hates 'pyjama cricket' it is safe to assume that he has not watched a single match of the recently concluded world cup.

Gerry,
Copied from another article:
"
Over a period of three years from April 2004, Tendulkar averaged less than 29 from 21 Tests, if run-gorging on a Bangladeshi attack lacking any venom is discounted. In an era of flatter tracks, inferior bowlers and shorter boundaries, those are grim figures indeed.

In the same period in ODIs, culminating in the 2007 World Cup, Tendulkar averaged 30 in ODIs against Australia, England, New Zealand, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and South Africa.
"

Essentially, only someone blissfully unaware of Tendulkar's career would claim he was batting well in or around that period.
The poor sod couldn't score against anyone except Bang. This also partly explains his overall "bowling quality" faced etc to a certain extent.

Talent-wise WI stand head and shoulders above the dominant Aussie teams.

"Talent-wise"! Ah. It's that word again. Talent. How do you go about defining "talent"? The dictionary tells me that "Talent" refers to "unusual innate ability in a particular activity".

If I were to go by that definition, there is no reason for me to believe that Australians were less endowed with "natural talent" than the WI giants!

When I think of Aus, I think of Warne's Gatting ball. I think of Gilchrist hitting against the spin in the 2001 Mumbai test. I think of Mark Waugh playing the "upar cut" against the WI pacers in the '95 Sabina Park test. I think of Martyn's glorious square drives with minimal back-and-across movement! I think of Lehmann conquering the SL spinners with his brilliantly unorthodox closed-face technique.

Aren't these examples of "natural innate talent"???
What makes you believe that Greenidge/Haynes/Gomez/Lloyd were more naturally endowed than the modern Aussie strokemakers?

If Shrikanth is so passionate about tests and hates 'pyjama cricket' it is safe to assume that he has not watched a single match of the recently concluded world cup

Ideally comments shouldn't get too personal. If they do, this blog will end up like other cricinfo threads, which neither of us want!
I agree. My greatest achievement has been the maintenance of good vibes. Let us maintain that. Unfortunately over the past two days and for the next two days I might let a comment not conforming to this requirement slip through.
Ananth

Anyway, I never said I "hate pyjama cricket"!!!
Also, it is not safe to assume that I didn't watch a single WC game!
I watched nearly one-third of the games from start to finish and thoroughly enjoyed most of them!!!

On Greg Chappell, all great fast bowlers and great batsmen of his era rated Ian Chappell to be the better batsman of fast bowling and the better batsman under pressure

Alex: Yeah. I've heard something similar from my Dad, who often said that Ian Chappell was brilliant at counterattacking the opposition at No.3 unfazed by the loss of early wickets. I also remember him telling me that Ian was a brilliant player of spin. One of the best of his era.

Greg got fewer opportunities to prove himself against spin, as compared to Ian who distinguished himself against the great Indian spin trinity in India when they were at their peak!

Ambrose was a devastating bowler

Agreed.

He decimated, largely by himself, a top class Aussie line up

This happening in Perth and Adeleide in '92-93.

Anyone who tells me that Boon/Taylor/ Waughs et al were inferior to ANY modern batting line up ought to take a walk

Not too many people would tell you that! I am a huge fan of those early 90s Aussie sides. That's why I've been arguing all along in favor of having the starting point of these analysis at '89 instead of '95.

However, with all due respect to Ambrose's feats in '92-93, we cannot cite them to argue that WI of the early 80s would've decimated the early 00's Aussie batting lineup.

Reason: Despite the very high quality of the '92-93 WI attack, Aus won 1 test and came very close to winning 2 more. It could so easily have been 3-1 in favor of Aus. Add Ponting, Gilly and a maturer Martyn/Warne to the mix. What I foresee is a very comfortable series win for Aus against Richardson's side

@geery the merry

I dont think tha approach should be during peak periods as mentioned pre imran 1983. the wht abt the batsmen. Analysis should be generally for entire career rather than peak periods that's when skills of a particular player comes out. if u naroow it further then no batsmen would have played well.

For example : mohinder amarnath scored 3 centuries in a test series against pak in 82/83 series . it does not mean he is a better player than say grv.

if both batsmen and bowlers peak coincide then it would be great. FOr ex: pontings ashes series in 2005 or ponting SA a year later or so.

Unfortunately it doesnt happen always. and more over one has to judge players performance series over series acroos conditions to analyse the quality. For me performance aqbroad whether against elite or non elite quality is the one which matters.

After all one plays against country not individual players.

GC's PR skills need a real upgrade. His first comment when somebody struggles seems to be on the lines "maybe you should retire"

Alex: That's not necessarily a bad line. It reflects the Australia he grew up in. Harvey, Benaud, Lawry and Simpson - all quit in the early-mid thirties. Though Simpson did return during the Packer era.

Traditionally Australian cricketers have been amateurs, unlike the professionals in England. They typically used retire before 35. Even Bradman would've probably retired around 1940-42 had there been no WWII (remember him saying something to that effect in an interview).

Greg Chappell reflects their world view. i.e a cricketer must retire if he struggles for form after the age of 33 or so.
Unfortunately, there is too much money and personality-cult in modern sport that ensures that Chappell's seemingly quiant ideas remain a pipedream!

Often feel for Chappell. A man with strong convictions out-of-sync with the compulsions of modern celebrity sport.

@James re. your comment that `In a hypothetical match up between these two teams, the vast majority of cricket experts believe that the West Indies would win, and win royally.` I completely disagree. From what I`ve read, the vast majority of experts believe it would be an extremely close series. I would argue that under the conditions the WI team played (in terms of over-rates, pitch condition and allowances for short-pitched bowling) they would be slight favourites. In the conditions the Australians encountered they would have the advantage.

Further, with regards the 1992/3 series in Oz. You conveniently omit Boon`s record from your stats (490 runs at over 60 - best on either side) or the fact that Langer and Martyn both debuted in this series. Certainly Ambrose was a standout, and at that time probably the best bowler in the world, but for all 5 tests he was supported by Bishop(23 wickets) and Walsh, plus men such as Patrick Patterson and K. Benjamin(?) - hardly a one-man show!

cont`d...as shrikanthk pointed out, 1992/3 was an incredibly close series, the 1 run win in Adelaide splitting the teams, not forgetting that the WI had just managed to hang on in the first test when 8 down for 100 odd 2nd innings. So, a fairly inexperienced Australian batting line-up (2 debutants, Mark Waugh who had debuted in 1991 and Taylor in 1989) came within a whisker of beating a team which featured Ambrose at his absolute peak, Bishop, Walsh and Patterson.
Of course 2 years later, this was the core of the team which inflicted the first home defeat on the Windies in 30years.

And finally @James re.`That Australian batting lineup in 92/93 was every bit, if not stronger than the one from the 2000s.` This comment doesn`t stand up to even the most cursory examination.

As I pointed out earlier, Martyn and Langer debuted in that series, M Waugh had played a dozen tests, Border was close to retirement, Healy was the keeper, Steve Waugh was yet to mature as a batsman. Only Boon could be regarded as at his peak.

Compare this to the team WI faced in Aus in 2000. Slater (63 tests), Langer (34), Hayden, M Waugh (100 plus tests) and S Waugh(100 plus tests), Ricky Ponting and just to cap it off, Gilchrist as keeper. Seriously, there`s simply no comparison.

Gavaskar faced a weaker WI bowling attack - give me a break please, which other batsman in that illustrious collection has scored 13 test centuries against WI. Put lara to face his colleagues he may have barely averaged double figures. He never seemed confident against real fast bowling.

I hope you do a bowlers thing as well.

Pakistan & West Indies series were of a different kind.
In 1986, there were no hundreds - nobody crossed the 200 run mark in the series. There were counter-attacking gems (like Imran's 61 at Faisalabad after he was hit by a Marshall beamer on his fingers) but there were just 7 hundreds in these 9 games. And yet Imran's 45 wickets at under 15 stand out. Marshall averaged around 19.5 I guess. It becomes even more staggering when one realises that Imran bowled in 5 fewer innings.
Haynes & Greenidge never managed a 50 partnership.
In 1988, Pakitanis almost chased some 370 odd in the last innings on an uneven wicket against a genuinely quick attack.

Not really relevant but someone wrote that Bob Willis was a swing bowler: He was basically an open-chest fast-bowler of genuine pace who slanted the ball in.

Abhi, i am merely saying that Tendulkar's failures in the 2 2004-05 tests against the full strength OZ cannot be attributed to his injury alone. He had 2 good series against them and this was not one his best ones. such ups and downs are part of most great cricketers' careers, except perhaps Bradman. Hence taking the best of Tendulkar's performance and comparing with others' averages is inappropriate. For instance, despite being a hardcore Gavaskar fan, i insist on including his wretched series against Wi in 82-83, where he was in a terrible frame of mind after being stripped of captaincy and being made to play under a player 10 years his junior. Every Indian batsman in that series outperformed him.

Also, it is interesting to note that in Ananth's table, in response to yogesh's queries, GS Chappell and Raja alone clear the 50 mark, even Gavaskar slips after adjustments. But in the Aussie tables, there is a veritable flood above 50, and even the unadjusted averages are quite high.

Also, GS Chappell scored ~1400 runs against Kerry packer teams @55. The World XI team was also very good, with Imran / le Roux / Robert / Holding / Garner forming a formidable attack. So if Chappell's packer runs must be included, it should not be only against WI, but the whole pile.

Your analysis is of great significance Ananth,particularly with regard to Greg Chappell against West Indies.Infact he also scored 621 runs in 5 supertests against the Carribaen 4 -pronged attack in West Indies at an average of 69 with 3 centuries.-,which is not counted.Experts state that Greg was not comfortable against great pace bowling but such figures prove his ability in true light.However Greg was vulnerable to the short bouncing ball on fast tracks as he showed in 1979-80 and 1981-82.Graham Gooch at his best to me combated the 4-pronged invincible Carribean quartet better than anyone like in 1981 in the West Indies and in 1991 in England.To bat for your life against the West Indian pace attack at it's best Amarnath 's performance was the best ever in 1983 when he aggregated 593 runs at a 66 run average.Figures also display Mark Waugh's immense talent as well as Allan Lamb's prowess.

As he opened the batting Gavaskar to me is still the greatest.

@shrikanthk: WI of '92-'93 still had a great bowling attack but its batting was a far cry from what Lloyd's team had.

@Abhi: I know you are a big fan of Lara & VVS. So, it is surprising why you cannot accept that they both are almost on the same level as SRT (in tests) vs Oz ... even Ponting has said so. Here are the relevant series-wise averages:

SRT: 46('92), 5('96), 112('98), 47('00), 51('01), 77('04), 18('04), 71('08), 57('08), 134('10).
Lara: 58('93), 44('95), 33('97), 91('99), 32('01), 67('03), 21('05), 58('05).
VVS: 39('98), 37('00), 84('01), 83('04), 18('04), 46('08), 95('08), 92('10).

Lara has fared the worst _in_ Oz. SRT has done the best on consistency: his failure in '96 and '04 was in isolated matches. SRT has rarely played other-worldly innings like Lara/Sehwag/VVS but such consistency is vitally important to set the platform for others.

A very important criteria is the pitch and the situations.Greg Chappell was very prolific on flat tracks against the graet attack but on bouncy tracks often failed to adapt.Gooch's best innings against the carribean quartet were on fast tracks at Barbados and Kingston in 1981 and on a seaming Headingley track in 1991 ,where other batsmen failed.In 1983 Mohinder Amarnath played the 4 -pronged attack like a well-oiled machine and superbly handled the Barbados surface.

Brian Lara was more succesful than Sachin Tendulkar facing Glen Mcgrath ,registering more centuries and fifties while Tendulkar was better agaisnt Warne. With regards to Australia we have to take into acount games where Mcgrath and Warne played.Tendulkar is a champion but a more accurate analysis would be his performances against Glen Mcgrath nad Shane Warne compared to Lara etc.

Ananth,could you take into consideration,the wickets ,situations and great individual bowlers played against.i.e.Marshall,Mcgrath etc.?

@Statsguru: It is childish to discount SRT's performances vs Oz. By the same logic, one should discount the Mar '04 - Nov '06 period from SRT's career since he was either injured or recovering in that period.

1. The '92 Aussie attack was fantastic with McDermott, Hughes, & Whitney. In Aussie conditions, it was as good as the great Pak attacks.

2. The '99 attack faced by Lara had only 2 oustanding bowlers (McGrath & Gillespie) who were overworked because the spinners were badly out of form ... BTW, the '98 pasting in India had a bit to do with it.

3. Lara was truly great in '02-'03 series also (ave=67) but that was a tall-scoring series anyway.

4. I suggest you look up SRT's final 10 tests vs Aus.

Anantha, great analysis overall...however, i've 3 issues/clarifications -

1. Did u make any adjustments for home and away tests which is a big factor in for performances. U clearly mention tat Chappell never traveled to WI, surely this shud be factored in ur analysis.

This has already been factored in. Please re-read the article.
Ananth

2. U mention in ur article of using the periods 1975 - 1997 & 1989 - 2008. Yet in ur stats, u mention the periods used 1975 - 2000 & 1985 - 2008. Why the discrepancy ?
3. Also, as someone already mentioned, restricting the WI dominance further from 1975 - 1995 makes more sense. The Aus period 1989 - 2008 is fine

For all the WI fans out here, longing for glimpses of their fast-bowling hero - Malcolm Marshall, here's some treasure coming your way!!

Videos of Malcolm Marshall's spells in the Gabba Test of 1988-89 (ball by ball). Have fun watching it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSu9CwEvNDY

Loved the clips. Was a little disappointed by the rather timid approach of Boon and Marsh in the opening overs. They weren't positive enough even in their defensive strokes. I'd expect Hayden/Langer to have done better.

Had my first real good look at Marshall, who I had previously seen only in highlights packages. The guy seems a more skiddy customer as opposed to a "hit-the-deck" bowler. Swings the ball a lot. However, he does spray the ball around a bit in these clips. But what I loved best about him is his length, which is brilliant. The Line isn't always impeccable though.

What a find! Youtube rocks!

Just realised that the inimitable (if youthful!) shrikanthk had addressed most of my points very succinctly in his previous post. Just to prove the point I invoke Ananth (reductio ad Ananthum=reductio ad Hitlerum in reverse) and thereby win the argument.

In Anath`s seminal analysis on test team batting strengths (excluding the ICC World XI), the top 22 test batting line-ups of all-time are Australian teams from 2002-2006 (41 of the top 50, Australia from 2001-2008). One of the Australian teams from the 1992/3 series ranks a creditable, but hardly comparable, 270th.

My graetest performers against the great West Indian pace attack are in order

1.Sunil Gavaskar-The best defensive batsmen who opened the batting under great pressure to thwart the Carribaen foursome like a boulder.

2.Graham Gooch-The most combative player against the fiery West Indian paceman who was at his best scoring 4 centuries,including in 1981 ,1988 and 1991 on bowler friendly wickets like Barbados,Kingston and Headingley,when other batsmen failed.

3.Greg Chappell-On a flat track arguably the best batsman who was brilliant in the Carribaen against the foursome attack in the 1979 supertsets aggregating 621 runs with 3 centuries.However later was consistently troubled by the short bouncing ball like in 1979-80 and 1981-82.

4.Gundappa Vishwanath-At his best played the attack with the skill of Tendulkar.

5..Mohinder Amarnath-In 1983 played the quartet better than any modern great,superbly negotiating the short ball aggregating 593 runs ata 66 run average.

Gundappa Vishwanath-At his best played the attack with the skill of Tendulkar

Did he, in the first place, get to face the great WI attack, leave alone playing it with the skill of Tendulkar?

In '74-75, he only faced Roberts among the WI quartet. The rest hadn't appeared on the scene yet. He fared brilliantly no doubt in home conditions.

In '76, he was instrumental in India chasing 400 at Port of Spain. But that wasn't quite "THE" WI attack, with the likes of Jumadeen and Padmore bowling most of the overs.

In '78-79, he faced a Packer-depleted attack.

That's about it.

Somebody should bring these statistics of current and past Test Players to the notice of the West Indies Board esp its CEO Hilaire who are hell bent to deprive their current star batsman Shivnarine Chanderpaul in representing the West Indies in both popular forms of the game.This stands in stark contrast to the heroic status enjoyed by Sachin Tendulkar who entered Test Cricket shortly before Shiv but who is given all encouragement to continue representing India.They forgot that Chanders as a Test rookie stood steadfastly with Brian Lara when he broke Sir Garfield Sobers highest test score record with 375 runs.For this performance Shiv and Lara were honored by the Govt. of Trinidad and Tobago.

Anybody who thinks that the Australian batting lineup in 92/93 wasn't in the same class as the one from 2000 knows so little about cricket it's just plain embarrassing.

I get the distinct impression that some of you guys have been watching cricket for 15 minutes and think you know it all, when in reality you know absolutely nothing.

Some say that the 92/93 team wasn't at its peak yet.

Really?

In the 3 years and 22 matches before that series, Australia had won 10, drawn 9, and lost only 3.

Mark Taylor was 28, the Waugh twins were 27, and David Boon was 31/32. So 4 of their top 6 batsmen were in the absolute prime of their careers.

Shane Warne took 7 wickets in the second test in Melbourne and became a star with that performance. With his confidence sky high, he had another 3 matches to win the series for his team, if he was good enough.

But he wasn't.

The incomparable Curtly Ambrose was, and the West Indies took the series 2-1.

It's as simple as that.

More on the theme of whether the Australians were at their peak in 92/93:

That series against the West Indies finished on February 1, 1993.

This is how some of the Australians performed in the calendar year of 1993:

Steve Waugh 969 runs at 64.6
David Boon 1241 runs at 62
Mark Taylor 1106 runs at 52.6
Mark Waugh 987 runs at 49.3
Allan Border 899 runs at 42.8
Ian Healy 581 runs at 38.7
Shane Warne 72 wickets at 23.5
Merv Hughes 57 wickets at 25.4

Any other stupid theories?

Someone said that if Australia had McGrath, Ponting and Gilchrist that they would have won the 92/93 series.

Great argument.....

If Clive Lloyd, Viv Richards, Gordon Greenidge, Malcolm Marshall, Michael Holding, Andy Roberts, and Joel Garner were playing for the West Indies in that series they probably would have won 4-0.

as alway another great read by anantha. sachin, vvs and lara all come to mind as batsman that looked at ease when they toured australia in the recent past. however given warne and mcgrath played no part in the 04 series down under how does this get factored into indian batsmens ratings in this table? and to those who count greg chappel not touring the west indies against him. its fair to say that australian pitches in the 80's were more favorable to the west indies style of bowling than what they got in home conditions. playing them at the waca was the stuff nightmares are made of from an aussie batsmans perspective.

Someone seems to think that most cricket experts are divided as to who was the better team.

Who?

Find me any quote from any renowned cricket authority who has actually seen both teams, who has ever said that Australia is the better team.

Most cricket experts whether its Ian Chappell, Geoff Boycott, Ian Botham, Imran Khan, or Garry Sobers all seem to agree that the West Indies are the greatest cricket team ever.

Someone else says that the West Indian bowlers wouldn't be as dominant under the present conditions.

I get the distinct impression that some people are so ignorant and clueless that they think that all the West Indies did was bowl one bouncer after another.

Anybody who thinks that is just ignorant and plain stupid.

You only have to see how successful the great West Indian fast bowlers were on the flat, low, slow pitches of the subcontinent to see that they were capable of adapting to any conditions and any type of pitch.

On the subcontinent:

Marshall averages 23.05
Holding averages 22.1
Roberts averages 21.5
Garner averages 19.2
Ambrose averages 22.5
Walsh averages 20.5

That's how brilliant they were.

Pitches around the world post 2000 have become very similar to an Asian style of pitch: flat, slow, low and lifeless. But as we can see the West Indies stunning exploits on subcontinental pitches shows that you could have transported any of those great fast bowlers to the current era and the current playing conditions and they would have been every bit as successful.

Alex: Agree on that.
Considering the closeness of the '92-93 series and factoring in the differences between Border's side the Aus side of 2000-2004, I'd like to conclude that Waugh/Ponting's Australians would've easily won 3-1 against Richardson's side.

Now Lloyd's team had a much, much better batting lineup and a marginally better bowling attack. It would've been a very close affair, if we replace the '92 WI side with Lloyd's '84 WI and Border's '92 side with Waugh's Aussies.

The West Indies were not just fast bowlers: They were great, skillful,intelligent bowlers who could make the necessary adjustments against different opponents in different conditions. They would have been successful under any circumstances in any era. Curtly Ambrose bowled in the era of bouncer restrictions and he was the best bowler in the world throughout the 90s.

Malcolm Marshall was a fast bowling genius. He is widely regarded as the greatest fast bowler ever, and along with Wasim Akram is the most brilliant and skillful fast bowler the world has ever seen.

Michael Holding is referred to as the 'Rolls Royce' of fast bowlers because he was such a brilliant athlete and so wonderfully skillful.Guys like Marshall, Holding and Roberts could swing the ball at will, were smart and cunning, and Joel Garner is possibly the most accurate bowler in cricket history who was impossible to score against and possessed close to an unplayable yorker.

If you transported any of these guys to the 2000s they would have all been very, very successful.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Australia's batsmen were capable of handling this type of brilliant fast bowling.

The only time that they were challenged by a half-decent fast bowling attack was in the 2005 Ashes series and they all failed, and failed miserably.

Gilchrist averaged 22.6
Martyn averaged 19.7
Hayden averaged 35.3
Ponting averaged 39.8
Langer averaged 43.7

In the corresponding 2006/7 Ashes series, Andrew Flintoff had ankle surgery just before the tour and was a shadow of the bowler he was in 2005, Simon Jones missed the entire series with injury, while Harmisson was completely deplorable averaging 61.4. So the point stands that it was only in 2005 that they were challenged, and they all failed.

If Australia had so much difficulty with a mediocre fast bowling attack of Hoggard, Harmisson, Flintoff and Jones, what makes you think that they had any chance against Marshall, Holding, Roberts, Garner, Ambrose,and Walsh.

They had absolutely no chance and would have been blown away like
everybody else.

I say the above because in the figures Tendulkar is superior to Lara but Lara faced the best Australian attack far more and was much more successful against them

Statsguru: That's not Tendulkar's fault. The man did not tour Australia during some of his best years - 1992 to 1999.
That was a shame. As a result, we did not get to see Tendulkar facing Warne when both of them were at their peak!

Five-test rubbers are becoming increasingly rare.
Traditionally, Aus, Eng and WI used to play the most number of 5-test rubbers. Unfortunately, the Indian board and the public isn't enthusiastic enough about Test cricket to let the team play in 5-test rubbers more frequently.

Sadly, we will never see a Tendulkar or a Laxman scoring 700+ runs in a series, thanks to the Indian board. In fact, I don't think Sachin has ever scored over 500 runs in a single series!

Anath I request you to please publish my there comments.

When have I not published your comments. Incidentally where did you get Lara's average of 41,

I am always shocked to see comments such as SRT did not face best attack of Aussies and Lara faced it and so on.Why we cant see the fact that even though Lara faced that so called attack his average against them was just 41 in Australia.That by no means is an average to sing praise.Why cant we see that Sachin's 114 & 116 were on such pitches and against such a team which didnt let any of the other Indians score beyond 20. Why cant we see that Sachin was given LBW whereas decision should have been SBW.He was given out caught at forward short leg when there was daylight between bat and ball.

Why do we forget when any of Wasim,Waqar,Imran,Saqlain or Qadir were bowling bowling for Pakistan SRT scored at 49.08 to Lara's 30.30. Ananth has already come out with an analysis as to who has been the most complete and best batsman comprising of both Tests and ODIs still I dont know why people turn ever analysis to SRT Vs Lara.

Very interesting analyses, thank you Ananth. Have you considered doing similar analyses for the one day teams? Australia and WI were equally dominant in the one day arena for large parts of the periods under consideration (WI were a formidable one day presence with a very high win-loss ratio despite not doing so well in the World Cup).

Lloyd's team only had a 'marginally' better bowling attack than Rihardson's team?

What planet do you live on?

In Malcolm Marshall, Michael Holding, and Andy Roberts, Lloyd's team had three contenders for the title of the 'greatest fast bowler ever', and Joel Garner with a Test average of 20.98 and a One Day average of 18.8 has arguably the best record of any fast bowler in the history of the game. A young Courtney Walsh was also making a name for himself under Clive Lloyd.

Richardson's team had Curtly Ambrose and Courtney Walsh in their prime and then Ian Bishop who was very injury prone and was only decent for a couple of years, while the fourth bowler was either Kenny or Winston Benjamin who were both very, very mediocre.

Lloyd's team had a revolving door of 5 great bowlers, while Richardson's side only had 2.

In combining both batting and bowling, Lloyd's team was about 50% better than Richardson's side which only had 3 great players.

FAIRPLAY
Hear!Hear!

James:

Ha,Ha! Keep 'em coming ! Let it Rip!!
LOVE it that a few guys like you put some "context" into things like "Form" of bowling attacks etc instead of putting up a bland career or CTD bowling average.

And yes, the Aus '92/93 was a great batting lineup.
I would say even better in terms of pure, allround skill than the later 2000s Aus lineup. The later guys were mostly fast scoring bullies- Doubt they would have fared well against some real quality attacks.

Re.The West Indies bowlers- haven't seen them "live" too much. In my reckoning among the genuinely "fast" bowlers whom I have watched for a longer period over the past 2 decades or so -Akram is No.1... The way Steyn is going- if he keeps it up for a few years more, he too will be right up there.

@Avinash...Check the overall record dude...

@Boll: Please scroll up and read my comment. I put “escaped” and not the word titans in inverted commas.I am well aware of Hadlee being in awe (without having to go thru the link) and his famous statement of always “imagining what would Lillee do/bowl like in a particular match situation …”. My only peeve has been that pace bowlers from Asian Test playing nations such as Imran, Kapil, Wasim, Waqar,Srinath, Vaas with superb returns on the flat decks/dust-bowls of the Indian subcontinent (only outsiders such as Marshall, Hadlee and McGrath –maybe Wes Hall in a previous eras have conquered these conditions) are barely lauded. Boll: A G. Chappell-related anecdote. My first tryst with an overseas tour by India as a 8 year old began with the 1980-81 twin ANZAC Test series (have been reminiscing about this series lately as I do of all old series of past). I WAS just in awe of (still attempting to grasp the nuances of the game then) as to HOW did a single batsman score 204 in 1 innings CONT

(Greg C in Sydney and a 200 of that era was worth its weight in gold whatever the composition of the attack and India had Kapil and Ghavri, a good seamer) and how entire innings of a Test team (India) could not match it. In a non-Google era I just went berserk buying all the existing sports magazines (which exhaustively covered only cricket in those days) in India with a meager pocket allowance to read about Greg. That’s why I was still more utterly shocked (the nuance thing again!) when I heard on the afternoon news that Greg had been bowled for a duck in the Melbourne Test (which OZ lost chasing 143 )by Ghavri while chasing and eagerly awaited to see the then GOLD-NUGGET (in those days in impoverished, socialistic India of no entertainment programs on TV )Channel 9 highlights package at night (and the first show of that waddling duck cartoon following a forlorn Greg to the pavilion). No Test enthusiast in their right mind will laugh at a @54 Test career average of that era CONTD.

of a batsman who was regal, willowy and authoritative. He also articulated a master class on the art of batsmanship in a discussion with H. Bhogle during India’s tour of OZ in 2003-04(one of the best ever and which only Gavaskar and Barry Richards has rivaled on air at times). However, for almost every WI pace bowler (even post 1975), Gavaskar’s was the most prized wicket. @Boll: I am well aware of the SuperTests performance of Greg as also Lileee (next time please put a qualifier ” unofficial” to indicate the 23 wickets especially when you mentioned that Lillee too having toured WI as many other fans read this blog without necessarily commenting and would think that those SuperTests were official Tests). However, retrospectively (after being in thrall at the klieg lights, action and drama of Packer era previously), I will never rate the SuperTests performance as the real thing, however bloody-minded and intensely competitive the cricketers may have been. CONTD.

Mercenary cricket is just that: play for cash/money in unofficial cricket (though during the Packer era national board compensation being pathetic and so the elite cricketers were perhaps justified to rebel unlike the “real” money mercenaries playing IPL and most of whom have quite plum national contracts). Greg Chappell found that out soon enough in 2 subsequent series in OZ when WI attacks lifted their intensity to almost make him a wreck (averaging barely 30 combined in 2 series as against the awesome average in the unofficial SuperTests though he did get a century at Brisbane). Even IPL 2010 seemed EXTREMELY competitive but fans and historians in the future will care 2 pennies about the performance in such competitions of international superstars vis-à-vis World T20 Championships (Even if IPL starts playing 8 foreigners in a side).

I should clarify the statement about Richardson's team only having three great players, because they still had an aging Desmond Haynes who was still a formidable force, and of course Richie Richardson himself who was a brilliant batsman.

What I meant to say was that Richardson's side was heavily reliant on Curtly Ambrose, Brian Lara, and Courtney Walsh, three of the greatest cricketers of all-time.

But the point still stands, that Clive Lloyd's team had far more champions and far more depth, and was an infinitely greater cricket team than Richardson's side. Nobody who has watched cricket over the last 30 years would even compare the two.

ESPN star cricket ratings, The Wisden, ESPNCRICINFO, Our very own Ananth' analysis, Fan's/Viewer's ratings all over the cricket playing nations etc. etc. but still people like to argue. I feel like laughing at them.

“Here's a guy who averaged 5 wickets per test in an era when his side boasted of several wicket takers!I can't readily think of any other bowler with that kind of a wickets/test ratio who played in a side as strong as Lillee's Australian sides!”
@Shri, not True! Man for man, Marshall played in the toughest and strongest Test attack sides- packed with genuine wicket takers almost throughout after the WIndies Packer rebels returned from 1980 onwards and still ended up with 376 at almost 4.6 wickets per match. My hypothesis is that Holding too would have ended with a 400 wickets tally if he did not have to be a part of such highly potent, penetrative attacks with EVERY bowler capable of regular 5 wicket hauls (which only Lillee was capable of in most Aussie attacks post the Winides drubbing of 1975 as Thomson was not much of a 5-wicket haul bowler).In fact, also just because a Garner or Walsh (early phase of career) who were bowling 2nd change and therefore 4th in the pack would CONTD.

have been surely champing at the bit cos of lesser wickets to snare (or spoils as the fearsome 4some hunted batsmen as a pack!). Also, post-1979 and with the fading away of Thomson, Lilleee was almost singlehandedly leading the attack (notwithstanding the Botham Ashes series In 1981 when just emerging Alderman and Lawson supported him strongly ) and therefore much like Hadlee and Murali (in weaker bowling teams) ended up picking up numerous 5-wicket hauls.
“Suddenly Lillee emerged and changed the face of the game for the next 20 years!” @Shri: I get the drift but hyperbole as his reign as a supreme, pure right- arm fast was for few years only in the 70s after which the WI pacers epitomized raw pace bowling-none of whom I seem to recall saying Lillee being the icon or making fast bowling fashionable (unlike the real impact of Warne on legspin bowling in the 90s and making it fashionable).

“I sense a strong anti-Australian (or dare i say anti-western) streak in you!”
I could preface my response with an essay (let alone a related book which incidentally is in the works) about the generally used misnomer term “Western” and generally aspects “Western”. Briefly though: The US is called a Western nation though almost 2/3rds of its immigrants are of Eastern European/Southern European stock that were NEVER EVER considered part of the West by Europeans. “Dark-skinned” Greeks were never considered Euro-Americans in the US but the best aspects of Greek civilization conveniently become a part of the Western civilization (and not Nazism!). Incidentally, I don’t consider Australia too to be a Western nation (irrespective of the dominant Anglo-Saxon stock of much of the settlers) whatever is the public perception.My only peeve (and justifiably so given the biased narrative of ICC history before it changed its name to include “International.."in 1965.” is that Aussie (or English)TBC.

Cricketers never really have to yearn, crave, lobby for recognition as superlative performances against the Poms will assure them of lifelong plaudits from the English punditocracy (media, ex-cricketers and writers) and therefore in Wisden, World XI lists. Something which the primarily Asian cricketers have to FIGHT for (Mind you not West Indians who are primarily still British subjects and therefore will always be eulogized and knighted . Note how for long Lara was lauded as better than Tendulkar cos of his superhuman 375, 400 against England and also his 501in county cricket. It is only lately because of the sheer longevity of SRT and his superlative record of international 100s that the Anglo fraternity has come around to rating SRT just ahead of Lara. Even Laxman is not RATED highly simply cos of no 100 in England). I am sure you would remember Aravinda de Silva’s awesome batting who I seriously considered to be in the Viv Richards class of batsmanship with the same attacking TBC.

and authoritative mien. He practically owned OZ attacks in ODIs right thru his career (and hurtled towards 9000 ODI runs and was as good – at times better- as Tendulkar in ODIs during the 90s) and also had good records in OZ and NZ in the few Tests he got to play there. But do you hear of eulogies, hosannas EVER about this cricketer from an unheralded Test nation (which rarely gets Tests even now despite being competitive after 1995).Thankfully, India’s English media ( India I firmly believe now has the largest English speaking population -irrespective of fluency and nuances of the spoken tongue- ahead of the US) which is acquiring influence has been showcasing the (which it should in much the same way smaller nation NZ’s Hadlee’s fantastic exploits and M. Crowe’s brilliance were lauded by Anglo-Aussie media) exploits of world-class Sangakarra , Murali and Wasim and Waqar(belatedly). Asian fans (not all Pakistani ) were miffed that Imran was barely considered for the cricinfo CONT

all-time best first Test X1. Even otherwise, Imran and Kapil had the best records against the marauding Windians but extremely average Botham (admittedly my one-time fav)against them still gets the plaudits. Even Sambit Bal who was actually tilting towards the best Test opener of all time Gavaskar to be in the first Test XI went with the majority opinion of plonking for Jack Hobbs purely because of his superior first class record and humungous FC 100s. Thankfully, Tamim Iqbal (hit possibly the most incandescent recent Test hundreds against Eng on their soil in 2010 ) who I SERIOULSY consider to be half as good as Lara (only temperamentally frail cos of playing in a nation with an ill-structured Test cricket structure which does not hone his awesome talent) has been acknowledged by Wisden quickly as Bangla won’t tour ENG till 2020 again!

Also, I challenge anybody to say otherwise that if SRT had not scored a single ton (despite his obvious class and world beating supreme talent ) in OZ but some middling 90s , that he would still have been the RATED batsman of the modern era he is today (Vengsarkar's status too suffered cos of no 100s in OZ and WI though some of the kudos still comes his way cos of those 3 consecutive 100s at Lord's right in front of the MCC establishment which mattered!) Raju Bharatan (Sportstar, Hindu) one of the greatest cricket essayists never got to write in the English(or Aussie ) press (KN Prabhu, Sunder Rajan, Rajan Bala were more reporters than columnists ). After ages, only a Dileep Prema of cricinfo gets a column (Ashish Ray and Mihir Bose get to write because they are resident Britons now) in the English press and finally talk about Asian cricket. Even Ayaz M. and Bhogle 2 of the better Indian cricket writers rarely, if ever, gets invited to write in Angloland.

Shri:For someone purported to be anti-Australian, I did write about Australia’s magnetic attraction for immigrants for a leading American content syndicate
(check link: http://www.ehow.com/about_5245282_reasons-migrating-australia.html_ )
For the record, Aussie cricketers I have admired and why: Border (true grit in a freefalling OZ side of mid-80s), Ian Chappell (always walked the talk of his seemingly bombastic analysis of all things cricket and captaincy and basically fearless against extreme pace as has been pointed out by others as also your father. Also a totally unbiased analyst who took on Aussie holy cow Bradman during the pay disputes of 70s and also fights fearlessly for Aboriginal and immigrants’ causes in OZ), Dean Jones (unabashed admirer of his art of pioneering ODI batting), Steve W (more so his 80s era ODI allrounder exploits), amiable Mark Taylor’s captaincy, ‘Ugly Aussie’ McGrath (who I rate higher than Lillee and who is the only pace bowler in the post CONTD.

to have throttled the powerful Indian batting line-ups barring Sehwag who attacked him briefly in 2 Tests and Razzaq, Tendulkar and Afridi at times in ODIs). And yes, I did watch almost all the balls bowled by Warne in his farewell Test series in 2006-07- again against Poms!.
SHRI: By the way, you conveniently love bringing up the injuries of Warne and Lillee to back your arguments. Even Tendulkar’s most ardent fans don’t talk about the horrors of his long injury phase in the 2002-2004 period (parallel to the sort of weird era between 2001-2006 when Ponting, Dravid, Kallis. Hayden and a few others racked up mountains of runs before Dravid and Ponting’s dramatic free fall together post 2006)but generally acknowledge Dravid and Ponting's dream run in Tests then. Also Imran had some debilitating injury issues which caused him to STOP bowling for a 2-3 year period at his PEAK (otherwise Imran was a sureshot for the 500 Test wicket mark going by his strike rate then).

Pallab, there are too many comments for me to read for reasons I have already explained. I am assuming that yopu have maintained the decorum expected.
Ananth

shrikanthk

In reply to your criticism of my analysis of Vishwanath.

In no way can Vishwanath rate an equal to a Lara or Tendulkar with his record.However in pure batting prowess he could even surpass them and was a genius.Facing a fiery Andy Roberts at his best to score 97 not out out of a team total of 190 on a fast Madras track in 1975 and tackling the likes of a demon like Sylvester Clarke on a Madras pitch termed by Alvin Kalicharan as quicker than Perth to score 124 out of 255 ,prove his mettle.Vishy literally scored more than 40% of the team's total runsin those games.Above all he won these games for India in addition to the the 1974-75 Calcutta test and the 1975-76 Port of Spain test.Infact Andy Roberts stated that on a bouncy track Vishwanath was better than Gavaskar.Remember Vishy's match-winning century in Melbourne against the likes of Lillee.

The West Indian quartet was the most lethal attack of all time with the likes of Holding ,Roberts,Marshall and Garner or Croft.However the Pakistan attack at it's best had more variety and in their era were the best.Imagine Imran,Wasim,Waqar,Qadir bolwing together at their best.However Imran was past his prime with the emergence of Waqar.The 1987 Pak attack was the closest challenger to Lloyd's lethal foursome as well as the 1992 attack with Saqlain Mushtaq or Mushtaq Ahmed assisting Wasim and Waqar.Wasim and Waqar were the most menacing bowling pair in history,more lethal than Lillee and Thomson on agreen top.Australia at it's best with Warne and Mcgrtah were marginally below the Pak attack in flair and versatality.

One batsman we forget to discuss is Ian Chappell,who played the Carribean attack better than brother Greg on bouncy tracks and was the best batsman in his era in a crisis.

@James, you seem to have mistaken this for one of those sites where vitriol and attacks ad hominem are par for the course. Differences of opinion are fine, and the statistics/analyses published by Ananth have always served as a basis for this. What I take exception to are statements such as this;

`Anybody who thinks that is just ignorant and plain stupid.`

`Any other stupid theories?`

`Anybody who thinks that the Australian batting lineup in 92/93 wasn't in the same class as the one from 2000 knows so little about cricket it's just plain embarrassing.`

`I get the distinct impression that some of you guys have been watching cricket for 15 minutes and think you know it all, when in reality you know absolutely nothing.`

... and finally, directed at the ever thoughful shrikanthk, the hackneyed `I`m older than you so I know better` argument;

`@shrikhanth I am guessing because of your age, but you really seem to have no clue`

With all the respect I can muster, vent elsewhere mate!

Boll, the problem is partly mine. I am on the road with a very slow Datacard. I have not been to read the comments properly. If I had been handled these comments at home I would have cut a few of these. I did not want to delete anything. I assure you before I leave Bangalore again I will have a much better Datacard.
Leaving aside the merits of rival claims, as you have correctly observed, this blog is one in which there is a healthy exchange of views. I vaguely remember a comment that Lara would not have lasted a dozen balls against the earlier WI bowlers. I am not sure whether this was the comment. To pull down all time great of one's own team to push up the case the others, it seems unbelievable.
I will be more careful in future.
Ananth

All said and done, the sad part is what crime did the best batsmen of the great teams that there is no mention of them
Haynes, Viv Richards, Ponting miss your names in the above lists man.

@James. However, I will humbly admit that the Australian team of `92/`93 (without Ponting, Gilchrist or McGrath; with Langer and Martyn on debut; with the Waugh brothers on 5 centuries between them; with Warne in his 4th test) was indeed the Australian juggernaut at it`s very peak.

As I believe Alex pointed out a year or two back, (after a lengthy, and at times heated discussion) `I suppose even an Australian teaching at some school in Japan is entitled to his opinion.`

James, Australia were beaten by high-quality reverse swing in 2005, would you care to enlighted us as to which of West Indians you mentioned bowled this sort of stuff? Hard to see how that series is relevant to the West Indian attacks of 70s and 80s as it was an entirely different sort of bowling, and in general you reveal the weakness of your postion by repeatedly posting over the top and unjustifiable comments like this one about 2005.

Honestly West Indian cricket does not need you to make up ridiculous things to defend it, just as Indian fans saying Tendulkar is better than Bradman bring shame on Indian cricket so you too are in danger of bringing dishonour and shame to the West Indies by over-stating your preference for the West Indies over Australia, you are welcome to your opinion but please do not slander the great West Indian team with any more volleys of your cringe-worthy hyperbole on the subject. Thanks.

Who were West Indies main rivals in 70s and 80s? Australia and england were the only fully professional sides around and they were both at their lowest ebb for much fo the time. India, Pakistan and New Zealand were so weak that they had never even won a series in England until the mid 80s, Sri Lanka were a joke and South Africa were banned from even playing Test cricket.

In contrast Australia dominated international cricket at a time after India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka had matured enough to win in England and win world cups, South Africa were also back in action with a very good team, even England had a decent team at times.

There was no real strength in depth in International cricket during the years in question, the West Indies dominated some of the weakest test sides ever selected, the 6th best team in the modern world would have thrashed the second best test side in 70s and 80s, WI were brutal and succesful but often faced teams with just a few genuine test players in them.

Shrikanthk, the youtube you have posted is of the 1988-89 series. i have aleady said in previous conversations that though Marshall was only 29 at this time he was already washed up. His pace had dropped to nothing, he was reduced to doing swing bowling, which had succeeded in England spectacularly (4 tests, 35 wickets at avg 12) and for some time had disguised his decline. In this series his most memorable bowling was in Sydney where he laboured for 29 overs bowling maidens like Bapu Nadkarni.

The Marshall you should see is the pre-1988 version. He was a serious terror. You should not read accounts of batsmen of a later vintage like Steve Waugh, nor read too much into what he did to India in 1989, as he seemed briefly to have second wind. Marshall bowling round the wicket was indeed dangerous. His working over of batsmen was systematic, ruthless and frightening. You must be joking if you write Hayden would have played him well. He broke down many better batsmen, like Border.

@Pallab : 'Mind you not West Indians who are primarily still British subjects and therefore will always be ... knighted . Note how for long Lara was lauded as better than Tendulkar ... It is only lately that the Anglo fraternity has come around to rating SRT just ahead of Lara'. As a West Indian, I find this statement particularly annoying, firstly because West Indians are not subjectto British rule any more than the other Commonwealth countries. Second, suggesting there is some conspiracy against asians, or that the asian cricketing nations must overcome more barriers than the rest is ludicrous. Tendulkar was named 8th greatest player at the turn of the century, and has always been crickets golden boy. Look at how many people state (and I will admit fairly) that Lara has been consistently termpermental? No one questions the genius of Tendulkar, and he does not seem to complain when others suggest he is not the best batsman, so dont be so defensive when arguing his greatness

WOW!!

What an avalanche of comments!

Boll : You and I seem very unpopular on this thread ;)

Pallab: The "anti-australian" remark was made in jest! I didn't know you would take it to heart.

Some good points about Marshall having as good a wicket/test average as Lillee given that he perhaps played in even stronger teams than Dennis.

Look. Nobody's altogether objective. I admit to being an Aussie fan. And I'm sure the WI fans are very well-represented on this thread. Our fandom obviously tilts our judgments. Which is fine as long as we attempt to listen to reason and refrain from categorical statements. Let's lighten up and not become too defensive when it comes to our heroes.

You must be joking if you write Hayden would have played him well

Gerry: I don't have a crystal ball to make such assertions with high levels of confidence.

My remarks were basically first impressions upon watching half-an-hour of pretty engrossing video, which is very hard to obtain!

All I said was that Boon and Marsh seemed overly circumspect and not too positive even in their defensive strokes. From what I've seen of Hayden, he'd have atleast chanced his arm against a Marshall who wasn't quite at his best.

Having said that, Marshall is pretty hard to drive even if he is wayward. In that video, what I noticed was that even when he gets his line wrong, the length remains very good. Also, he swings the cricket ball a LOT. I can empathise why Marsh and Boon couldn't confidently hit on the up.

Again, these are just my musings. Hardly a sacrosanct judgment.

@ James - I completely agree with Boll. Passion and data are fine, but language and tone that insults the other POV is not welcome here. It actually reduces the force of your argument significantly. Ananth has built this community with a very high level of dignity - let's not get carried away.

Anyway - what we are discussing are the top 2 teams of all time. Let's pause and consider that - the top 2 teams of all time. Let's grant them the greatness they deserve, irrespective of whom we support in a mythical encounter.

Ananth is planning (i hope) a simulated 5 test series; and his simulation is pretty awesome. I, for one, am looking forward to it. However, to re-iterate my position: between the 2 greatest ever teams, WI had one greater bowler too many. And that would be the difference.

@shrikanthk - i agree with your underlying theory of "conditions" (and context - helmets etc). however, in any sport, the truly great (acknowledged by their performance and general consensus) are considered great precisely for the reason that they would have been great in any other set of "conditions". One - off performances (or, niche performances under very specific conditions) get discounted. The rest - federer vs laver or fischer vs kasparov or puskas' magyars vs pele's brazil or Lloyd's WI vs Waugh's Australia - is a game we fans play (and in the process, discover new insights or strngthen old ones) :)

In Malcolm Marshall, Michael Holding, and Andy Roberts, Lloyd's team had three contenders for the title of the 'greatest fast bowler ever'

Interesting. Honestly, I never heard anybody say that with regard to Roberts! Anyway, I'm here to get enlightened.

And yes, the Aus '92/93 was a great batting lineup.
I would say even better in terms of pure, allround skill than the later 2000s Aus lineup. The later guys were mostly fast scoring bullies- Doubt they would have fared well against some real quality attacks

Why on earth have we ended up pitting the '92 Aus batsmen against the '00-04 Aus batsmen? Can't we appreciate both generations?

Any attempt to glorify the former at the expense of the latter is an exercise in nostalgia.

It's interesting...
The vitriolic criticism that Boll and I have been subjected to might give people the impression that we have been guilty of denigrating the great West Indians on this thread!

But neither of us has done anything of that sort. EVERYONE on this thread acknowledges that the WI teams under Lloyd and Richards were very, very hard to beat. All that we're attempting to do is a rational examination of the challenges and oppositions faced by the two great dynasties.

In contrast, we have a whole bunch of people on this thread who claim that none of the Australian sides from '89 to '08 would even compete with Lloyd's West Indians.

To my mind, that's strange! Commenters taking a moderately sceptical view are in a minority. Whereas, the more extreme view appears to be more popular and acceptable!

@mcswiggle. You need to learn a bit about cricket history. If you asked any fan from Pakistan, New Zealand, or England whether their teams from the 80s or the 90s were stronger, the vast majority would say the 80s.

Nearly every Pakistan cricket fan thinks that the team from the 80s under Imran Khan that featured Javed Miandad, Sarfraz Nawaz, Abdul Qadir and later Wasim Akram is the strongest in their country's history.

It is almost universally agreed that the New Zealand team featuring Sir Richard Hadlee is their best ever side.

The 80s England team featured Ian Botham, David Gower, Graeme Gooch and Allan Lamb and was a more formidable unit than Mike Atherton's teams.

The late 70s, early 80s Australian teams featured Dennis Lillee, Greg Chappell, Ian Chappell, Jeff Thompson, Doug Walters, Allan Border, and Rod Marsh.

The Indian team featured Sunil Gavaskar and Kapil Dev.

I don't want to bring the 'age' issue into it, but some of you are
making some very bizarre comments.

The England teams from the 70s and 80s also featured Bob Willis, Derek Underwood and Geoff Boycott and were a comfortably superior unit to the teams under Atherton and Hussein.

What is so difficult to understand about the correlation between Australia struggling against 4 average fast bowlers in the 2005 Ashes series and how they would have fared against the West Indies?

When you are put under that type of sustained pressure oven an extended period of time, eventually the batting team cracks.

To put it into some type of context, the best English bowler in Andrew Flintoff wasn't as good as the weakest great West Indian bowler in Courtney Walsh. That's how much difference there was in terms of class and skill between both attacks.

For the record, Marshall, Holding and Roberts all swung the ball, and all of them had a full command of the fast bowling arsenal.

I'm not West Indian, but I know enough about cricket to know that Australia would not have got close.

Boll,James:
James is just about walking the tight rope , i reckon.
A little bit of "masala" is alright.
Between the passionate rants, there is also a good amount of cricketing sense on display.

It's fun to read arguments and counter arguments by some passionate fans of Windies and OZ. Windies with their once-in-a-million yr attack would have thrashed any team, any time. When teams were glad to have one pure strike bowler they had four genuine strike bowlers. Lloyd's team needs no validation no extrapolati on to establish their greatness. Just care to listen to what even the best OZ experts say...beginning with Richie, GC, IC, Lillee and Thommo even. An early 80's Macko could have killed Hayden many times over....Ponting should be lucky to get a 50 in 10 innings. Some of the greatest events occur not because of methodic planning, systems but by purely coming together of great talents. Windies of late 70's to late 80's was invincible in letter and spirit and benchmark for the entire time Cricket is played!

Ananth - Great analysis but I am surprised that no one has raised this home and away issue before.
1. First of all, I think home and away should have much more differential than just 10 pts (1.05 and .95). It could be reasonable when you run the stats for a player against all nations but if it is against the top team of his era away games should get much more weightage than home games. I think you mentioned somewhere that 20% premium is too much? Why?
2. Home and away differential against one team shouldn't be same for batsmen from different countries. It can be tough to quantify but if Pak was the top team in this era Indian batsmen getting the same away premium as that of Aus/eng would be unfair to Aus/Eng batsmen. As there are limited qualitative factors separating pitches in diff countries, this premium should be based on the difference in the qualitative factor b/w home and away conditions. Simply put, VVS scoring a 100 in perth has to be more valuable than a 100 in lahore :)

Imran and Kapil had the best records against the marauding Windians but extremely average Botham (admittedly my one-time fav)against them still gets the plaudits

Why seek approbation from the "English" media? It is but natural for the English media to favour English cricketers! It is natural for media to be partisan. Everywhere. Don't know why one has to get worked up over it.

Thankfully, Tamim Iqbal...has been acknowledged by Wisden

Why the sense of relief?? Wisden's "Cricketers of the Year" is basically an attempt to acknowledge the best performers of the English season gone by. That's all there is to it. I'm sure you know this. It's hardly a global accolade. I can't quite fathom the attention heaped on it by fans worldwide.

Aussie.. Cricketers never really have to yearn, crave, lobby for recognition as superlative performances against the Poms will assure them of lifelong plaudits from the English punditocracy

Again. The obsession with the English "punditocracy" baffles me.
There are some very fine cricket writers in India, who are sadly barely read by the cricket loving public here, which is strangely more obsessed with Wisden lists and some imaginary "All-time XIs".

Take Ramachandra Guha for instance. Author of some wonderfully literate books on Indian cricket history, the best of which is Spin and other Turns eulogising his Indian heroes from the 70s. I wonder how many Indian fans have heard of it (leave alone reading it). There is no dearth of critical adulation for Indian cricketers. It's just that we don't seem to be looking for it in the right place.

@Narinder
Where did you get Sachin's average against Ws, Imran Saqlain Qadir as 49.08? This bit.ly/jibzLK returns 32.91.

And Lara has been part of some extreme bad decisions against Oz too. Remember the inside edge lbw Bichel in Bridgetown or the round the wicket pitching on leg lbw against Lee in 05 or Steve Waugh's (or was it someone else) bounce catch claim in '95? Point is both players had their fair share of bad decisions.

First of all, congrats for such a wonderful article. I see a tendency of readers to say, "Tendulkar did not have to face red hot McGrath or Lara was better" etc and support it by saying, 2003-04 McGrath was not there, Warne was not there and then filter the balls faced against McGrath and say Lara was better etc . . .
If Aus is a champion side, then IDEALLY it should not be dependent on one McGrath or Warne. They may be their best bolwers but then, Top side means the ability to go beyond individuals. So whether it was Paul reiffel or Glen McGrath, they are runs made against top team. I agree with Ananth here, in one of the comments where he says we would be left with 23 tests if we have exclude all others. Lets say the Aussie bowling was just McGrath and Warne. Can they bowl 90 overs between them in a day?? And still come back the next day, bowl from both ends unchanged??? So Warne and McGRath were not successful JUST by themselves, but because of the other bowlers who supported them

^^ Cotd . . .

2ndly , if Sachin scores 22 out of 84 balls he faces from McGrath and hammers all other weaker bowlers, I would call it better paced and planning of an innings than weakness. Going all out against McGrath is like driving a bike without a break and helmet in a bumper to bumper traffic in a highway at 80 km ph . . . it is not bravery but bravado . . . McGrath is thebest seamer and the batsman has to respect him . . . that is also an art. To pick a good bowler and good ball to hit is also an art.

I am in no way saying Sachin was better than anyone else, but having unnecessary constraints just to prove a point and put a legend down is not also right. I would say all legends were equal and some are more equal than the others . . . Kallis is best as KALLS and not as Sachin's comparisons. Everyone has a niche. I guess that is what this article brings out successfully.

I appreciate the efforts you take not only in preparing for the column but also in responding to all comments. Kudos to you!

My question to you is if you will also work on a simlar column which shows how the bowlers from around the world have coped against the batsmen from these tow dominant teams. Once the bowling figures are out, it would also indicate in a way which rivalries were high scoring or not.

There is a tendency among the older brigade to romanticize the performance of players in the 1970s/80s and trivialize the achievements of the current players. Every Indian cricket fan romanticizes the spin quartet but no one mentions the fact that India won little those days even under home conditions.
The quality of fast-bowling in the world has definitely declined. Every team in the 1970s/80s and even the 90s had a couple of quality quicks, which now is reduced to barely 1 per team.
That said, performing consistently beyond their first season is a serious challenge to players these days as Ajanta Mendis found out. Im pretty sure that he would have been a far more successful player in the 70s/80s but his mystery quickly wore off in this era of endless analysis

@Boll, @shrikanth, @Ananth: I think Waugh's Aussies was the best phase in post-1980 Aussie cricket. They probably would have won the '92-'93 series.

It should be noted that, as it is, the Aussies gave the WI a real run in '92-'93. The WI won it thanks only to an act of Ambrose and an act of Lara. Ambrose and Lara were as good as any in Lloyd's team but Lloyd's team had better depth than the '92-'93 WI. Across a 7-test series (or, ideally, an 11-test series), a bowler is likely to have at least 2 sub-par tests. This is where Lloyd's WI attack will score over the Aussie attack ... they had 3-4 great bowlers vs 2 great bowlers for Aussies (I agree that Gillespie was very good), almost equal batting strength, and almost equally good skippers.

Ha Ha some great comments here!

I saw the great West Indian side from the late 70s to the early 90s and can safely say there were the hardest, toughest, most brutal and brilliant side you could ever wish to see. Figures can say one thing (even though the figures support the greatness of this side) but watching them in the flesh is another. They were frightening and no side could consistently do well against them.

We could argue on points here and there about other sides being great but no side was as fearsome and even if they played today on these batting wickets they would still be awesome. It was not all about short pitched bowling - look at Marshalls (the greatest fast bowler i have ever seen) record in the sub-continent. Great fast bowling, great batsman and fantastic fielding. Even being a Pakistani fan I can say no side has been so entertaining. So what if they bowled 75 overs day (any more and the games owuld have been over in 2 days!) they were fantastic to watch!

@mcswiggle: Until 1983, at least 3 nations were top-class opponents for the WI:

1. Both England and Australia were very good until '83.
2. As is the case now, Pak always had good players 1976-1982 and became a formidable team once Imran became the captain in 1982.
3. Back then, India was a tough team to beat in India.

So, WI did face quality opposition until 1983. It is true that the only serious challenger they faced over 1984-89 was Pak. However, as I often say, the true WI dominance was Lloyd's regime. Viv, bless his soul, was a mediocre leader ... his leadership contributed to the decline of the WI cricket.

@James & @Abhi: Perhaps you are focusing too much on the '05 series. Sometimes, many players from one team can have an off series. Sometimes, many players from another surpass themselves. IMO, the '05 series was simply a coincidence of these two cases.

A more recent example of this phenomenon is the '08 Indian debacle in SL ... SRT, VVS, Dravid, & Ganguly failed but no serious cricket follower will label them bunnies against spinners.

Also, Ananth, looking at this analysis, i would look at UNADJUSTED averages, after making the stronger adjustment of eliminating from the analysis, weaker bowling attacks. Though subjective, any two all time great bowlers, regardless of career strike rates / avgs then, provided they were lethal, with good support would qualify. Let me explain. there are 2 factors. 1) I have seen Alex refer to the SA 2010 attack against India as outstanding. Completely disagree because it doesnt meet the criteria above (only one great bowler, Steyn. Morkel looks frightening but frequently releases pressure, and will not likely make the cut as an all-time great). I have seen Shrikanth argue that the 1976 WI attack against India should not be considered the strongest attack because all 4 pacemen were not there. What? 5 Indian players were injured. Three were hospitalized. Holding and Daniel (good averages both) bowled beamers. It was lethal, though illegitimate, bowling. CONTD

...Contd. The second factor is that Gavaskar actually gets downgraded from 56 to 48 average. Initially i thought that he must have got downgraded because of 1979 WI packerless team. But the adjusted average there is 68. So it must be the case that Holding et al did not have flattering averages in 1976 after taking a hammering in Australia, especially because it was his first series, and also a bit of OZ factor in umpiring. Hence the series downgrade for Gavaskar must have been very sharp. Likewise for Roberts and Daniel, who may have been dangerous even then and run up great numbers in that series, but lacked the career averages. So thanks for providing the unadjusted averages, and that is what i would look at, provided benign attacks like a McGrath-less Australia etc. are removed. So waiting with bated breath.

I have returned to base after the four day trip out of Banglaore. I have published more than 60 comments on road. I have not realy been able to read the comments in depth since that has been done only on my mobile. So I will do that tomorrow and revert with whatever is needed.
James and others
By now you would have known the way this blog works. Anything and everything goes in the other blogs. Here I have three clear policies.
1. No other reader should be abused in any manner.
2. No player should be abused in any manner.
3. I should not be abused in any manner.
Everyone has the right to complain about my article, my approach or my assumptions. No one has the right to question my integrity. I have lost readers who did not follow this requirement. I have lost readers who have said that I have not played Cricket. And that the articles are not statistical-based. Frankly I could not care less.
The readers should appreciate the hard work behind the articles, the sincerity of my work and my lack of bias. Faults have been pointed out, accepted by me instantly and correced. Not once in three years have I wall-papered cracks.
This is also a forum for readers to have a healthy exchange of views.
I am not playing God but a benevolent referee. The atmosphre which exists in this blog is wonderful and I would like to maintain that.
Your points are quite valid but please make sure that these instructions are followed.

@Gerry: I did not label the 2010 SA attack an "all-time great" but it is, IMO, an outstanding attack. Morkel routinely clocks 90+ mph and extracts serious bounce ... a superb foil to Steyn, who should be rated an all-time great. Harris is a very tight spinner. This is almost as good as what the WI had 1976-77 and what Pak had 1995-98.

@shrikanthk: Don't go by the YT clips of Marshall ... watch DVDs of his extended spells. Many, including Ian Chappell, SMG, and Tony G, rated Andy Roberts second only to Lillee in the 70's. Many consider Lillee to be a contender for the title "The Greatest Ever Fast Bowler". So, a fan might consider Roberts to be a contender as well. More than anything, he shaped the preparation & thinking process of the WI attack. I have seen him live and he was a real scientist at work.

@shrikanthk: Don't go by the YT clips of Marshall ... watch DVDs of his extended spells

Actually, the link I posted is an extended spell (ball-by-ball), not a collection of isolated clips.
However, it is from 1988-89 when he was presumably past his very best, as Gerry also pointed out.

Interesting comments on Roberts. Yeah, I remember SMG saying that Roberts was the most difficult bowler he ever faced. But then, I generally don't read too much into such remarks. After all, Tendulkar once said that the most difficult bowlers he faced were Cronje and Pedro Collins!

But I agree that Roberts perhaps remains the least talked about and possibly the most underappreciated of the great WI fast bowlers.

Ananth,
Not sure if you are still taking comments. How about doing this for the greatest batting sides ever? The West Indian batting from 1976 - 1987, the aussies from 1995 to 2005, India's Fab four/five from 2000 to 2008?

1. I apologize if I offended anyone with my tone.

2. To the guy who thinks that cricket in the 70s and 80s was weak and that Asian teams only started winning World Cups after 1990, please get your facts straight. I have already given you a list of high quality players that played for Australia, England, Pakistan, India, and New Zealand which included the formidable Martin Crowe, who I forgot to mention before, but here are some other facts.

India won the World Cup in 1983, the World Championship of One Day cricket in 1985, and both India and Pakistan made the semi finals of the 1987 World Cup, and Pakistan did not lose a Test series at home throughout the 1980s except to the West Indies.

So to categorize India and Pakistan as weak during that period is just plain wrong.

Some of the other brilliant Indian batsman of the day were Vegsarkar, Vishwanath, and Azharrudin who I missed before.

3. When ESPN named their legends of cricket series a couple of years ago, albeit with a very lopsided jury consisting primarily of Australians and Englishmen, 8 cricketers in Viv Richards, Malcolm Marshall, Dennis Lillee, Greg Chappell, Imran Khan, Ian Botham, Richard Hadlee, and Sunil Gavaskar who played in the 70s and 80s finished in the top 16, and Kapil Dev and Wasim Akram finished just outside the top 20.

So 8 of the top 16 cricketers of all-time played in the 70s and 80s, and you think that era was weak?

Pound for pound, there were more champions and superstars during the 70s and 80s than at any time during cricket history. Everybody thinks that was an era of some of the most competitive and formidable cricket ever played.

4. Please go and learn a bit about cricket history before making any more strange comments.
[[
Again, the slip is showing.
Let me tell you that all of us have our likes and dislikes and biases. However Cricket history is too vast a subject for it to be the preserve of one person or a few persons. I have no idea how this whole thing has come about.
However one thing I can say with certainty. Only a fool would pull down one great team to push up his favourite team. I am not saying that this applicable only to you but to all concerned.
These two are teams with sustained good results over the years. West Indies had more power in bowling, Ausatralia had more variety. The overall Australian results were better. However on balance West Indies did not face any really weak teams. No one could ever say that Chappell/Gavaskar/Amarnath/Gooch/Javed/Stewart/Border/Vengsarkar et al are any less than Tendulkar/Dravid/Laxman/Lara/C'Paul/Vaughan/Pietersen et al, nor vice versa. The Australian teams had those two fabulous streaks. But found their Waterloos in India and England.
I expect a simulation of 5-test series between the two teams to end 3-2 with the match venues playing a part which team would win the series. They are that close.
This indicates the futility of of any one making wild claims in favour of either team.
Ananth:
]]

I don't understand why people are so quick to discount the Aussie team that was so unstoppable over recent years. They beat everyone everywhere in all formats, had statistically the best batting line ups of all time. Their one slip up against the English in the '05 series was against a team that was in extraordinary form, at home in helpful conditions, with their bowling attack punching well over their weight while the aussies had a collective loss of batting form. It was also one series and when very similar teams met in Australia 2 years later the English were annihilated.

Also, the Aussies had to face: Ambrose, Walsh, Waqar, Wasim, Shoaib, Kumble, Harbhajan, Murali, Vaas, Donald, Pollock, de Villiers, Steyn --> all bowlers who have done enough to be considered all time greats, and in a time of vastly greater professionalism. Others like Flintoff, Harmison, Jones, Morkel, Zaheer, although inconsistent, were also outstanding when in form.

They didnt free ride their way to the top.

Awesome analysis. It is always interesting to see the best against the best... Some South africa and Pakistan teams had really good bowling attacks.. Like Donald,Pollack, Mcmillan, Mathews and Imran,Akram,Aquib etcc. we would like to see thebest against all of these guys.. Thank you again for putting such a wonderful analysis.

look at Marshalls record in the sub-continent

Agree on that.

But one of the cardinal principles of statistics is to be circumspect in inferring from figures derived from small samples. When we look at records in specific countries for a given individual, we are talking of 5-10 tests and seldom more. It doesn't take much to skew a statistic in such tiny samples.

Eg : Aus bowlers had a wonderful time in the 2001 Mumbai test. They continued to do great in the 2nd test at Kolkata in the first two days. At that point, they all must have had fantastic series averages. When Laxman and Dravid came together at the crease in the 2nd innings, all that Aus needed was one more wicket. Had they got that wicket, it could so easily have been 3-0 for Aus, with all their bowlers having sub-20 averages for the series! One extraordinary partnership turned the tide and spoiled everyone's bowling averages! That's all it takes.

That's why I generally avoid inferring too much from series averages.

Contd...

With career averages over 40 tests or more, there are no such sample issues. Good and bad luck tend to even out and the final figure you get is fairly indicative of the bowler's penetrativeness across all conditions and circumstances.

Even then, one has to factor in the "conditions" while reading the averages. Eg: Laker may have played in over 40 tests. But a lot of them were on dusty pitches that are not to be seen today. Hence, his career average of 21 probably flatters him.

Career averages do suggest that the WI quicks, as a unit, were second to none in cricket history. Let's stop at that. Comparing the subcontinental averages of Aus and WI bowlers can be misleading, given the sample issues and also given that the oppositions faced were vastly different. We didn't quite have someone as formidable as Rahul Dravid coming in at No.6 against WI in 1984!

Every Indian cricket fan romanticizes the spin quartet but no one mentions the fact that India won little those days even under home conditions

Suraj: Agree with the drift. But some qualifiers.
Bedi, Prasanna and Chandra all have slightly better averages away from home than Kumble. Their home averages range between 23 and 27 comparable to Kumble's average in India.

As far as winning matches goes, whatever games India did win back then be it home or away was almost entirely due to the efforts of the spin trinity, with not a lot of support from the batsmen. Compare that with Kumble who could look forward to totals of 400-500 to defend at home.

as Ajanta Mendis found out....he would have been a far more successful player in the 70s/80s but his mystery quickly wore off in this era of endless analysis

We had mystery spinners even back in the 70s. Johnny Gleeson for instance. His mystery wore off as quickly as Mendis' did! I think the modern tools of analysis are overrated

Where is Wasim Raja??????????
[[
He is there in the add-on table.
Ananth:
]]

Just discovered that Marshall played around 19 tests in subcontinent. Hardly a small sample. So, an average of 22-23 is a special achievement.

Nevertheless, my point remains that in a lot of cases, sample sizes are not this big. So, bowling averages can be misleading.

"Again. The obsession with the English "punditocracy" baffles me"
Shri: I hope you got the context of what I was trying to convey and my invoking the current influence of the Indian English media and the co-relation with the 100 year plus dominance of Anglo-Aussie cricket media and the acknowledgement or otherwise of many players. It has nothing to do with the approbation of players by the Anglo punditocracy and more to do with diffusion of news, information and propaganda. Diffusion and thereby fame/infamy/adulation counts: I remember the cheers that Warne got when he first came on to bowl (against India in Tests as people had already seen him at Mohali in World Cup 1996 semis and other matches then) at Chennai in 1998 and Gavaskar immediately commented on air that “many fans at the stadium would have seen Warne bowl on tele thanks to coverage of global cricket of other nations on Indian tele and would be aware of his status”. CONTD.

But the problem is the diffusion and perpetuation and ultimately acknowledgement of cricket players (positive, negative or otherwise) was happening only from one influential source and not a number of almost equally influential sources. It is the same as the modern (and even ancient) history and socio-politico-cultural narrative of the world primarily being seen through the eyes and words of Anglo-Americans (domination for 200 plus years) and the primacy of their spoken language and pop culture (with the result that Roman and Greek civilization supposedly take pole position in antiquity while simply DISCOUNTING or IGNORING much more advanced civilizations of China, India and Mesopotamia or even Egyptian). I will give you a classic and RAW examples: For years, one PROVEN Test legend Sunny G was blasphemously considered lesser than 4-Test wonder Barry Richards (not his fault about SA’s ban; just that early indication of such awesome potential is never an indicator of similar CONTD.

superior consistent performance or bestowed legendary status at the end of a career) simply because of his dominant county (occasional Sheffield Shield cricket and some World Series ) performances . Worse, SAffer Garth le Roux who never played a TEST was considered greater than Imran as a bowler(I seem to remember both bowled at Sussex). I need not bring up the race factor…but you get the drift. Other examples abound. You know about that Goebbelesian truism: Any lie (or info) repeated or perpetuated ad nauseam becomes the gospel or historical truth (you and I know not all fans are discerning and connoisseurs or have the time to ponder, reflect and analyze individually). I will give another example of influence and soft power and why it counts: Bollywood (which I have a visceral dislike for) is now considered almost on par with Hollywood in terms of global influence, power and reach and helping showcase India. This has happened simply because of the timing of the rise of India's CONTD

economic-political influence and its acknowledgement in the global comity of nations and therefore many of its brands/products (IT prowess, management talent resources being others) have gained primacy and status.
“Thankfully, Tamim Iqbal...has been acknowledged by Wisden”
Shri:I meant to convey that if for whatever reason Tamim’s career ends before the next trip to England in 2020 but with awesome numbers and “great” status by then,at least the English could not turn around and say he did not perform in England and dilute his place in cricket history. Similar to the Bollywood-Hollywood analogy eg. I will point out that unless there is a like prestigious Indian/Asian Award constituted (like Wisden which acknowledges fantastic performances in a English season of domestic and international players), or greater primacy of lauded and excellent Indian cricket writers globally, this so-called approbation will count or discount the heroics and exploits of many Asian cricketers CONTD.

and dare I say it in these politically correct climes -colored African players.
“Imaginary All-Time XIs” ?!!! SHRI:They matter to fans –look at the avalanche of comments on all manner of X1s put up by the columnists on this site (Lefties, Righties, 2nd XIs) SIMPLY because cricinfo (as against a book however well written. Books you would know are still considered “luxury” items in India) is now easily the most popular cricket portal in the world and generally the default site for all cricket fans and connoisseurs alike. It is moot that anything published here (and because of the archivality and easily accessibility attributes of the online mag format) that future fans will accept most of them as the gospel truth.
PS. I had forgotten to mention Guha (apart from the others that I named) who is now being acknowledged outside India as a writer of international repute (cricket, political affairs or otherwise, writing fairly often in scholarly American journals too)

“Now Lloyd's team had a much, much better batting lineup and a marginally better bowling attack.”
Shri: You are bound to make people see “red” (not that it should matter to you while stating your opinion or espousing some trends/facts) with this statement (by avid fans and not all of whom comment or are forced to comment when reading this statement). I know that you made this statement in direct comparison to the bowling attacks of the 2 WI teams, but it does not convey that not nor does it showcase the IMMENSE DEPTH and QUALITY of Lloyd’s bowling attack. Even if James might have got a tad personal, he articulated beautifully the qualitative aspects of WI pace attacks/teams. If you still want to discount James as a avowed WI fan overstating its case, please peruse thru the comments of other posters on WI pace attacks including Pakistanis, Indians, Aussies (not all of whom may be fans of WI but are simply acknowledging the primacy, sheer dominance and world-beating quality and CONTD.

and without necessarily being biased or playing up one or the other) on Ananth’s Caribbean blog and also this one. And many of them are not exactly doing what you said: “Which is fine as long as we attempt to listen to reason and refrain from categorical statements. Let's lighten up and not become too defensive when it comes to our heroes.” Also please remember that unlike cricket from the 1900s to say 1950s (the pre-1900s era barely matters and would be akin to discussing only a India-Pak slugging it out in kabaddi before it became a multi-country Asian Games discipline) where we can ONLY pull up written facts, accounts and statistics ( maybe bare minimal newsreels and TV footage even accounting for BBC’s great archives) to convey the subjective dominance or quality of teams and players, from the period between 1965-2010 (accounting for those born in the 50s and then being mature enuf to understand cricket played in 60s), you would have fans, connoisseurs and analysts actually CONTD.

having seen BOTH the dominant WI and OZ Test dynasties and so can COMPARE and COMMENT with first-hand knowledge.Without sounding macabre or wishing ill, I would say that as long as the protagonists (players), analysts and commentators of yore are alive (and IMPORTANTLY have SEEN both WI and OZ Test teams),a SERIOUS discussion should be initiated now that the Aussie reign has ended and both Test dynasties’ records and stats (apart from their recollection of live and telecast accounts of players) are there for all of them to dissect, dice and debate about. History should generally be recorded and chronicled (the Anglo-Americans have been great with their recordings and accounts of their “living” geo-political histories) with the living present and not be the subjective analysis of primary written or secondary sources which almost always accounts for distortion (as has happened with the brutal and sad India partition and non-recorded accounts with that generation fast fading away).

“look at Marshalls record in the sub-continent
Agree on that. But one of the cardinal principles of statistics is to be circumspect in inferring from figures derived from small samples. When we look at records in specific countries for a given individual, we are talking of 5-10 tests and seldom more. It doesn't take much to skew a statistic in such tiny samples. That's why I generally avoid inferring too much from series averages.”
Shri! Again selective and being disingenuous by saying that statistics have been skewed ! Marshall played 19 Tests combined against India and Pak in 5 series ! And not 1 series as you say when you pointed out the one Aussie series eg of 2001. Marshall’s 19 Tests are a decently big enough sample size to gauge and conclude about a player’s greatness or otherwise in certain countries/conditions-importantly AWAY.

Comparing of teams across eras should be taken with a pinch(spoonful!) of salt. The cahllenges faced by teams/players during their times are very different. But the players didnt have any control over it. Some players have played across the eras(like sachin) when the game has gone through quiet a lot of changes.To highlight a few of the major changes which have a bearing on the way games are played:
1.Introduction of UDRS(most recent)-cant imagine how the batsmen would have fared with many LBWs being upheld & also some being overturned
2.Introduction of 3rd Umpire/Video replays for run-outs:prior to this close decsions always went in favor of the batsmen and batsmen of yesteryears had the advantage
3.Over rates-with captains & players being fined for slow over rates, the game has changed. Four Fastbowlers with long run ups bowling all day is not possible any more.
4.Video Analysis-batsmen & bowlers get the advantage knowing what to expect while batting/bowling
TBC

“Second, suggesting there is some conspiracy against asians, or that the asian cricketing nations must overcome more barriers than the rest is ludicrous. Look at how many people state (and I will admit fairly) that Lara has been consistently termpermental? No one questions the genius of Tendulkar, and he does not seem to complain when others suggest he is not the best batsman, so dont be so defensive when arguing his greatness”
West Indian Follower: If you read a bit carefully, you will note that it is not me who said that SRT is just ahead of Lara. I said that that the Anglo media establishment came around to saying that. I never pushed for the case of one over the other or was being defensive (have never been a blind SRT fanatic). Incidentally I consider both in the same class and have publicly said that if Lara had not been ousted by WICB post World Cup 2007, he would have racked up 2000-3000 more Test runs that would have made it even tougher for SRT to surpass his aggregate CONTD.

given the lead Lara had over SRT at retirement. I never mentioned that Asian players were being conspired against but wrote about a FACTUAL narrative of cricket analysis, commentary and media reporting which can be influential and the perceptions that have been created.
Incidentally: “Native nationals of the British West Indies are considered as either British Overseas Territories citizens (BOTC) or British Overseas citizens (BOC) and would obtain a British passport stating the name of the British territory they are from.” The reason why Garry Sobers, Viv Richards got a chance to be knighted even though Barbados gained independence in 1966 and Antigua in 1981. Even OZ and NZ while still being sovereign nations are under the British Crown or Queen (and therefore the knighthood for Hadlee, Bradman and the like).
[[
Pallab !!! Very exhausting to read. Must have been far more exhausting to write. Also has very little to do with the subject on hand. However will publish to respect the work put in.
This message applies to all.
Please condense your thoughts into no more than two messages. After all 2000 characters is about 300-400 words and a lot can be said within this.
Ananth:
]]

'Go and learn about cricket history' was a comment directed at the gentleman who seems to think that the 6th ranked team in the modern world would thrash the number 2 ranked team from the 70s and 80s which is a ridiculous assertion.

The ICC rankings say that Pakistan is currently the 6th ranked team and in the early 80s, Australia in the Greg Chappell / Dennis Lillee era were ranked at number 2 before Imran Khan's Pakistan became the number 2 team in the world in the mid to late 80s.

I would go as far to say that the current number 1 team in India would struggle to beat Greg Chappell's Australian team or Imran Khan's Pakistan team, who are both widely regarded as being in the top 10 cricket teams of all-time.

I think that anybody who thinks that the current Pakistan team would beat Greg Chappell's Australian side or Imran Khan's Pakistan side does need to go and learn about cricket history.
[[
I am not sure whether anyone told that the CURRENT Pakistani team would defeat Chappell's team. If anyone said so it must have escaped my attention. I get the feeling someone might have told one of the earlier Pakistani teams might have done so.
Ananth:
]]

@shrikanthk and @Ananth: re shrikanthk's comment "We didn't quite have someone as formidable as Rahul Dravid coming in at No.6 against WI in 1984!"

1. Perhaps Ananth can refute this the best using his stats.

2. To note how potent the '83-'84 attack was, note the following.

a. Roberts didn't get a look in until the 4th test even though Garner was absent.

b. A prime-form Amarnath, then touted by some (incl. Imran) to be the then greatest batsman of any bowling, managed a net total of 1 run in 6 innings.

c. SMG, otherwise in good form, failed to cross 15 in 8 of the 11 innings.

d. Combining c & d, Marshall-Holding-Roberts could have sent any #6 packing had they focussed on it. Add Garner to that and it looks even more daunting.

Given that SA managed 1-1 in India last year, Lloyd's team would probably have beat these Indians 2-0. Indeed, even the declining Aussies would have walked away 1-1 last year but for an act of VVS.

@shrikanthk re.`Boll : You and I seem very unpopular on this thread ;)`. (could someone help me to italicise quotes btw?). No, you`re right there shrikanth, must admit it`s great not to be a lone voice in the wilderness though!

Also re. this comment

` It's interesting...
The vitriolic criticism that Boll and I have been subjected to might give people the impression that we have been guilty of denigrating the great West Indians on this thread!`

Absolutely. I grew up watching this team and they were spectacular. They were fast, they were cool, they absolutely smacked a ball, and everyone who played cricket wanted to be like them. You wanted to bowl fast, carve the ball over cover, be effortlessly awesome in the field, and high five your mates after a wicket.

I think ever since the great `60/`61 series in Oz, Australians had realised what a great thing this team were, in themselves, and for cricket in general. Seeing them play in a Boxing Day test remains my fondest cricket memory.

Having said that, the great WI teams were vulnerable and their legacy is not without caveats. 4 fast bowlers(however skillful), 11 overs an hour, often constant short balls and vicious physical intimidation, was not good for cricket. Like many great teams, in cricket and other sports, the West Indians forced rule changes. Bradman forced bowlers to adopt a horribly cynical riposte, as did players such as Pele/Maradona (until the tackle from behind was outlawed). The WI forced authorities to look at how much short-pitched bowling should be tolerated, and of course over-rates (which have improved, but remain a blight on the game). In many ways, the WI attack was an exercise in keeping bowlers fresh, denying batsmen opportunities to score, intimidating the oppostion, and utilising their brilliant skills to the utmost.

Against the WI batsmen, I think Warne(against a lot of right handers) McGrath, as well as Gillespie and MacGill would have fancied their chances. 3-2 Aussies!

@James and others, re.subcontinental power in the `80s. I`m not sure any discussion of ODI results is relevant in this context. In terms of tests, India won 11 of 81 in the 80s, SL 2 of 30, and even Pakistan only managed 23 of 80. India were walkovers away, and hoped for draws at home.SL were just starting out. Pakistan were very tough at home, and their usual enigmatic selves away. Nevertheless, 36 wins in close to 200 tests hardly suggests that the subcontinent was anywhere close to the cricketing power it is today.

Statistics for WI bowlers during this time should be looked at in this context.

To preempt any concerns though, and as his record shows, the mighty Marshall performed everywhere, against everyone, and remains my favourite fast bowler (well just behind Dizzy to be fair). People have mentioned his decline in the late 80s. In 88/9 he took about 90 wickets at 17 or so. He may have lost a bit in pace, but these are my favourite memories of the late, great man.

When is your next article coming up? I am waiting for the 4 tables done according to bowling quality faced;It will seprate men from boys. I am eager to know which batsmen has the best record while facing toughest of bowling attacks.

btw, are any indian, SL or NZ bowling indexes less than 30.0 ?
[[
Arjun
I had something else planned for my next one. However have been thinking of switching these two since the Bowling quality group based one will answer a lot of queries which have been raised recently. Let me see. The date will be approx 20th.
Ananth:
]]

I seem to be one of the few people using italics while quoting others on this thread!! C'mon guys. It isn't that tough.
Very cumbersome to follow who's saying what without italics.

Perhaps Ananth can refute this the best using his stats.
[[
As Shri does it, enclose the others' comments with the following tags. enclosed "i" and enclosed "/i"
Ananth:
]]
italic
Alex: Just checked the scorecards of the '84 series. What I find is that Roger Binny batted at No 6 in many of the innings! Do you seriously think that the Dravid of 2001 (who batted at No 6 in that Kolkata 2nd innings) wouldn't have been a tougher challenge than Binny??
[[
I apologize for the delay of a day. I was caught up in home related matter and had to be out the whole day.
Ananth:
]]

Also, let's look at the '84 series more closely. You guys can help me out as you probably followed it back then.

3 of the 6 tests in 1984 ended in a draw (at Delhi, Mumbai and Chennai). The scorecards of those drawn tests seem to suggest to me that India was the slightly better team in each of those tests, though never really capable of forcing a win due to their lack of spin power. In each of those tests, India got a 1st-inn lead!

Even in 2 of the 3 tests that WI won, India had its moments which it didn't capitalise on. They failed to chase 240 odd in 4th inn at Ahd. At Kolkata, Lloyd bailed WI out of what might have been a 1st inn deficit.

So, that series wasn't quite as hopelessly one-sided as the 3-0 scoreline suggests.

Why is it so difficult to digest that the '98 or '01 Indian sides with significantly more firepower in both batting and bowling would pose the '84 WI a stiffer challenge on turning pitches? Is this too much to concede for a WI fan?
[[
Again, Shri, that depends on the location. The recent strong Indian teams are quite capable of defeating ANY team at home. However even they have not travelled well.
Ananth:
]]

History should generally be recorded and chronicled ..with the living present and not be the subjective analysis of primary written or secondary sources

I just don't get what you are driving at with this statement? Let's not place "first-hand" knowledge on a pedestal. Sometimes, a historian studying an era without prejudices from a distance of even 500-600 years may be more insightful than contemporary criticisms of the time.

Regarding your quip on my remark about sampling issues: I had already made a note of Marshall's 19 tests in a subsequent comment before you replied!

@Boll: >> 11 overs an hour, often constant short balls and vicious physical intimidation, was not good for cricket.

>> In many ways, the WI attack was an exercise in keeping bowlers fresh, denying batsmen opportunities to score, intimidating the oppostion, and utilising their brilliant skills to the utmost.

They had one great bowler extra than any other attack in history and hence i think it will tilt the scales in their favor. Any mythical match-up between the 2 greatest teams of all time would be close; it's just that the extra great bowler gives WI a slight edge according to me.
[[
Would the better batting of the mythical Aussies compensate for that ???
Ananth:
]]

(the pre-1900s era barely matters and would be akin to discussing only a India-Pak slugging it out in kabaddi before it became a multi-country Asian Games discipline)

Sorry. Can't agree with this at all. Those were the formative years of the game. Between 1860 and 1914, there was so much innovation in the game in all departments which resulted in it evolving from a barely recognizable under-arm/round-arm sport of the village green at the beginning of the period to the more-or-less fully evolved international sport at the end of the period. How can one possibly say this period barely matters?

As Newton once said, we all stand on the shoulders of giants!

Ananth,
Would it be possible to put up composite strike rates and economy rates in addition to the usual averages which you use?

Ananth,
The above request is because of my conviction that in Test cricket strike rates are very important.
I fully understand that I cannot justify my stand with math (as you have shown us often in the past with increasing agitation and irritation). However, again borrowing from other articles here is some food for thought.
Getting a top batsman out early is the most critical part of his innings. Not restricting him.
After a top flight batsman is "in" he will inevitably make you pay- averages of bowlers notwithstanding.
For eg with Tendulkar and Bradman.
Once Tendulkar gets past 25, he has 13470 @ 98. (72 % better than his career avg.)
Bradman 6824 @ 145. (45 % better than his career avg.)
This similar trend applies to practically all top batsmen.
Would you rather give away 5/10 runs but get a Tendulkar or Lara out in the first spell? Most certainly.
If you don’t you are probably looking at a 100.
For eg. Pollock and Steyn have similar averages (but diff. eco and strike rates).
This probably explains why Pollock was the better ODI bowler. But in Test cricket I would rate Steyn ahead, average notwithstanding.
[[
I am looking at giving a spl weight for strike rates of bowlers in the Team bowling strength. That should take care of this request.
I am never agitated or irritated. I admire your single-minded devotion to the cause !!!
Ananth:
]]

Ananth,
Another request!
Next time could you simply put up the "Home" and "Away" figures separately too? (Since it is not incorporated in Bowling quality)
[[
Pl see response to Gerry.
In my next analysis I am going to incorporate home/away and period adjustment to the Team bowling quality rather than the runs scored. That way the runs remain untouched.
Ananth:
]]

Then readers may apply their own judgement on the issue.

@shrikanthk: A blessed soul has recently uploaded several clips of 70's WI cricket on YouTube. These two clips show Roberts in full flight:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suMKF2YmPwg&feature=related ;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUxPegqMqho .

Boll, your comments on "India were walkovers away, and hoped for draws at home" are a bit breezy. In '80s, V/s WI, India lost 2-0, lost 3-0, drew 1-1, lost 3-0. Against Pak, won 2-0, lost 3-0, drew 0-0, lost 1-0, drew 0-0. Against Eng, won 1-0, lost 1-0, lost 2-1, won 2-0. Against Aus, Drew 1-1, 0-0. Hardly that one sided taking the major oppositions only. However, in the tradition of arguing your point, you present the data points slightly differently - India did not win so many tests as % of test played, but definitely did not lose either - the consequence of having a weak bowling attack and a strong batting line-up. Earlier also, you kept displaying mighty stats of the OZ-2000 team - same number - % of tests played that were won, forgetting that the Zim (Hayden 380) and Bangladesh (Steve Waugh's centuries) were inflating the %. These one-sided presentations do paint a dramatic picture to others, but perhaps you yourself are under the wrong impression as a consequence.

Ananth, i am puzzled Saeed Anwar is not featuring anywhere. I distinctly remember him hammering the full strength Australian attacks right through the 90s. Stats guru confirms his hatrick of centuries. by my reckoning he should average 65 against the full strength Aussie attack, no less. I will also miss the article when it comes on 20th as i will be away on a longish "away" tour. I would however request that you float a preliminary conversation on what the basis for an elite attack should be. I think 1) it should include grouping in the order of merit of performance, as displayed in your Australian champion team analysis of last month 2) there must be at least two premier (preferably fast) bowlers in each match -so no bedi / chandra / pras type 3) all oppn not only Aus / WI should be included 4) unadjusted avgs must be displayed - i have already pointed out the type of distortions average adjustment can cause (how can anyone's avg be adjusted downwards in THIS piece...thanks
[[
Saeed Anwar is a special case. He is obviously not there for West Indies.
Against Aus, when I had the longer period, he scored 886 at 59. Good enough to be included but missed the cut-off. When I shortened the period, two of his centuries were before the cut-off and he even missed the 500 runs cut-off.
I will do my next analysis for all teams, based on bowling strength, home/away included in strength, no adjustment of actual runs, period adjustment, no artificial idea such as 2 fast bowlers (you will then exclude ALL Indian attacks).
Ananth:
]]

Shouldn't the WI period should begin from test#777, the start of their England campaign? Before that, they were hardly dominating having been thrashed in Australia and almost shocked by India. Besides, the bowling team hadn't come together. One obvious impact will be on Greg Chappell with his 702 run series going out.

The other option is to begin it at test#797 in the test series against Pakistan. That was the series where Garner and Croft had come in. And the foundation of their dominance had been cemented.
[[
A few tests here and there do not really matter. I started tfrom the test 764 in which Holding and Roberts played together.
Ananth:
]]

@shrikanthk: Let me recap the '83-'84. IMO, the great Aussies surpassed WI on winning % but not on invincibility. A'bad was a bowler's pitch. The WI drawbacks were in the batting department:

1. Viv was sub-par (beginning of his greatness in tests).

2. Haynes was sub-par.

3. Richardson debuted later in the series and was not the world-class batsman he soon developed into.

Lloyd & Greenidge did very well. What the WI did have was a great fielding unit, Marshall at his absolute peak with Holding & Daniel/Roberts providing superb support, and Lloyd's leadership.

Of course, the '01 India would have put up a stronger fight and Dravid is all class. My observation is on the 2010 team (equally impotent bowling attack as '83 Ind): SA managed 1-1 in India and Aussies could have managed 1-1. So, IMO, Lloyd's WI (who had superior bowling and almost equally good batting) would have done 1-1 with a decent shot at 2-0. I also feel the '01 series is a golden chapter in Indian cricket.

@shrikanthk: The Top 6-7 in the batting line-ups of Ind:

Ind '83: SMG, Gaekwad, DBV, Mohinder, Patil, Shastry, Sidhu, Binny/Kapil.
Ind '01: Das, Ramesh, Dravid, SRT, VVS, Ganguly, Mongia.

Ind batting did not fail as miserably in '01 so that its Top 7 was not like the musical chair of '83. Against top flight pace attack, I daresay Shastry-Kapil are the equal of Ganguly-Mongia. Mohinder, at the time, was rated the world's best against any bowling. SMG-DBV are almost the equal of Dravid-VVS in India. Das-Ramesh can't give a lot more than what Gaekwad-Patil-Sidhu gave. So, going into the series, the batting quality was not _that_ superior in '01.

I don't think the '01 Ind attack was superior either. Bhajji had a breakout but all else (Zak) were either too young or too old or mediocre. Only Bhajji did well, much like Kapil of '83 ... stats show that SRT was India's next best bowler (behind McGrath, Gillespie, Warne, Miller, M Waugh) in that series!!

Ananth, sure. but 1) to count all attacks would admit distortions. For instance, if Gavaskar's maiden series is traced, his average of 154 will perhaps get scaled down to 125 - such attacks should be EXCLUDED, because a slight deterioration of bowling quality can produce massive swings. Indian spinners had legendary records, but were massacred in Pakistan in 1978, as another example. 2) As i said earlier, Michael Holding averaged 61, 19 and 12 in his first three series (spread over 6 months), so in his second series (against India), any runs scored would get severely downgraded by his poor CTD records, though he had graduated already to killer status. 3) These days not much difference exists in home and away records, but it did exist earlier in the era of home-country umpires, so for instance, the bucketful of runs Amla routinely scores in India would get upgraded (quite unfairly, I think). So i would support any approach which filters out "weak" attacks (some subjectivity unavoidable).
[[
Weak attacks are filtered into other classifications automatically. An attack cannot be termed weak just because it was slaughtered. That is wrong. An attack is what it is. If Holding had a c-t-d average of 61 the attack would automatically become weak. I do not want to make one more subjective decision than what is needed.
If Gavaskar scored his runs against a fair attack, that too away, why should his runs be excluded just because West indies did not have the bowling strength or the selectors goofed up.
Hammond's 336 will probably get credit for less than 200 because the Nzl attack was awful, almost the worst in history. But what is totally wrong is not to even give Hammond credit of the sub-200 figure.
I am analyzing 1924 matches and about 6800 innings, excuding the pre-1900 Tests. I cannot sit here and look at individual innings or test or series or year or batsmen. I have to look at macro level, making sure that the calculations are correct, assumptions sound and the results valid and acceptable. There might be variations. But those should be accepted.
Ananth:
]]

@Boll: Re your quote "Against the WI batsmen, I think Warne(against a lot of right handers) McGrath, as well as Gillespie and MacGill would have fancied their chances. 3-2 Aussies!"

I think this Aussie attack is not superior to the Pak attack of '86-'90 (Qadir, Imran, Akram, Waqar). Viv's WI still managed 1-1 in two 3-test series _in_ Pak. Lloyd's WI was a superior team (certainly so in batting) and could have won both. So, I think Lloyd's WI will beat these Aussies unless Aussies prepare all pitches to be the ones on which Holland and AB made merry.

Gerry,
Your eg. is a known problem with CTDs.
The only way around it is to utilise some sort of "form" factor (but that is still in the pipeline)

This initial "drag" or "impetus" (as the case may be) applies to many cricket stats such as the wisden ranking points, bowling and batting CTDs etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogJvBYXHMqw
I was searching for less pathetic clips of Marshall, and stumbled across this. After reading several (mightily) disparaging comments against the West Indies (any comment that does not extol their virtues in the extreme must be considered an insult), i watched this. it is a bit painful to tolerate so many interviews, but interspersed are some excellent clips of "throat balls". like water to a man dying of thirst in a desert. There are three more parts after this, and will come up in the listing alongside. I have no doubts that today's batsmen have it easy. Here is to more 50+ averages (until the relentless Ananth adjusts it downwards, of course).
[[
Chappell and Gooch are the only two to have got an aveage of 50+ against West Indies 1976-1995. Surely you do not think these are 2 too many. Even during this period, if the West Indian bowlers were truly unplayable there would be many more sub-100 innings scores. Maybe I should do a team-performance analysis.
Ananth:
]]

But Ananth, if you include Hammond's 336 and Tendulkar's 248 etc, which were all not against the type of attacks that Alex judges as "real" then the analysis will throw up a different outcome. Perhaps as one reader suggested, you can categorize attacks into 3/4 categories - Abysmal, Bread-and-Butter, Competent and Deadly (A, B, C, D). This can be on the basis of averages, (fined tuned by CTD / form factor etc. as Abhi suggests, and hopefully, also including peer batting average factor (which you had once done, wherein a batsman's performance as a multiple of mainstream batsmen's average is taken)). Then you can certainly measure UNADJUSTED (and of course adjusted) performances in each category. It would also bring out batting performances in each category more clearly.
I am not sure i agree that Gooch had 50+. I have already expressed my opinoin on adjustments. Gooch made 60+ average in 1991 against a tired attack (only Ambrose). Did not do too well in '86 and '88 when WI was brutal.
[[
I am afraid I am not getting through to you.
There is no way ANY INNINGS can be excluded. I will have 5 categories. 5 (the best) to 1 (the worst).
Hammond's 336 will get into category 1 (45-60) and I am not sure about Tendulkar's 248. Maybe the same or category 2. The point is that these are Test runs. You and I have no right to play God and say that this innings will be excluded.
Lara's 153 might get into category 5 and 277 into category 4. The point is that ALL INNINGS will be fitted into one of 5 categories.
What is this thing about tired attack. Do you have the measure for that. If it was Ambrose + 3 clowns, automatically the innings would get into category 2 or 3. On the other hand Gooch's 154 might get into 4 or 5.
It will be your choice to completely ignore categories 1 or 2. Fine. But do not tell me to exclude innings based on subjective criteria.
Finally NO INNINGS WILL BE ADJUSTED. It will be the Team Bowling strength which will be adjusted.
Ananth:
]]

I think this Aussie attack is not superior to the Pak attack of '86-'90 (Qadir, Imran, Akram, Waqar). Viv's WI still managed 1-1 in two 3-test series _in_ Pak.

Maybe not superior to Pak attack. But a much better fielding side by most accounts, which can add to the potency of an attack!

After reading several (mightily) disparaging comments against the West Indies

Gerry: I'm sure you'll agree that the "mightily disparaging" remarks against Aus on this thread clearly outnumber similar remarks (if any) against WI.

@Gerry_the_Merry. G`day, and thanks for your replies. As usual you raise important points and make valid comments. I didn`t mean to come across as dismissive of Indian performances throughout the `80s. During this period there were often moments of individual brilliance and, in Kapil and Sunny in particular, some of the all-time greats of the game made their mark. Nevertheless, results were poor. 81 tests, won 11, lost 21, tied 1, drew 48. W/L % .52 - is not a great return. Nor is 23 series for 5 wins, 8 draws, and 10 losses. I think you would agree that these figures pale in comparison with those of the last decade.

I make these comments in full knowledge of Australia`s very poor performances throughout much of this time. In the mid to late 80s (spanning my entire time at high-school) Australia won 1 of 10 series (at home against NZ, and drew 1 and lost 2 against the same opposition). As per my previous statement - easybeats away and pretty happy to draw at home.

@Gerry cont`d. I`m not quite sure how my representations of history have been one-sided, however. And I don`t quite understand why stating the winning percentage of a team is an attempt to paint things in a dramatic light.

As per Ananth`s parameters, West Indies from Test #764-1371. Played 176 tests, won 80, lost 32, drew 64. Won 45%. W/L ratio (as per cricinfo) 2.5.

Australia from Test #1121-1879. Played 211 tests, won 129, lost 36, drew 46. Won 61%. W/L ratio 3.58.

Of these 211 tests, only 7 were played against Zimbabwe or Bangladesh - barely any difference is made to overall statistics. Many teams/players have boosted stats by playing regularly against these teams. I would suggest that Australia/ns have been advantaged less than most.

I don`t feel there`s much doubt that in terms of an aggressive `winning` policy, these Australian teams broke new ground - score quickly, make attacking declarations, and bowl the other blokes out twice. Results show they did it better than anyone

I don't think the '01 Ind attack was superior either.

I was considering both the '98 and '01 Indian sides. The '98 side was, if anything, even better than the '01 side with Kumble and Srinath in good nick and with Sidhu and Azhar in great form as well.

Again, Shri, that depends on the location.

Ananth: Ofcourse it does. Not in my wildest fantasies can I back any Indian side from its history to defeat Lloyd's West Indians on home turf. Especially if the WI pitches happen to be as pacer-friendly as they once were.

My only argument has been that it is not altogether fair to compare the subcontinental records of Lloyd's West Indians and Taylor/Waugh's Aussies and draw easy inferences, since there are too many imponderables involved.

Ananth..

I didnt say that you dont publish my comments. It was just a request that in case you publish only few selected comments then please include those comments of mine also.

For Lara'a average, I got it here:

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/52337.html?class=1;filter=advanced;host=2;opposition=2;orderby=default;template=results;type=allround

Since no-one else seems inclined to mention it, I`ll give it a go. The ability of the great Australian teams of this era to clean-sweep/whitewash/win every game in a series deserves remark. They made this their hallmark, took great pride in stating it publicly as an aim, and set a new standard in this regard.
Memorably, from late `99, in successsion, they swept Pakistan, India, NZ (away) in 3-test series, and WI in 5. Of course at some stage they swept everyone at home; England in 5, South Africa in 3, other teams on numerous occasions.

Not only these, but performances such as their 3-0 away victories against strong South African and Sri Lankan teams in the mid 2000s have rarely, if ever, been matched. Forgive me for stating the obvious, but you can`t achieve this without bowling out the opposition twice every time you play.

When you add 3 World Cups (4 finals in a row) to this sort of record, why is it so hard to conceive that this team was as good as any?
[[
Or better than !!!
Ananth:
]]

@shrikanthk: I too think '98 Ind was slightly superior to '01 Ind in all departments except captaincy. '01 Ind was more special though with its final 7 days ushering in a golden era for Indian cricket ... Dada was AB re-incarnated as far India is concerned.

Finally, as I said earlier, the great Aussies far surpassed the great WI on winning % but, IMO, the great WI were more invincible. We can appreciate each without splitting hairs on fantasies such as who will beat whom. Ian Chappell's Aussies were pretty formidable as well with a great bowling attack ... probably the best bowling attack since the days of Trueman-Statham-Tyson for England.

Ananth, now i think we are in sync, as you are indeed breaking up bowling opposition into different categories, and not rolling everything into one "bowling quality index". That is fine, and no innings need be excluded. You are also giving unadjusted batting averages according to bowling strength category, so that should display everything clearly.

Shrikanthk: WI did 1-1 in Pak ('86) and 1-1 in WI vs Pak ('88), when Pak were in full strength, but WI had no Garner, Holding, (though they had Tony Gray, who was potentially Ambrose class) and in one of the tests they lost in WI, no Richards and Marshall. In WI, they also lost Gray, who and instead got a raw Ambrose and Patterson to back up Marshall in the 2nd and 3rd tests (after losing the first). Had they been full strength, they would have swallowed Pak whole. Also did not have Larry Gomes in '88.

@Gerry. re [in the tradition of arguing your point, you present the data points slightly differently - India did not win so many tests as % of test played, but definitely did not lose either - the consequence of having a weak bowling attack and a strong batting line-up. Earlier also, you kept displaying mighty stats of the OZ-2000 team - same number - % of tests played that were won,]. (Have I managed to italicise this?) Not sure what your point is here? I believe I said that India had won 11 of 81 tests played, Australia x of y tests played. Seems a reasonable comparison to me. As to my `tradition`, please explain.

Boll, i am saying that your favorite stat is the % of tests won. This can give a misleading picture. In the 80s, specifically in India, draws were common. This was because the pitches were dead pitches, bad for batting / strokeplay and bad for bowling / lifeless. Hence tests won against lost is probably a better stat. Secondly, Australia did win against WI, a really poor team after 1999, where Lara's brilliance kept them afloat. They found it difficult not only against Australia, but also England, to reach 100 in several innings. They lost heavily to SA, Aus and England. Then Sri Lanka was also a bunny, until 1996, and even after that, poor travellers. Then you have Z and BD. So merely removing Z and BD says nothing. Hell, WI did not even play Sri Lanka in tests till the mid-90s...! How can you compare the percentages of win/played.

@Boll: Ananth did a fantastic article a few months back on batting and bowling strengths. Some of the great Aussie team from 1999-07 finished at/near top on both tables whereas the great WI were at the top on the bowling tables. I think the best Aussie team had fewer weaknesses: more balanced attack, better depth in batting, and possibly better fielding. I think S Waugh was as good a skipper as Lloyd. Dujon near his best can cancel out Gilly. So, the WI can beat the Aussies only if their strengths (best 4 bowlers and best 5 batsmen) click.

Lloyd's WI broke the ground in the invincibility territory (Don's '46-'48 is too small an era) while the '99-'07 broke the ground in the winning % territory. One of these Aussie teams could be considered the best of all-time. I do think that Lloyd's WI was more likeable (Lloyd's autograph is a cherished memory) and will always root for a team from '79-'85 era for that prestigious tag.

'Why is it so hard to conceive that this team is as good as any'
Simple. Because Australia lost 6 Test series between 1994 and 2005 when they were at their peak.
If you lose, you lose. No if's, no buts, you lost.
They lost to Pakistan in 1994, India in 1996/1998/2001, Sri Lanka in 1999, and England in 2005.
Put simply, the West Indies would not have lost to any of those fairly average sides. The best team out of that group was Pakistan in 1994, and they were handsomely beaten by Richie Richardson's West Indian team 2-0 the year before in 1993.
Greg Chappell's Australian team and Imran Khan's Pakistan team are both widely regarded as being in the top 10 cricket teams of all-time and were better than any of the sides that Australia lost to, and even they weren't capable of beating the West Indies between 1980 and 1995.
It seems a little unrealistic to expect anybody to believe that an Australian team that lost to some fairly average sides were not going to lose to the West Indies.
[[
If you have not done so already please go back to Cricinfo archives and read my article on Test Series (Oct 2010). It bears with what you say. During 1980s, West indies played 19 series, won 14 and drew 5 and were undefeated over 10 years. During 1990s they had mixed results. I have presented below an extract from the article. However I suggest please read the full article. I have presented this here for you to appreciate both wonderful sides.
""
First two wonderful streaks have been identified and presented here. I find it difficult to distinguish between the two. Both are outstanding examples of team performances.
The first is the longest unbeaten streak of test series without losing. Let us trace the path.
West Indies lost the 3-test series to New Zealand by 1-0 (that too a 1-wkt loss).
Then, during the next 14 years, West Indies went on to play 29 series, 17 away, and remained unbeaten, yes, you read it correctly, unbeaten. They won 20 series and drew 9 series. And let us remember, no weak teams. This is the definition of domination, matched by only one team afterwards. Just for information, West Indies gathered 174.5 points during this streak and averaged 6.02 points per series.
The streak came to an end during 1994 when West Indies lost 1-2 to Australia at home.
Now for the other, equally mind-blowing streak.
Australia lost to Sri Lanka 0-1 during 1999 away.
Then, during the next 9 years, Australia went on to play 34 series, 13 away, and had 32 wins and 2 losses. This is the alternate definition of domination, matched by only one team before. Just for information, Australia gathered 196.3 points during this streak and averaged 5.77 points per series. The two losses were the famous 2001 Indian win and the equally famous 2005 Ashes win, both by narrow 1-2 margins.
The streak came to an end during 2008 when Australia lost 0-2 to India away.
The most number of continuous series wins was by Australia during the period 2005-2008 when they had 9 consecutive wins. This streak was book-ended by the 2005 Ashes loss and the 0-2 away loss to India during 2008. The index for this streak was 6.29.
""
Ananth:
]]

Ananth:
I cannot help but think that the idea of using only Bowling Quality as a standalone measure without Pitch quality is like clapping with one hand. It is meaningless.
Bowling quality and Pitch quality are 2 sides of the same coin and are not mutually exclusive.
I think sirkanth has pointed out roughly the same point in different ways.

Gerry_the_Merry:
As mentioned above you simply cannot exclude Pitch Quality and use only Bowling Quality. You have mentioned Hammond's 336 and Tendulkar's 248 . As an example of my argument we can use Lara’s 400*.
The bowling quality index may be good- but what about Pitch Quality, where even bowlers of the given Bowling Quality only managed to get 5 wickets in near 3 days.
[[
AD
I have mentioned this many times but will repeat. What you are suggesting is what is required in a complete Innings Rating exercise. In that exercise why Pitch quality, I will say Innings target, Innings position at batsman entry (150 for 1 against 27 for 3), Result, Series status et all will all play a part. I have done that many times in the past.
What we are trying here is to do an effective way of measuring which batsmen have faced the top attacks well. There is no point in complicating every exercise with all possible parameters. You may ask for Pitch quality, Abhi might ask for Recent form, Alex may ask for Innings position and so on. There is no end to it then.
Finally let me say this. No one scores 300+ runs on a seaming, spinning or fast pitch. Almost all 300+ scores have been scored on flat pitches. It is the level of flatness which varies. In these things the bowling quality is what matters.
Hammond's 336 was against 5 bowlers who had together taken 26 Test wickets at 40+. They finished their career with 36 Test wickets.
Lara's 400 was against Flintoff, Hoggard, Jones and Harmison. Let us keep our perspective.
Ananth:
]]

Ananth,
Reminds me. You were once going to do a "live match" only analysis (exlcuding the "dead rubbers").
I guess it would be too much to include this in your forthcoming analysis. But such an analysis is pretty sure to knock some Legends.
[[
Abhi
That is a double edged weapon.
If the series score is 3-1 and someone, it does not matter from which team, scores a 300, how can that innings be downvalued on the "dead rubber" basis.
The leading team is trying for a 4-1 win which is, say, 50% better than a 3-2 win. Vice versa for the trailing team. So no one, in their right minds, would take the match lightly.
Also how can there be a dead rubber today with ICC Test Rankings at stake.
Ananth:
]]

AD,
"Home" and "away" bowling figures (ideally if used country wise) would to some extent negate the requirement for "pitch quality".
However,Ananth intends to make an adjustment for "home" and "away" in further analyses too- which should smooth over some cracks.

Ananth,
That is a valid point about "dead rubbers".
If things are "tight" between Teams for ICC Test rankings then the equation changes.
However, in actual fact and in the real world things will be slightly different.
For eg. for a team that has already won the series may well "experiment" with newer players, "rest" senior players, and even the players on the field would have a lesser incentive for going all out.
[[
What you say makes sense in ODIs. However in Tests only Australia has done this rotation policy, possibly also because of their bench strength.
And it is true that if Australia replaced McGrath and Warne with Kaspro and MacGill, their bowling strength would be reduced considerably, automatically devaluing any batting performance.
Match intensity is too vague a term to be considered seriously.
Ananth:
]]

Ananth,
Fine. I guess we can leave it at that.
Just a "lob" at some of those folks who go on about "performing" when it "really matters".
Not to forget "real" bowling attacks, and "real" bowlers (in some cases apparently just one) etc etc

during the next 14 years, West Indies went on to play 29 series
...during the next 9 years, Australia went on to play 34 series

Two very telling lines. What do they tell you? They give you an idea of the very significant increase in the amount of international cricket played during the 90s/00's as compared to the early 80s.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, the more you play, the more vincible you become. No wonder the Aussies lost more series. No wonder Aussies suffered from injury losses in vital series more often.
[[
Very valid point and trust my dear friend, Shri to spot it. Give Shrikanth an inch and he will find a foot of gap to support Australia.It also means that the time for rest and recuperation for the earlier period teams was more.
See what damage IPL is already doing. A weakened Indian team to tour WI. What happens when the Tests come is a moot point.
Ananth:
]]

Srikanthk
Simple way to test your hypothesis : Just a look at Total amount of matches decades wise by All teams.
When we look at Aus and WI we get:
Aus :
‘70s : Total Tests played 76 Total ODIs played 58
‘80s: 66/ 74
‘90s: 56/ 54
00’s: 50/ 62

WI:
‘70s : Total Tests played 54 Total ODIs played 32
‘80s: 40/42
‘90s: 55/63
00’s: 76/85

Something doesn’t seem quite right about your observation.
Perhaps we should be looking at individual "matches" instead of "series" ? Given that 5 match series are nowadays a rarity?

As, we know the longer the series progresses the better the chance for the better team to come out on top. "Hot streaks" of opposition players will not normally last over 5 matches.

Ananth:
I find it very difficult to agree with you. As per the previous example West Indies were thoroughly destroyed in the first 3 Tests of the series. By 10 wickets, by 7 wickets and by 8 wickets respectively.
WI scored an average of 18.21 runs/wicket in the first 3 Tests. In the 4th Test they scored 751/5.
Are we seriously to believe that it was not purely the pitch which altered the state of affairs?

The suggestions by Abhi,Gerry_the_merry and others are tweaks on the bowling quality.
My entire contention is that the bowling quality and pitch quality must ideally be conjoined into one single unit.
Only the very few genuinely great bowlers will manage to master all wickets. For the remaining 99.9% of bowlers pitch assistance or lack of is a critical consideration.
[[
I took the trouble of sending a detailed response. You do not seem to have read that and have re-iterated your point. As such nothing will be gained by my saying anything more.
Ananth:
]]

Abhi:
I also fail to understand your point of how home and away bowling figures take care of pitch quality. It may only do so to a very limited extent but is not enough.

Shrikanthk, i continue to be astonished by your one-sided assessment. In my opinion, you seriously need to step back and read your own comments to try and spot the bias. Overwork only affecting Aussies? Were not the teams WI faced also strengthened by less workload? I seriously believe that you have locked yourself into a narrow perspective, which is that OZ 2000 is the best, and hence WI 1980 must not have been good.

AD, Extremely difficult to take into account pitch quality. A good example is Sobers 113*. Gavaskar 90 against a top class WI attack on a terrible pitch. These are one-off innings, and such pitches dont occur often. This is an exercise in measuring bowling quality v/s batting and all other factors must be assumed to be averaging out. What if the pitch is bad and match heading for draw? What if ordinary bowlers are running amok on a bad pitch (e.g. NZ India 2004 in NZ). Or Gavaskar's 96 when Imran and Akram hardly bowled in Bangalore on a horrid pitch. Avg them out..
[[
Anyhow when the score is Win: 751/5, Eng: 285 and 422/5, what is the pitch quality. That too if Lara had not dropped a simple catch off Vaughan, Win would have won by an innings. Even in this match Win scores at 150 per wkt and England at 45 runs per wkt. So what oes one do. Where does one place this pitch.
Ananth:
]]

@Ananth and @shrikanthk: Professional cricketers have always played plenty of cricket. County cricket and other domestic tournaments were big things till '85 or so and then the ODI's became commonplace. In fact, Greg Chappell's infamous under-arm ball decision was a his protest against playing too much cricket.

Shri is a die-hard Aussie fan. However, he should note that his argument on Aussies is not valid due to above reasons. Furthermore, the Aussie ODI and test sides had an overlap of at most 8 players whereas Lloyd's/Viv's WI fielded the same team in tests and ODI's. So, if anything, these WI teams were more overworked and more exposed to scrutiny. As it is, Holding & Garner were injury-prone for WI. Furthermore, the WI lost at least 5 top-class players (including a vital #6 ... their only major weakness) in '82 thanks to the SA rebel tour. Waugh's Aussies did not suffer from that sort of body-blow.

I seriously believe that you have locked yourself into a narrow perspective, which is that OZ 2000 is the best, and hence WI 1980 must not have been good

Gerry: That's not my perspective. I don't believe it is unequivocally clear as to which of these two sides (dynasties rather) is better.

My comment was in response to another comment where it was highlighted by James that Aus lost 6 series over a period of 12 years (1994 to 2006). The more you play, the greater the variability in performances (both the highs and the lows). This is because even the oppositions are under greater pressure and stress, as you pointed out. No wonder Aussies had more whitewashes to their credit than the WI!

The variability in the quality of performances is greater today across teams. No wonder, we saw a top team like Aus enjoying insanely long winning streaks as well as some shocking losses.

This also explains Boll's remark on Aussie "whitewashes".
Hope this sounds "fairer".

@Ananth & @Gerry: The pitch quality ought to be excluded from analysis because there is no way to determine it post facto. In fact, no technology was ever developed to determine this variable.

A'bad pitch of '83 was baffling. There were several comments back then on what prompted the curator to prepare that graveyard. Kapil got his career best 9-83 on it even as Holding rescued WI with a late flurry of 58. BTW, the best innings in that test was not SMG's 90 but Dujon's 98. Coming in at 134/5, Dujon hit 98 runs while 5 others perished for a combined score of 45. To top it, the quality of his batsmanship that day was poet's dream.

Alex: Agree that the actual "amount" of cricket played may not have increased much. In fact, I've said something similar on another thread citing Hobbs' first-class schedule of 1925, if you remember.

But the fact is that there are more tours (and shorter tours) with fewer warmup games, no rest days in tests and fewer tests per rubber (were there too many 2-test series in the '80s?)

All this implies greater variability in the quality of performances across teams. This means two things.
1. Longer winning streaks and terribly one-sided series (where the opposition's performance may have suffered under stress).
2. More number of upsets!

Take the 1972 Ashes for series.
The first tour game started on the 22nd of Apr and the last tour game on the 5th of Sep.

2005 Ashes :
The first tour game started on the 9th of June and the last tour game on the 8th of Sep.

That says it all!
But as I said, it works both ways.

Ananth,
One of these days we should perhaps do a detailed study on “bowling quality” – define exactly what it means and then proceed. Including whether it is the “overall” quality of a bowler we are looking at– or how he performed in a particular match/series etc.

Alex,
“Pitch quality” is unfortunately a reality in cricket. Baseball is relatively lucky in that department- a pitcher is a pitcher is a pitcher is a pitcher – The ball doesn’t bounce of a pitch.
In cricket it does. That is the reality. We all know of “dead” pitches , “green tops”, “raging turners” etc…Although I fully agree with you and Gerry that to actually quantify these into a “figure” is extremely difficult.
However, because it is difficult to quantify it – that does not mean that it does not exist.
Perhaps we should just go with “ground wise” averages to determine “pitch quality”? And then assume that even if different pitches are used on the same ground-thatover time the “intrinsic quality” of the pitch averages out?
Dicey- but like I said the undeniable fact is that “pitch quality” is part and parcel of cricket. May be very difficult to quantify and calculate- but brushing it under the carpet in the hope that it “averages” out is hardly what this blog is all about.
[[
Nothing is swept under the carpet. I am only satying that this is a red herring in this analysis.
If Pitch quality is important then I would say the position at entry is FAR MORE relevent. It is silly to say that two scores of 100, one made coming in at 150 for 1 and another coming in at 30 for 3 are equal.
How many times would I have to say that all these factors are relevant in an Innings Ratings exercise. I myself have put in complex algorithms to have a handle on Pitch type.
Ananth:
]]

AD
In your eg. Suppose the “average average” of the English bowlers was 18.2 over the first 3 tests. Then in the last test the “average average” became 750/5 = 150. The “overall” average for the series would be approx. 28.3.
That would still make it a very good attack and make the WI score and batting look better than it should – but the country wise average would at least put things in perspective.
Not perfect – I agree, but better than nothing.

Pitch quality need not be considered at all. If the pitch was terrible, it will being the bowling average down and shift the attack from level 3 to 4 or 4 to 5 etc. and automatically upgrade the batsman's performance. Of course, the bowling quality may not be measured from test to test or innings wise, but my point is that the impact of the pitch quality is not lost.

Alex, would you rather face Marshall and Holding on the Ahmedabad pitch or Kapil Dev and Maninder and Binny? Once Gavaskar got out, Wayne Daniel blew us away. But trust you to see more merit in any innings but ones that Gavaskar played. In any case, between your consistent criticism of Gavaskar and your praise for WI, there is a visible contradiction. Make up your mind.

“Pitch quality” is unfortunately a reality in cricket. Baseball is relatively lucky in that department

Abhi: Were you serious when you said this?
The "Pitch" is FORTUNATELY a cricketing reality. It is precisely what makes cricket a FAR more sophisticated and aesthetically pleasing sport than Baseball can ever aspire to be.

Also, the "Pitch" is a great leveler of fortunes. A sticky wicket makes Bradman an equal of a Brown or a Chipperfield. An underprepared English wicket at Fenner's on a chilly April morning can make the Cambridge University bowlers even more threatening than the Imran-Akram duo on a flat Lahore deck.

If conditions were uniform and similar across the world, cricket would be a much poorer sport. Almost as predictable as Formula One is today.

Perhaps we should just go with “ground wise” averages to determine “pitch quality”?

All this is too complicated.
Ananth should ideally use his resources to analyse areas that lend themselves to analysis as opposed to impractical stuff like "pitch quality".

For instance, I'd like to see an analysis of

- Run rates in Tests over the past 130 years.
Linking RR fluctuations to rule changes

- Economy rates of spinners vs Economy rates of the fast men.

- Analysis of modes of dismissals. % of LBWs pre 1934 (old LBW rule) vs % of LBWs post 1934.

- A timeline of new ball renewal rules over the years. How have they impacted RR/strike rates over the years.

- RR/strike rates in timeless tests vs RR/strike rates in 4day/5day tests

- Comparison of scoring rates across continents/across eras

I know this is a rather long list. Just thinking aloud some ideas.
Many of these analyses can teach us a lot about the game, without necessarily being as speculative as "bowling quality".
[[
Thanks, Shri, for going off your normal "response to comment" type of mail. I will cut this and paste into my "To-do" file. But do not forget that many of these have been done by me over the past three years. Unfortunately Cricinfo is poor in organizing their archives. They do it by month which makes it very difficult to search. They should present all articles in one search location. Probably I could do it myself.
Ananth:
]]

I find this argument on the increased number of tours payed by Australia fascinating. On a slightly unrelated note, I believe that too much cricket is being played, and as a result, it is devaluing cricket, even forms like 2020. I think that a way to counter this would be to scrap the idea of a test series all together, and create an anual test league. It should follow the format of the American football season, whereby you have two separate leagues, in which 4 of the test playing teams play six tests each, with the top 2 going into a semi final, which is a 3 match series, a draw being decided by an ODI, and then the final a 5 match series. Even though historic series like the P'stan India and Ashes will go, I believe this will encourage more competitive better quality cricket. I think cricket has to wake up and realise that it is the only min sport without an anual trophy to win in its main form, and until then, I believe cricket will lack an edge.
[[
Very radical, but sensible suggestions. I was very upset that the blue riband Saf-Aus series this year would be reduced to 2 Tests. This would keep on happening. ICC is trying to control too many formats with a behemoth like IPL lapping up everybody and everything into it.
If something is done, we would see the disastrous situation when the IPL would be the only competitive tournament.
Ananth:
]]

Srikanth,
I agree that computing "pitch quality" is very complicated.
But such a "factor" does very much exist ,doesn't it?
The whole idea of this blog is to determine little variations and glean a few insights here and there which are not deducible from the readily available stats such as avg.,eco,SR etc etc.

Ananth,
I agree that the topic has veered from the original thread.
But perhaps for another day.
[[
Abhi
I have given below a recent score-line between two top teams.
Slk: 600/6, Ind: 223 and 138.
RpW for Slk was 100. For India 36. This was an Indian team amongst the most powerful Indian teams of all time.
What would you classify this pitch as. A belter. Then what about the 361 runs scored by 2 x Gg/Seh/Rd/Srt/Scg/Vvs. And this would undervalue the centuries.
If you think the 600 was the aberration, then the Slk bowling would be undervalued. Do not bring in Mendis and DRS into the picture. I go by the scorecard. And the tests at this ground before and after have been mixed bag, similar trouncings, close matches, dull high-scoring draws and so on. The point is that it is difficult to get a handle on a pitch.
Two things can be inferred with no problems.
Team 1: 100 and 110, Team 2: 90 and 110 is a 95% bowling pitch.
Team 1: 600/5, Team 2: 700/7 is the deadest of pitches.
But in reality most matches fall between these two extreme match types.
If I have to do an Innings Rating I have found and would find a way of resolving this. But not for this specific exercise which is centred on Bowling quality. Period.
Ananth:
]]

@Gerry: When did I criticize SMG? Record books show that he has not done _that_ well vs the real WI attack. However, one must remember that he ran into them only when he was 33 and in a bad state of mind (unlike Chappell & Gooch).

His A'bad 90 was pure mastery. It so happens that Dujon's 98 was probably even better: SMG says it made him a lifelong admirer of Dujon. Names don't matter: Ind bowlers had far surpassed themselves on Day 1 ... I swear by SRT and as good as his 146 was, Kallis was better at Cape Town, Jan '11.

“Regarding your quip on my remark about sampling issues: I had already made a note of Marshall's 19 tests in a subsequent comment before you replied!”
SHRI:Yes, saw that after the next refresh of comments!
“Let's not place "first-hand" knowledge on a pedestal. Sometimes, a historian studying an era without prejudices from a distance of even 500-600 years may be more insightful than contemporary criticisms of the time”
SHRI: Generally agree but the jury is still out on the biographies of many luminaries thru history (none of whom left behind any written/spoken history accounts) written by biographers based purely on observers/historians’ secondary accounts produced long after the luminaries passed away.

“ Those were the formative years of the game. Between 1860 and 1914, there was so much innovation in the game in all departments which resulted in it evolving from a barely recognizable under-arm/round-arm sport of the village green at the beginning of the period to the more-or-less fully evolved international sport at the end of the period. How can one possibly say this period barely matters?”
Shri: I meant within the context of competition between multiple teams and not innovations or evolution of the game, per se in giving importance or not to the era.

“BTW, the best innings in that test was not SMG's 90 but Dujon's 98. Coming in at 134/5, Dujon hit 98 runs while 5 others perished for a combined score of 45. To top it, the quality of his batsmanship that day was poet's dream.”
@Alex: That is like saying VRV Singh’s momentum-shifting 29 was better than Laxman’s 28 in the first innings of the Jo-Burg Test in 2006 which India won.Or that Ishant’s 31 (valuable though) was better than SRT’s 38 in the Famous Mohali escape victory in 2010. Or that a very good Healy innings compares to a Lara special in the same Test. There is a constant deliberate (and quite “cunning”, sorry for saying so) attempt to discredit Gavaskar across Ananth’s blogs by Alex (and he knows it). In one breath, he eulogizes Roberts (justifiably so),” Roberts the bowler was a scientist at work, Roberts was the real anointed leader of the 4-pronged pace attack of Lloyd” and in the same breath discredits Gavaskar’s performances in the 70s against Roberts CONTD.

by terming those attacks as “non-real” WI.
Out of nowhere, Alex compares a Dujon innings (against Kapil, Maninder) with a Gavaskar superlative virtuoso against Marshall, Holding, Daniel (which was almost as good as the 121 against WI in the previous Test in Delhi) and terms it better than SMG’s 90. Funny, now he won’t mention the quality of attack faced by Dujon vis-à-vis Gavaskar. A casual fan perusing this VERY comment would seriously question Alex’s understanding of the game (which we regular commenters on Ananth’s blog know otherwise).
Just for the record for fans, Gavaskar has an 86, a 156, a 147 and a 236 against attacks including Roberts (and others from the fearsome foursome)spread across a decade home and away.

"The Hayden opening conundrum and WI 4-pronged pace attack (in the hypothetical match-up b/w Waugh’s OZ and Lloyd 1984 WI)."
Hayden has struggled against extreme pace (against Akthar and even a fading away Akram in ODIs) and even fast-medium swing bowling in his second, mature avatar (to account for SHRI’s penchant of mentioning maturing or non-maturing phases accounting for OZ players such as Martyn, Langer and Hayden having poor averages in the 90s era ).Rest assured, he WOULD NOT be regularly walking or waltzing down the track to WI 4some or even standing a few feet outside the crease(the bluster which worked against attacks in the 2000s). If he EVER attempted to do that: 1.He could expect regular kicking, rearing bouncers aimed at his throat bowled deceptively by Roberts.2. Clear intimidatory bowling including waist-high full tosses by Holding (not unlike the clear beamers bowled by him at Indian batsmen in 1976 series, a series in which India lost a Test by losing CONTD.
[[
That statement has a definitive ring about it. Hayden is not going to walk down the track against Holding/Roberts/Garner/Croft. He might be successful but by using other more traditionl methods.
Ananth:
]]

just 11 wickets!-as Bedi did not want his bowlers to face such hostile bowling). 3. Searing fast-paced back-of-the-length bouncers by Marshall capable of knocking his head off (or even breaking his nose a la Gatting). Hayden might have eked out a few runs but he would have been a sitting duck for a 5-Test series. I would rather have a Mark Taylor opening who although had an average record against WI (home and away) was courageous.
Surprised to note that Hayden’s averages are below 40 in Eng, NZ, SA (even Bangla though only 2 Tests) and just about 40 in SL.

By the way, many of you may have heard of this newly released documentary :

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1727790/

I wonder whether it will be released in India sometime shortly.
I'm sure Gerry, Alex and James will enjoy it to the hilt!
[[
What is the subject.
Ananth:
]]

Alex, even last month you kept insisting that slow scoring by Gavaskar led to a lost opportunity in Oval 1979, whereas i kept repeating the opening, lunch time and tea time scores, which showed Gavaskar scoring very rapidly (throughout the final day). You kept saying gavaskar could not hook (and surprise surprise, that Steve Waugh could). I have probably watched as much of Steve Waugh as John Buchanan has, and have not seen him hook. I have the videos of the 121 in Delhi which features Gavaskar hooking Marshall. In Ahmedabad, he caned Marshall, fully knowing that the pitch was a terror. Clive Lloyd called it the worst pitch that he had seen in his life (read "Macko" by Marshall), and he had seen a few, having played close to a 100 tests by then. There was only one over bowled before lunch, and Gavaskar cover drove the first two balls for 4, and went to lunch 8 not out. Please give me a single example of a premium fast bowling attack, caned on a terrible pitch, by anyone in history

As a hardcore Gavaskar fan (I admire him for his extreme courage, and not any particular stroke or batting skill). His 220 in Port of Spain is the most under-rated innings in Indian history. He changed the course of cricket in our country with that one innings, which was played against a strong WI BATTING line up (relevant in a 6 day test), with them coming at us to desperately win and square the series, he having already made 124 in the first innings, and 50% of the team's runs in the match, in his debut series, at age of 21. Till then we had never won any series ANYWHERE abroad for 40 years.

My ranting is because in Ananth's analysis, I can already see poor Sunny relegated to the bottom. The 1976 WI, where his 156 pulled india out of a hole on a damp pitch is downgraded because of Holding's poor CTD average. His 82-83 failures when he was stripped of captaincy will impact his average. Finally his 50+ average against the "real" WI will be at "home" (not that Windies cared).
Let us wait and watch.
Ananth

@Pallab: This is a digression but I take Ananth's permission to state this reply. Esp. early in his career, Dujon was a beautiful batsman: all elegance ... hardly a VRV or Ishant. Will you also belittle Kallis' Cape Town century in favor of SRT's 146? ... after all, Zak is hardly a great bowler (ave=33) and Bhajji is ineffective in SA (ave=34).

BTW, in the 70's, SMG played 4 tests vs Roberts and 4 tests vs Holding ... in only 2 tests Roberts & Holding played him together.

vs Roberts: 4 tests, 302 runs, ave=43, one 100, one 50.
vs Holding: 4 tests, 390 runs, ave=56, two 100, one 50.
vs R & H: 2 tests, 194 runs, ave=65, one 100.

Unfortunately, he ran into the fab 4 when was past 33 and in a terrible state of mind. Otherwise, I don't doubt he would have done better than what those 11 tests show.

@Gerry: To me, SMG is one of the top 3 batsmen produced by India, both technically and legacy wise. But why should we say that he was great at everything? He rarely hooked ... not because he couldn't but because he considered it an unsafe shot. He disregarded this practice for 4 tests in the '83 series since he was convinced that only an all-out attack could fetch runs vs the '83 WI. He went back to old ways in Test #6 at Chennai after failing in 5 consecutive innings and got 236* ... he did hook at least once in it and Dujon dropped off Roberts on a hook when he was @180 or so.

Finally his 50+ average against the "real" WI will be at "home" (not that Windies cared)

I don't quite understand the obsession with Gavaskar's record against the "real" WI.

I think we tend to focus too much on Gavaskar's records against WI.
He has done enough against other top class attacks for us to be convinced of his class. His hundred in '74 against England in Old Trafford against Willis, Old and Underwood on a difficult pitch for instance. Or for that matter, his three hundreds against Jeff Thomson in '77-78 down under. Why don't we ever discuss these feats. Why the obsession with West Indies.

Gerry,
I too have been a Gavaskar fan forever. And of course a Viv fan too before Tendulkar and the current Legends even came along.
Why should it bother you wherever he may place in these tables?
We know what Gavaskar has done.
[[
And the reality is that the tables are acceptable when one's favourite players are well-placed and not acceptable when they are placed below one's expectations.
Ananth:
]]

Gerry,
I too have been a Gavaskar fan forever. And of course a Viv fan too before Tendulkar and the current Legends even came along. Why should it bother you wherever he may place in these tables? We know what Gavaskar has done.
[[
And the reality is that the tables are acceptable when one's favourite players are well-placed and not acceptable when they are placed below one's expectations.
Ananth:
]]
Ananth,
Ha- that's true to an extent also!
[[
Abhi, then the advice applies to you also. If a table comes wherein SRT is placed 2nd or lower, look at it in the same objective manner. One jobless guy, with a little bit of knowledge churns out a table by tweaking numbers. Why should you be bothered.
Ananth:
]]

Hayden has struggled against extreme pace

I am not a huge Hayden fan. For all we know, Hayden might have struggled against the WI of the early 80s. But then, this brings us to a moot question -

Do we evaluate him based on his record against a very specific team under specific conditions?

OR

Do we evaluate a batsman based on his record under all conditions against all comers?

Hayden enjoyed a long career during which he distinguished himself as a heavily consistent batsman with an average of over 50.

On the other hand, you've someone like Wasim Raja or even Bruce Laird who scored runs against the "real" WI attack. But these guys ended up with First-class averages of 35!! So, it's obvious that their feats against WI are hardly reliable indicators of their run-making potential in general.

Just goes to show that you have to judge a player based on his overall career record and not based on his record against this or that attack.

Ananth,
Agreed again!
Easier said than done. Easy to dish out the advice.
SRT lower than No.1 in any batting table?
God Forbid!
[[
Tough luck, Abhi.
SRT is 10th in the Batting average table (4000+ runs).
SRT is 80th in the Test scores table.
But these, in my eyes (note it is "my" not "your"), do not make him any less than what he is, right at the podium.
Ananth:
]]

Continuing on Hayden: I personally prefer Langer and Taylor both of whom were more compact back-foot players than Hayden who was more of a front-foot player.

But the main point behind my previous comment was that you HAVE to judge a player based on his overall record (both Tests and FC). You can't possibly use his record against a very specific opposition to pass judgment on him.

Player X, thanks to his circumspect back-foot play may do great against the WI back-of-a-length bowlers. But the same player may be a liability on the Indian subcontinent against a different form of attack.

Each team (each ground in fact) presents its own set of challenges, even if it is the 5th ranked team in the world. The challenges posed by Kumble and Harbhajan on a crumbling Kanpur deck on the 5th day are no less than the challenges posed by the WI pace quartet at Bridgetown.

That's why this whole idea of judging a player based on his record against the "Best" teams, is slightly flawed!

Ananth,
Ha! Right Ho!..
So, then that "obviously" means that there is something very wrong with the stats!
In any case, I guess there is an exception I must make.
I guess in very "specialised" tables good ol' Tendulkar may come out lower "down the order".
In overall terms, irrespective of the format (we don't discuss T20s ,of course) a batsman to top Tendulkar has yet to be born!
[[
Sorry, Abhi, your slip is showing.
Indeed almost the first person with very good knowledge of Cricket who rubbishes a Batting average table and an Individual innings table as "wrong stats" and "very specialized tables" !!!
We know where we stand now.
Ananth:
]]

@Ananth: Will it be possible for you to do an article on "They retired too late?" The idea: Say career ave= X. Say ave in the final 20% tests is Y. If Y

I came to think of it since the replies to Gerry & Pallab needed a re-look into Dujon. He has scored 3322 runs in 81 tests at ave=32 but scored only 580 runs in his final 23 tests at a paltry ave=18! In Lloyd's days, he averaged 44 in 28 tests. Richardson's arrival in '84 took care of the WI weakness at #6 spot and Dujon was averaging 40+ at #7 ... terrific batting line-up!

Dujon averaged only 29 in 48 tests under Viv ... maybe an article is needed on how Viv the captain wrecked WI cricket: poor on choice & strategy ... "domination" took over substance. He himself became just another very good batsman (ave=44). Lara didn't get in the WI team in '88 itself? And why didn't they use Tony Gray & Patterson better? Thankfully, Oz has not made similar blunders since '07.

Shrikanthk, your point about obsession with the West Indies. And your point about Mark Taylor. Lastly about other great attacks like Pakistan etc. All of which you have made in your last few posts... Just look up Mark Taylor's averages against West Indies and Pakistan. You will know the answer.

Taylor was better than Hayden, technically. In terms of courage, no way to know, as he played in the golden period, when Australia trampled everyone.

When West Indies were in their pomp, a single century was equivalent to a personal trophy for the batsman. Folks did not make 376 run partnerships against them.

Perhaps something we can all agree on re. interested parties in the WI vs Australia simulation.The WI batsmen will be licking their lips at the chance, as will their bowlers. Australian bowlers will definitely be backing themselves and cricket fans know they`re in for a treat. The Australian batsmen on the other hand will be having a few sleepless nights. Warne and McGrath remain possibly the most successful bowling partnership of all time, but we all like to think we could keep them out for an over or two and score a few runs. Four West Indian quicks? well, you`d have to be crazy even to contemplate it.

re.venues. You`d have to go with the MCG and SCG in Aus - 2 oldest and biggest grounds (although `Gabba with memories of the Tied Test would be great). In WI, Barbados and Antigua? I would suggest the other should be played at the Home of Cricket. Come on, 2-all going into the final test, Aus and WI meet for the first time in a test at Lords. Who wouldn`t want to see that?Aus 3-2!

Ananth, you are mistaken... Now that Gavaskar has finally made it to the top 3 list of Alex, there are no peaks left to conquer. But Alex, would love to know who is the third member of this exalted threesome.
[[
Unfortunately you are wrong. I was referring to Tendulkar. It is an open secret to almost all the readers that my podium has three batsmen, Bradman, Lara and Tendulkar (frankly I could not care, in what order). They could alternate amongst themselves.
Ananth:
]]

Cant resist taking some potshots at GS Chappell. He averaged 100 against an attack which (for 3/6 tests) did not include both Holding and Roberts in 1975-76 (now i am thinking like Alex, making up for lost time). In the tests where Roberts was absent, Holding was in his debut series, battling a 13 member Aussie team (as per Holding's book, before Boll sticks a verbal knife into me). In 1979-80 + 81-82 combined, averaged 30 for 12 times out, against the "real" Windies. But of course, Alex holds him in higher esteem.

No use pointing out Packer runs - as Gavaskar pointed out last week, using the examples of Messi and Rooney, scoring for club is different - for country is the ultimate honour. Messi cannot be compared to Maradona, even if he scores 35 goals in a season for Barcelona.

Ananth:
I appreciate that this particular analysis is only in regards to Bowling Quality.
The purpose of the analysis is to see how batsmen have played against various bowling attacks.
My contention is that the two main factors which determine the problems a batsman will face are Bowling Quality and Pitch Quality. All other factors which you and other’s mention- Innings target, Innings position at batsman entry (150 for 1 against 27 for 3), Result, Series status et all will all play a part – are for the various Innings lists you compile from time to time.
You also state -It is silly to say that two scores of 100, one made coming in at 150 for 1 and another coming in at 30 for 3 are equal. The very first question which should be asked in these circumstances is – At 30/3 what was the quality of the batsmen who were dismissed? Instead, the immediate assumption being made that the bowling and pitch must have had the Devil in them.
CONTD...

....
My contention is that a 100 at 150/1 and 30/3 should indeed be given equal weightage from a batting perspective, provided the Bowling and Pitch quality are equal. The value to the team will be more in the 2nd case but it cannot be said that conditions were more difficult from a purely batting perspective. Especially if in the second case the batsmen dismissed were of a lesser quality than the first case.
Contrary to what is being stated by Gerry_the_Merry, Alex, Abhi and others the computation of such a pitch quality is not complicated.
[[
I get the feeling that you are the only one who says that the 150 for 1 and 30 for 3 are the same.
Does it mean that Kapil's 175, coming in at 9 for 4 (going on to 17 for 5) and Sehwag's 175, opening the batting are the same. Amazing, to say the least.
Similarly Richards' 189, coming in at 11 for 2, going on to 98 for 6 and 166 for 9 and Tendulkar's 186, opening in a score of 376 for 2 are same. I am speechless.
Ananth:
]]

Even In the examples you have given Win: 751/5, Eng: 285 and 422/5and Slk: 600/6, Ind: 223 and 138.
The resolution to the problem is possible by use of just the following 2 inputs in an algorithm:
1)se runs per wicket on a session by session basis.
2)Use quality of batsmen batting.
CONTD...

....
So, in your first example -WI scored 751 /5. We first break it down session by session. If 100 runs were scored in the 1st session with the loss of 2 wickets and the composite average of the batsmen dismissed was 35 then we will arrive at a certain figure. If the composite average of the batsmen dismissed is 50, or if the total runs scored is 80 -the pitch quality should indicate a more difficult pitch.
All these factors are only difficult to calculate if done manually. Once a proper algorithm is in place it is easy to at the very least get an appreciation of Pitch quality.
[[
Sorry to say that the session-by-session information is not available. Also it is easiier said than done. You are complicating this exercise to a level where it would lead to total disasterous situations. In fact I have understood nothing. How can session-wise analysis help you decide what type of pitch it was. Was irt the first day, post-tea type (130 for 1) or fourth day pre-lunch (98 for 6 wkts)
Ananth:
]]

To recap: For your innings wise list which value innings to a large extent relative to the performance of the rest of the team we can use several variables of the type you suggest – innings target ,result, batsman entry etc are mere obfustications of the central issue.
[[
So the innings target does not matter. So a 100 scored in a chase of 175 and a 100 scored in a chase of 400 are the same. Or a 100 scored on the opening day and a 100 scored in response to a first innings total of 700 are the same.
Ananth:
]]

CONTD...

...
To obtain a broad based value of the runs a batsman has scored over his career there are 2 measures required – Bowling Quality AND Pitch quality. The other factors combined will have an impact of just a minimal single digit percentile.

So, again a composite (Bowling Quality/Pitch Quality) Index is the ONLY correct way to assess batsman performance. Not either one in isolation.

And that's the last you will hear from me!

Just as a footnote, how fantastic has it been to see the Windies finally win a test match. Apart from the horrors of match fixing, their decline has been the saddest part of test cricket over the past 15 years. A resurgent West Indian side would be a massive boost for the game.
[[
One reason why not one of the sixes hit by Gayle has made any impact on me. Similarly the wonderful catches taken by Pollard. These should have been done 10000 miles away. But I am glad that Sammy, Bishoo, Simmons and Rampaul have shown these two mercenaries a lesson in integrity and pride.
Ananth:
]]

@Abhi, when someone makes 12 double hundreds in tests, irrespective of how many tests they`ve played, I`ll consider it some sort of contest. When someone averages over 70 for 50 odd tests I`ll think about it. When someone averages even 20% more than their closest peer, I`ll be prepared to reconsider.

Until then there remains The Don. And well after him, daylight and the Greats.

Ananth, i meant Gavaskar made it to Alex's list of the top 3 Indian batsmen, which is an unparalleled honour...! Hence that you are mistaken that i care if Gavaskar drops down the order in Statistical analysis.

Alex, I never said Dujon was ordinary. I followed his entire career. He deteriorated exactly like Gilchrist simultaneously in batting and keeping.

My point was that there are 300 innings in cricket history perhaps, like Dujon's 98 or Gavaskar's 101 at Old Trafford, played in difficult conditions and circumstances, against decent attacks.

But tell me one innings, by anyone, where the world's best attack was absolutely hammered on a horror track at a strike rate of 75. If he had not repeatedly been disturbed by movement at the bowler's end sightscreen, in all likelihood he would have taken us to a decisive first innings lead.
[[
Indulge me a little bit. Since this the 325th comment or so, I am lost. Which specific innings you are referring to.
Ananth:
]]

@Gerry re.potshots at Greg Chappell. I must admit it has surprised me that no-one has bothered to point out that his record, as per Ananth`s figures, is well over 10% better than his nearest rival. Yes, your figures are correct. What you fail to mention however, is that 1 abysmal series (in the midst of a memorable, and widely publicised streak of failures) makes them so. In the `79/`80 series, Chappell averaged 45. In `81/`82, he averaged 14 - his only failure against the Windies.

His record in recognised tests stands on its own. His phenomenal performances in the Packer-sponsored Supertests (regarded by many who played in them as the highest standard of cricket they took part in), serves to highlight his quality against probably the best array of fast bowling the world has seen.

re. Gavaskar`s comments. I am disappointed, if not surprised, that he can not understand the difference between those matches and the entertainment, masquerading as cricket, he is currently spruiking.

Alex,
Ha,Ha!
I already walked right into one with Ananth and my "tables" comment.
So,am not going to take the bait!

Gerry already didn't fall for MY "bait" when I proffered the bit since he was so very concerned about how batsmen have performed vs. "real" bowling attacks -shouldn't he be equally concerned about performance when it "really mattered" too?

So- I pass.

Ananth, the innings in question is Gavaskar's 90 in the Ahmedabad test of 1983. Marshall, Holding and Wayne Daniel were the opposition. West Indies were in trouble against our spinners and Binny on a terrible pitch, and Dujon rescued them in the 3rd session of the day. Gavaskar responded with 90, in 120 balls. All cracks disappeared suddenly. As soon as he was out, they reappeared. We conceded a lead of 42. Then Kapil took 9/83. He tired, and Holding made 58, and took WI to 200. We were 60/9 chasing 238, before Windies came off the boil, allowing Kirmani to pull us over the 100 mark.

Clever Boll raises an important point - the venues should include Perth as well as Sydney (no Perth then no Sydney either). For theater, MCG and Barbados. The fifth can be Lords (I would propose Eden Gardens, though).
[[
Ah! what an innings. I don't have the balls faced with me. But the innings scoring rate was almost 3. Unfortunately Davis (10 ctd at 41.00) pulls down the Win attack to 31.43, still the second group. And what an innings by Dujon, albeit against a weaker attack (42.76). And what about Kapil's bowling. And finally the priceless 58 by Holding, but for which Win would have been out for 120 and India might have won. All packed in an exhilarating Test.
Ananth:
]]

@Gerry: My Top 3 in Indian cricket (Hazare/Merchant did not play enough # tests to be taken seriously in this list):

1. Technically (overall): SRT, SMG, Dravid/VVS.
2. Legacy wise (overall): SRT, SMG, Sehwag.

SMG's 90: As for hammering on horror track SR=75, you might as well say "in '83 at A'bad" ... and then the laurel wreath will go to SMG only! Here are a few canings of prime pace attacks (not necessarily on horror tracks): SRT's hundred at Perth '92, Kapil's 90's in WI ('82-'83), 100's of McCabe & Don in '32, several innings by WI batsmen in '76 in Oz, Viv's 70 vs Pak in '86, Lara's 76-ball 100 vs Oz ... Ananth's 2010 article on innings index will reveal many more gems.

It is a mistake to read too much into averages & names. To me the best ODI innings by an Indian batsman in 2009 was not SRT's celebrated 175 but Gambhir's unheralded 150* vs SL. Gambhir bats beautifully and successfully anchored an improbable run-chase that night in Kolkata.

Just look up Mark Taylor's averages against West Indies and Pakistan. You will know the answer.

Gerry: I'm not sure whether you got what I was driving at in the previous comments.
My contention is that you cannot possibly judge a cricketer based on his average against this or that attack (however formidable it might be). Judgment has to be based on overall career achievements against all comers.

I took the example of Wasim Raja for a good reason. Great record against the WI quicks. But a First-class average of 35! Can we judge him to be a superlative batsman based on his Windies record?
NO.

Who are we to claim that scoring runs against Attack X vindicates a cricketer's skill, to the exclusion of everything else! Just about every bowler, however modest, poses a possibly unique challenge. Didn't Tendulkar find Hansie Cronje harder to negotiate than Shane Warne?

Let's not overdo this whole business of "performances against the BEST". Let's give career averages their due.

@Boll: Ananth did an article on the best 52-test streaks (back in '09). Ponting and Kallis averaged close to 77 in 52 consecutive tests at some point ... so, maybe you should think about it!!

At any rate, in test level batting analysis, it is best to filter out Don the anomaly and then analyze what remains. If we accept that SRT/Lara were better than the Don, then we must accept that Michael Slater was dead better than Jack Hobbs.

@Ananth: Didn't the WI board itself reject Gayle? As I recall, he was sitting idly when RCB called and signed him. Notice how well BCCI treats the Indian superstars and contrast that with what the WI board has been doing year in and year out. IPL is a much needed bucket of cold water on such boards who made it impossible for players to earn well and turned them away from cricket.
[[
I am not sure about it. They did not select Gayle for 2 ODIs because of injury. Then he got signed by RCB. Anyhow he has refused the contract. The mistake may be with Gayle(40) and the Board(60). But the loss is to West indian cricket. That is the bottomline.
As far as Gayle is concerned look at his performances in the last two WCs. Listless and disinterested. Look at him in IPL now.
Ananth:
]]

But I am glad that Sammy, Bishoo, Simmons and Rampaul have shown these two mercenaries a lesson in integrity and pride

Ananth: Disagree. It's not appropriate to claim that Gayle or Pollard lack integrity or pride!

Choosing Club over country isn't a 21st century phenomenon. It's as old as cricket itself.

Sydney Barnes often played in the Lancashire Leagues when he should've been playing for England!

Vinoo Mankad missed the first test at Leeds in 1952 as he was busy playing in the Lancashire leagues!

Ted McDonald, possibly the greatest Australian fast bowler prior to Lindwall, played very few Tests for Aus in the early 20s, following which he moved to England to play professional cricket for the Lancashire club Nelson and county cricket for Lancashire.
Australia missed him badly in the late 20s when they were bereft of fast bowling resources.

Cricketers possess talent that is at a premium. It's hardly a routine 9-5 job! It is unfair to expect them to play for a pittance.
[[
No, not at all, Shri.
A cricketer's first duty is towards his country. Period. You are also talking from the standpoint of an Indian follower, safe and secure in the knowledge that your country has the hold over everything, the game, the players, the schedules and practically everything. Do you ever see Sehwag forsaking the country to play in the APL. Imagine the media and the other circus then. As I have already replied to Alex, the blame is strongly West Indian Board's. But Gayle has done this before and now.
Forget you are an Indian. Look at at from a West indian supporter point of view.
The examples you have given are all completely wrong. The concept of amateurs existed then. So the players got nothing for playing for their country. Today the players get a lot more (Okay the Indian player gets 10x, Australian 5x, English player 4x, Sri Lankan player 3x, West Indian player 3x and so on), but not a daily allowance of Rs.250.
Let Gayle, then, do what Malinga did. Announce his retirement from some or all form of cricket. I have no problems with Malinga, Symonds or Gilchrist. Nor with Shaun Marsh or Langeveldt who will drop IPL and go home if called up.
Ananth:
]]

Ananth did an article on the best 52-test streaks (back in '09). Ponting and Kallis averaged close to 77 in 52 consecutive tests at some point ... so, maybe you should think about it!!

Alex: Averaging 70 over 52 matches concentrated over a 4 year period is not quite the same as averaging 99 (or even 70) over a 52-test career that lasts for 20 years interrupted by 6 years of War!

As I mentioned earlier, the more cricket you play, the greater the variability in one's performances. Both the highs and the lows get accentuated. Your "hot" streaks get prolonged and so do your poor patches of form.

Boll needn't think about it as yet.

Boll, the standard of cricketers in WSC was the highest ever. But the standard of cricket? Must have been quite high too, i have no doubt. However, look at this - WI drew 1-1 with Aus in WSC'79, but soon after, they thrashed them 2-0 in official tests in Australia. Who raised their game?

On Chappell's '81-82 failures, don't dismiss that so lightly. It is the most significant failure of them all. Had he scraped together even a 50 on the last day of the series, OZ would have won the series, WI would not have had this unbeaten record, and THIS article would not have been written, in all likelihood. That is how close it was. Nevertheless, thanks (not only) to his failure, we were treated to a thrilling run chase, and WI preserved their streak.

That Australian team was very strong indeed, and WI survived narrowly, and found spin bowling a handful.

Hazare/Merchant did not play enough # tests to be taken seriously in this list

Alex: By the same token, we mustn't be considering WG and Ranji either while discussing great English batsmen! But we all know that those two are perhaps THE most influential figures in the history of the technical development of batsmanship!

Merchant's FC average is "third to none". Second only to Bradman.
We are talking about 150 years of FC history here. And if you think if he was a flat-track bully in Ranji trophy, think again. Consider his performances on his two tours of England - 1936 and 1946.

1936 tour of England : 1745 runs at 51.32
1946 tour of England : 2385 runs at 74
Ranji average : 98.75

1946 was supposedly a very wet summer in England.

He was a colossus.

Atleast, he deserves top spot in your "Legacy" list! It could be said that the man founded the Bombay school of batsmanship - a school that has been the single most important reason for India's competitiveness over the years!

@Gerry_the_Merry:
I was to take a sabbatical.
But your several references to horror pitches drew me back.
This contradicts your earlier comments.
To take a simple, perhaps overly simplified, example:
1) A Sehwag flogging Shoaib Akhtar and others on a flat track, scoring 300+
2) Playing the same bowlers (hence with the exactly same Bowling Quality) on a livelier track – and again scoring 300+.
With the current methodology we would give the same value to both scenarios!
If this is not exceedingly bizarre please correct me.
I also feel it is completely incorrect to merely add value to an innings because other wickets have fallen without FIRST ascertaining the quality of the batsmen who are out. If a bunch of bumblers is out on a flat track it should have a minimal impact on a quality batsman. The two Main factors remain the same- Pitch/Bowling quality.
CONTD...

In the Sehwag example whether 3 wickets fell in the 1st session (so Pitch Index adjusted accordingly depending on quality of batsmen out) with the score at 30/3– has little or no bearing on the remaining 200+ runs he may have scored. The overwhelming factor is Pitch/Bowling quality.
Regret repeating my self ad nauseum- but I find it utterly baffling that in a cricket forum people refuse to acknowledge that these 2 factors are the predominant ones. All others are relatively of minor importance.
[[
Partly that applies to you all. You also are not ready to look beyond what you have set in your mind is right.
Ananth:
]]

P.S – If we simply do not have the session-by-session data (which would have been ideal) then by default we should use the next level available, viz Day-by-Day data. Pitches can and do often change quality over 5 days.

Ananth will come back with the usual examples such as Lara’s 153 ranks above his 400. It should , but what is the Real reason? It is because the 400 was on an extremely flat pitch where even a poor WI team remained with 5 wickets in hand.
CONTD...

The 153 is better because of the other factors such as target, score when batsman makes entry, batting with tail , result etc – as we have seen in numerous of his batting innings analysis.
I say- that is all very fine when placing some sort of order in dramatic innings played.
So- the 153 works out better because of the various weightages given to the above factors.
But then again this ignores the critical factor- what were the “Actual batting conditions”. We are giving a great deal of importance to various perceived levels of psychological stress in rating innings. And this may be all very well in an independent batting innings list.

If the Lara 153 garners for eg. 200 points.
Then if Lara was out at 150 the points should be say 190. i.e very close to the ultimate value of the innings.
So, for a broad based analysis of batting value once we have adjudged bowling quality ALL you need to complete the analysis is CONTD...

...
Pitch Quality – based on periodic runs/wickets and quality of batsmen dismissed.

This AUTOMATICALLY will incorporate ALL variables when computed correctly over a career.

The examples you have given are all completely wrong. The concept of amateurs existed then. So the players got nothing for playing for their country. Today the players get a lot more
[[
I only meant these are contextually wrong, not factually wrong.
Ananth:
]]

Firstly, the examples I gave are accurate to the best of my knowledge. Agree that players today get a lot more (even WI cricketers). But you HAVE to look at their pay keeping in mind the humongous opportunity costs in today's world.

Gayle, on his day, is arguably the most dangerous striker in the cricket playing world. Compare his pay with what players with similar stature get paid in Soccer or Basketball. It's a humongous difference.
[[
That does not matter. He is not in the league of a Messi or Federer or Nadal. Even that matters little. Every game is different.
He should be happy that he gets paid quite a few times what a better striker of the ball and a far greater batsman, Richards, got paid.
Again you have not looked at it from a West indian supporter's point of view.
Ananth:
]]

We live in an era of very huge opportunity costs. An Erapalli Prasanna didn't miss out on much by choosing to play FC cricket instead of becoming an engineer in ITI! But a similar engineer-spinner today will have to think a LOT harder about the career choice between a 15L p.a Ranji spot vs 15L p.a software development role at Yahoo!/Google.

Boll, I think Gavaskar in that article criticised IPL, (did not refer to WSC at all), and meant that great IPL performances cannot be given the same weightage as when playing for the country. He took the example of Messi and Rooney. So he is saying the same thing about IPL, but perhaps not in quite such strong terms, as you.

Abhi, since you have locked yourself into a perch saying that Tendulkar is better than Bradman (I too am a tendulkar fan, but in a more measured manner) there is little common ground.

AD - I meant that great performance on horror tracks need not be considered, as they will positively impact bowling performance, and upgrade the batting performance. the approximation is that someone else's batting performance will be upgrades. For instance, after all NZ bowlers improved their averages against India in 2004, the next opposition they faced would have reaped the benefit in Anath's tables. CONTD

However, examples of what I think should be considered but may prove too difficult to pin down are
(1) sticky wickets in the days of uncovered pitches - the #1 ranked innings in Wisden 100 came on a sticky 1936 wicket, but AFTER the pitch had dried up, so do you give Bradman extra credit for his 270?
(2) Mediocre Indian spinners spinning out opposition on dust bowls in the '90s - they had poor averages, and opposition batsmen had a real challenge, and innings like Hick's 178 will be lost
(3) In general, great performances, regularly, on lethal tracks against mediocre bowling, e.g. Azharuddin's 152 and Vengsarkar's 166 v/s Sri Lanka were great innings, but will get downgraded due to lousy bowling quality. So i said that this is important, but cant see how it can be built in by Ananth precisely, though in an indirect way, it does get captured.

@shrikanthk: Merchant must have been a superb batsman and he indeed wielded great influence until '80 or so as an administrator. He should be rated the greatest ever FC batsman produced by India. However, he played in only 10 tests. Should we call Roy Dias the greatest ever batsman produced by SL?

Merchant's rival Hazare is a different case. Hazare averaged 48 in fully 30 tests ... his career started at age 31 thanks to WW1 and ended at age 38. Down under, Bradman himself encouraged a young SMG to focus on the basics and reach the heights of Hazare. SMG scores over him in gaining world-wide respect for Indian batting though (the main reason why he is #2 on my legacy list). Broadly speaking, SMG built over Hazare, SRT built over SMG, and Sehwag built over SRT ... who will build on Sehwag now?

Ananth (and Gerry_the_Merry) :
AA)
There may be a way to check the theory in a relatively painless manner- if and when you have some free time on your hands. This will also conclusively provide proof of whether my viewpoint is correct or not- without any rancour. The result of the experiment should be acceptable to all.
1)Use a Bowling Quality Index as best possible. Use a Pitch Quality Index incorporating the variables as mentioned in prior comments- Runs/Wicket/Session (or day as per available data) including Quality of Batsmen dismissed. Once we run this for all Batsman innings we obtain a Total value – say “A”.
2)Use the same Bowling Quality Index and the current method of determining value for each individual innings-with the entire gamut of variables involved. This data is already available. Total up the innings values.
We obtain a value – say “B”.
My view is that A/B ~ 0.95-1.05.
CONTD...

i.e 95% or more of the Total innings value in a player’s career will be attributable to just 2 variables – Bowling Quality and Pitch Quality.

BB)
As mentioned several times the current method to judge individual innings to push them up or down a particular list of Best Innings is acceptable . This incorporates all the numerous variables in the innings wise format which you normally use– score at entry, result, etc.
However, as an example,the fact is that for every 153 Lara will have numerous relatively mundane innings which will make up the bulk of his career. These ,in general, will not be particularly nail biting or heart thumping innings.
So, all the numerous other variables will combined result in 5% or less of a Total value calculated as per point AA.

The above method will also completely take care of the anomalies we observe routinely.

CONTD...
[[
No AD. There is no way such a system will work with the sparse data which is available. Theoretical, that is all. Also the method I adopt has to work for all 1972 matches. Taking one match and working something might fail in so many other situations. Testing is a very difficult thing to do. My current article itself is so complicated that I am finding it difficult to complete. I am one person and there is a limit to what I can do. Just to prove or disprove something I cannot put in a lot of effort.
In my complete Ratings exercise, one day I will do it, I have my own way of taking care of the Pitch quality. Simplere but testable and based on data available. I will talk about it some other time.
Ananth:
]]

The above method will also completely take care of the anomalies we observe routinely. To use Sehwag’s example again- He seems to score Hundreds at will at home against SA ( including one eye-popping Triple Hundred). But ship him off to SA and he struggles to put bat to ball.

Should we call Roy Dias the greatest ever batsman produced by SL?

Alex: I find the parallel you draw between Roy Dias and Merchant strange. Dias averaged 31 in First-class cricket unlike Merchant who averaged 71.

Merchant averaged over 60 on his two tours of England in '36 and '46, battling alien conditions and bowlers vastly different from the ones encountered back home in Ranji. Merchant's claims are far greater than that of Dias.

Alex:
Frankly till Sehwag proves he can cut it in SA, England etc. It would be pushing the envelope to categorise him with SMG/SRT/RD or VVS.Many batsmen have a Jonah in any given country - but this is usually explainable for various reasons and is not usually because of a lack of technical ability -The averages don't always tell the full story.But with Sehwag he clearly has technical weaknesses relative to the others.

Personally, whilst I would love Gayle to play for his country, I believe that the idea of Country over Club is the wrong way to put it. It is more a case of Country over self. In the end, you could argue that greats like Richards did not earn a pittance and did not complain, so neither should Gayle. However, times have changed, and whilst it is mercenery, I believe no one can judge someone personally for going to earn 700,000 in 6 weeks than 80,00 for a years play. Whilst we would like to believe we would value our countries over our finance, if we are being honest,we are going to be influenced by the capitalistic desire to be number 1, and we only want Gayle for the West Indies for us, as supporters benefits rather than otherwise. There is a reason Sewag can play country as he is getting paid for the IPL anyway, that is not the case for Gayle

Also, back on the topic of the Article, what I think set the West Indies and Australia apart was their all round ability. With the west indies, there was no concept of the weak tail, with the likes of Marshall, Holding, Roberts, Garner, to a lesser extent Croft all capable of solid innings, and Viv Richards able to bowl some useful deliveries. Likewise, Australia had Steve/Mark Waugh backing up the bowling and also, apart from Mcgrath, decent contributions from Gillespie Kaspro, Lee, Warne, Miller etc.. If you have such stickability lower down, is it any wonder why these teams were so difficult to beat? I remember that in 2005 ashes, England themselves had a very effective bottom 4, which I think played a large had in amasssing those very fast team scores of 400.

@shrikanthk: Great things in arts and sports are rarely possible when people focus on the bottomline primarily. How much money does Gayle need anyway? We cannot tell Gayle what he should and should not do but as a WI fan I believe that a charismatic player like him can attract enough endorsements to earn his millions if he performs extraordinarily well on the regular cricket field and makes WI winners again. So, he does not need IPL to make a good living ... IPL is heaven-sent for less talented players.

If the WI board gives Gayle the right platform, he should give WI the #1 priority ... I cannot imagine AB or McGrath turning backs on ACB in favor of IPL. Unfortuantely, there is something scarily wrong with the WI board.

@shrikanthk: You take my statements literally. It is not possible to give full proof arguments in 400 or so words and one cannot draw perfect parallels between two persons anyway. Dias was absolute class ... to this day, SMG calls him the greatest batsman produced by SL even though Mahela is his favorite. My point is that, just like Merchant, Dias did not play enough # tests to be rated the greatest ever SL batsman.

@AD: Notice what Sehwag has done in all 3 formats: a worthy protege of SRT! SMG was great in tests and SRT in tests+ODI's (played only 1 T20). He regularly bats the way SRT used to in '98. He has proved himself in several playing conditions home & away. He has his Achille's heel (who doesn't?) but is the most destructive batsman since the days of Viv. I think VVS (but maybe not Dravid) is the better batsman but Sehwag has opened new doors much like SMG and SRT did in their own ways.

I would like to start the message with a clear statement that I am not trying to de-grade Sehwag's achievements as I am a great fan of his.On his day he can do what most others cant do.However I would not put him in the top rank as yet and I would not call him a great batsman in the true sense of the word.The problem is that sometimes we get too much carried away with the game that a player has played in recent 2-3 years that we tend to forget that 2-3 years are just a part of career and a career in itself.If that was the case then Vinod Kambli would always rate a lot higher in Indian batsmen.Viru has got 49 50+ scores in 150 innings till date which is wonderful (32.66%) however in ODIs he has just 51 50+ scores in 230 innings (22.17%) which is just as good as an average ODI batsman (although he has a good strike rate but still in my opinion it should have been around 27-28% atleast. In overseas tests he has got 21 50+ scores in 79 innings (26.58%).I think it should have been bit more.

Then in ODIs also he has 34 50+ scores in 152 innings outside India (22.36%). I believe if he can raise all his success percentages marginally by 3-4% he will do a lot good to his own already high stature. When we compare him to Dravid or VVs we must remember the diffenrece in attacks of 90s and even early 2000s as compared to today's attacks. Today I dont see anyone other than Steyn and Morkel who is real threat to a batsman (Yes Lasith also but in ODIs only) whereas in 90s we had Warne, Mcdermott, Mcgrath, Donald, Pollock, Walsh, Ambrose, Murali, Akram, Lee, Younis, Akhtar, Saqlain, Jason Gillispie, Mushtaq Ahmed and few more. Even in early 2000s we had few of them at the fag ends of their careers and likes of Lee and Akhtar at their best. STILL I WOULD REITERATE VIRU IS MIND BLOWING.

#1 ranked innings in Wisden 100 came on a sticky 1936 wicket, but AFTER the pitch had dried up, so do you give Bradman extra credit for his 270

Great point. Just goes to show how impossible it is to evaluate individual innings using raw (and derived) numbers alone.

I've heard Gubby Allen saying in an interview that the first 100 runs scored by Don in this innings of 270 ranks among DGB's worst hundreds as he played and missed atleast 20 times (as per Allen).
[[
Possibly the pitch had not yet turned into the beauty everone percieved it to be. Maybe Bradman's first 100 runs were the true barometer of his innings.
When we finalized the Wisden-100, on every innings in the top-10 we had extensive discussions over conference calls. I explained the reason behind each of these innings and there was unanimity that not one of these top-10 did not deserve its place.
It was universally agreed that there might and would be other innings which could have replaced these with distinction. However Wisden's main requirement was that there should be no innings in the top-10 undeserving of its place. They did not go by newspaper reports, nor on comments, nor on off-the-pitch happenings, nor by injuries etc. Right from the first we agreed that scorecard was king.
If you see the original top-6, Bradman's 270, Lara's 153*, Gooch's 154, Botham's 149, Laxman's 281, Hill's 188, can you see a better collection of innings. People have tried to discredit the methodology for ttheir own reasons. Bradman has played better innings, Lara was dropped on xxx, Gooch played and missed, Botham's 103 was a better innings and so on. What does it matter. Taking the 12 parameters, a mix of pure cricketing measures and contextual factors, these were the top innings. Wisden had the foresight to ask me for the highest placed sub-100 innings. When I said that was Vishwanath's 97, there was relief all around since everyone knew about this classic.
An exercise of this magnitude is very difficult. It would have been very easy for Wisden to call out 50 jounralist/cricketers from around the world, ask them to mark their top-10 innings, assign 10-9-...1 values and presented these. They chose to take the hard route after more than a month of discussions with me. Till today., Anthony Bouchier, who co-ordinated this effort feels that this was truly wonderful effort and is proud of this list.
Ananth:
]]

One of Bradman's greatest hundreds was at Leeds in 1938 when he scored 103 against Bowes, Farnes and Verity in complete darkness. Nobody could apparently see the ball. Yet, Don scored 103 of the 153 runs Aus scored while he was at the crease. The special quality of this innings (played in complete darkness) will not be captured by any metric one may develop. You HAVE to take the trouble of reading contemporary newspaper reports to figure this out.

He should be happy that he gets paid quite a few times what a better striker of the ball and a far greater batsman, Richards, got paid.

Ananth: I'm not sure whether that's the way one can expect Gayle to think! I don't compare my pay check with that of my father when he was my age!! That would be pointless. I compare it with that of my peers!
[[
Our different thinking is a reflection of our ages. You are 30- and I am 60+. For me, a curious mixture of diffrerent beliefs, integrity should always take priority over opportunity. My father's earnings to mine to my son's might be in a GP. However that is a sign of times and progress.
What is not is the need to be honest to oneself, one's country and one's profession.
Gayle should compare himself with the rest of the West indian cricketers. He should not compare his earnings with that of Messi or Nadal or an American basketballer. He should not compare with Dhoni or Tendulkar or for that matter Saurabh Tiwary..
Then there will be no satistfaction. Alex has put the whole thing in perspective. If Gayle has the potential to earn half a million dollars by combining his national and club duties that should be route he should take. He would stand tall. I know you could say what does he do when he sees double that amount if he plays for a wealthy club. That is his choice. But the minority people like me would not hesitate to fling the brickbats. Not that he cares.
Please do not bring in Ted McDonald. who played in 1920s. He looked for better wages, to keep his home fires burning. One more 1900s cricketer should not be brought into this discussion. They were playing for an extra 20 pounds per week.
Ananth:
]]

Satisfaction with one's paycheck is not a function of the Salary amount per se. It is a function of a host of factors, the most important of which is the Opportunity cost.

I can empathise with Gayle considering the huge opportunity costs entailed when he decides to play for WI only. Nobody ever called Ted McDonald a traitor or even a mercenary to the best of my knowledge, though the opportunity costs faced by McDonald while playing for Aus were hardly comparable to that of Gayle.

@Narinder: Maybe the 90's bowlers should be considered lucky since they did not run into Sehwag. He hit a hundred in his first innings itself in '01 and that too in SA coming in at 4-68.

His strengths are so over-powering that he really has opened new doors in Ind cricket (if not in world cricket like Viv/Lara/SRT). He has a few weaknesses and his consistency in ODI's is a downer but no one lauding him as the near-perfect rounded batsman in SRT's class.

As a batsman, VVS should be rated ahead of him in tests and Dravid just behind him in tests (& in tests+ODI's). However, the batting process+philosophy of VVS-Dravid is not _that_ different from previous Indian cricketers ... they are simply much better than almost everybody else bar SMG-SRT. However, Sehwag is a discontinuity. With all his faults, has added a new dimension ... in my opinion at least.

Oh, pls ignore the previous comment
Ananth,
You state that " Taking the 12 parameters, a mix of pure cricketing measures and contextual factors, these were the top innings " and “Till today., Anthony Bouchier, who co-ordinated this effort feels that this was truly wonderful effort and is proud of this list. “ That is the subjective factors effectively were trasnposed into the objective factors and weightings because it “feels right”.
As is to be expected.

Which is why I feel that if Wisden had to "to call out 50 jounralist/cricketers from around the world, ask them to mark their top-10 innings, assign 10-9-" They would have reached the EXACT same conclusions - The only exception perhaps being a slight shuffling of the ranks.

Where you would have had greater disagreement would have been in the 11-100 ranks.
[[
Abhi
I will agree with you 100%. When we discussed extensively how to validate the list, it was agreed that we should concentrate on the top-10 and a few random ones down the order. We also decided to avoid being driven by players. I have told you many times but will repeat now. If I do it now, and one day I will do it, Ii would be a much better job since I have had the privilege of many wonderful contributions from the readers and I myself have developed new measures. Bowling quality based on Ctd, Arjun's reciprocal tweak, Recent form work, Pitch quality based on top-10 score average, scoring rate, a better evaluation of position at entry, importance of test (series status) to mention a few.
I will still not go beyond scorecards, but be able to analyze an innings based on a group of scorecards immediately preding the innings to incorporate a few of the above factors.
Ananth:
]]

@Ananth: I too had issues with the Wisden 100 list. However, on Don's 270, let's note the following:

1. Don was down with flu and had scored only 133 runs in the previous 5 innings of the series.

2. He arrived at the crease at 5-97 (ahead by 220). Eng managed 323 in the final innings.

3. Only McCabe, Darling, Sievers, and Oldfield were to follow the Don. McCabe would score 22 and the other 3 had mediocre records.

4. The rain/pitch was not a factor after Day 3. So, Don' first 56 runs only were in trying conditions. Wisden says the bowlers used towels to wipe the balls and gives an excuse that *since* the ball was wet they couldn't bowl well enough!!

In this setting, Don hit 270 at SR=72 while 5 others combined for 180-odd at SR=30. So, while I think Bradman has played better innings (in terms of batting perfection and in terms of performance in a back against wall setting) this still was a monumental & inspiring innings in terms of effectiveness.

Anthony Bouchier...feels that this was truly wonderful effort

Ananth: The idea behind my comment was not to criticize the list. I respect the quality and integrity of your work and it is obviously a very admirable effort.

Having said that, it is important to realize the limitations of analysis in a game as fickle as cricket. Lists are fine, but they don't preclude the need for more conventional historical research (in terms of reading contemporary news reports etc).

Bradman's 270 is very hard to beat, objectively speaking. One mistake from him and Australia would've surrendered the Ashes. It's great that your methodology picked this up.

Let's continue to make lists! But let's not overlook more traditional research (like interviews/news clippings). This must go on in parallel.

Btw, here's a link on the '36-37 series.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/england/5384332.stm
Check out the 25 min audio clip at the bottom. Features interviews with Les Ames and Gubby Allen.

@Alex.If hitting 100 in 1st match be the criteria then Amre must be one of the greatest.Its not bowlers but Viru who is a bit lucky not to have run into the likes of donald,younis,akram,walsh,curtly and such other people more often.Sehwag has so far been wanting in England,New Zealand & South Africa tests.this is a fact that we should accept even if we love Viru so much.If Rahul and VVS are traditional does it make them inferior?I would say that the batsmen who have solid technique combined with ability to play strokes at will are better for opening so called new gates or dimensions in batting compared to the likes of people whose ability is based on pure timing only.I know Rahul is not the one who can play shots at will but VVS can.I would rate the likes of SRT way ahead in such a thing and even Ponting is better in that than most others.To succeed everywhere you need the ability to adapt to the conditions and adjust your own game.I am talking about COMPLETENESS OF BATSMEN.

Gayle should not compare with Dhoni or Tendulkar or..

@Ananth: I do not believe that Gayle should allow himself to be confined to the standard of the other West Indian players. He has demonstrated that, in cricketing terms he has the ability to be a major brand, and why should he not try to capitalise on that, whilst the aforementioned cricketers do the same, just they seem less mercenery because someone like Tendulkar played the first half of his career when there was lees money floating about playing for clubs, or Dhoni, who has come into a remarkably wealthy Indian cricket institution. Furthermore, they have a sixth of the world who they can easily market themselves to without having to worry about playing in the IPL over their country. Considering the incompetence of some of the West Indies board, why should Gayle use his talents now to help them, rather than secure financial security, power which would probably equip him better for the future. It is not his duty to revive WI

Excellent work followed by an avalanche of comments--poor soul like me need to take some days off to get the hang of it as they contain good cricket wisdom as well. My piece of sense on various points:
1. Main topic(anybody remember it now?)--usual suspects, Trescothick is a surprise, his current problems to be seen against his performnace against tough opponent.
2. Why some players perform better against such teams or more importantly, why they underperform against others-VVS is a disappointment against others(better in last 3 yrs)any cricket logic?can't be motivation, they become players of less stature due to this one
3. WI vs Aus-I have followed both streaks-IMO,Windies will win in fast/bouncy tracks, Aussies in spin/slow/flat tracks, can back up with arguments though not sure about facing verbal bouncers
4. On Indian greats, if SMG is great(he is), then RD should be an equal. I'd put RD over VVS as he is more complete batsmen(test/ODI) like one may put SMG over Vishy
[[
As usual, all your points are well made. The point 3 is interesting. Those who vehemently talk about one team positively winning 3-2, forget this point. I get the feeling 3-2 would be the result. But which way, depends on the 5 centres. This is not like the Times simulation wherein the RoW XI was too strong for England Xi, whichever be the centres.
The away record of Dravid should ensure that he should never be taken off the top-3 amongst Indian batsmen.
Ananth:
]]

@Ramesh: This will be my last comment on this article.

1. Sehwag scores very high on my rating - despite failures in SA & Eng ... he did well in tests & ODI's NZ - because he added a new dimension to Indian cricket. Earlier, only Kapil (whose ability was far superior to his career figures) could post SR>80 regardless of the bowling attack.

2. No doubting Dravid's class ... truly SMG version 1.2 at least.
Incidentally, Dravid has not done well in SA and posted average record vs the great Aussies save monumental '01 and '04.

3. Since '00, VVS has averaged 52 and has played well home & away in almost every series. Why he hasn't done better has more to do with his batting position. He should have been a regular in ODI's but, given SRT-Dada-RD, BCCI wanted younger & more explosive blood (Sehwag, Yuvi, Kaif, etc.) for other batting spots. That was a mistake, IMO, since VVS had scored many 100's vs OZ at SR=80+.

if Wisden had to "to call out 50 jounralist/cricketers from around the world, ask them to mark their top-10 innings...they would have reached the EXACT same conclusions

Abhi: Not sure about that.
I'm sure that the following innings will rank really high in a purely subjective poll of cricket historians -

Stan McCabe's 232 at Trent Bridge
DGB's 254 at Lord's
Lara's 277 at Sydney
Gavaskar's 221 at Oval
Hammond's 240 at Lord's
Sobers' 132 in the Brisbane tie
Graeme Pollock's 125 at Trent Bridge
Hobbs' 100 at the Oval

None of these, except Gavaskar's 221 and McCabe's 232 featured in the Wisden 100 (even those two weren't there in the top 20).
My point is that Wisden 100 is a well researched project driven by objective criteria. There is no reason why it should throw up a list that reflects the traditional critical consensus!

Let the two worlds coexist. By all means, respect the Wisden 100. Having said that, no list can be complete. Several great knocks are bound to miss out!

Incidentally, Dravid has not done well in SA

Alex: It was in SA that he first caught my eye. 1996-97 tour of SA. 148 at Johannesburg!

As a batsman, VVS should be rated ahead of him in tests and Dravid just behind him in tests

I wonder whether it is unfashionable to talk up Rahul Dravid nowadays! He has been somewhat quiet ever since giving up captaincy. No wonder these days, we don't seem to discuss him as often as Sehwag or Laxman.

There was a time (back in '06 I think), when it would've been sacrilege not to rank Dravid among the three greatest Indian batsmen of all time! Critical climate surely has changed!

Another good reason why batsmen ought to retire if they suffer poor patches of form after the age of 34!

PS: These are just random observations. Never been a huge Dravid fan. I'd personally prefer both Sehwag/Laxman over him.

Interesting points about Sehwag. I doubt if any batsman in history, with the exception of (not even Lara, Richards) Bradman and Gayle, can be considered capable of posting two triple centuries, a 293, 254 etc. at those strike rates. There are many better batsmen against fast bowlers, under pressure, on bouncy tracks etc, but in the end what Sehwag has done cannot be matched by anyone else. No one has made such mammoth scores at that strike rate. He is indeed unique. I would put him much higher than Dravid, though not at par with Laxman, who despite being less spectacular, has (now at least) done enough to merit comparison with the best. I have no doubt that when Ananth comes out with his numbers, his averages will rise with the quality of the attack. But Sehwag not too many innings abroad. Dravid at his best was at par with the best India has produced, but one must take into account averages, and he has done atrociously now for 4 years. Also very poor record against genuine pace.
[[
Sehwag (and to a lesser extent Hayden) were able to go their free-wheeling ways only because of the immense batting after them, right upto no.7. Towards the later two-thirds of his career, Lara did not have that cushion. But Sehwag is truly a once-in-50-years batsman.May not be perfect, may fail abroad, may not save tests but a true match-winner.
Dravid has fallen from his pedestal and should give serious consideration to retire.
Ananth:
]]

I doubt if any batsman in history, with the exception of Bradman and Gayle, can be considered capable of posting two triple centuries, a 293, 254 etc. at those strike rates

Gerry: There is a misconception among certain people that Bradman scored at run-a-ball all the time. That's not accurate.
Both his triple centuries were at strike rates of about 65.

He was a quick scorer. But not rapid like Sehwag.
His scoring seems rapid (going by the "minutes" metric) since overrates were much better in his time.

I calculated his career S.R (SRs are available for nearly 70 of his 80 innings). It works out to be around 58, if memory serves me right. That puts him in the Tendulkar/Ponting league when it comes to SR. But then, I suspect Bradman was more conservative than those two (given that field placings were more attacking in his day). If he were playing today, who knows..he might have a SR of about 45-50.

Sehwag (along with Gilchrist) stands alone in terms of SR among great batsmen!
[[
Shri, During Bradman's time 50 was great.
Ananth:
]]

Alex,

I never brought Sehwag into equation. I was refering to RD vs VVS. On Sehwag, we need to wait till his later part of his career. Till then we should enjoy as ananth says he is once in 50 yrs batsmen. I have a worrying feeling that he may go Viv's way--poor last years and numbers not doing justice to his skill. Atleast Viv had great ODI stats.
Rahul Dravid--Maybe he should retire now. But his overall record is superior to VVS. In tests, we can't fully blame it on VVS'batting position. For 4 to 6 crucial yrs when SRT was down, RD was the backbone of India batting and I think VVS never attained that stature. On ODIs, Laxman had too many weaknesses-less fit, poor running/fielding compared to RD. We are relatively speaking amongst greats and not with others. Ofcourse I love to watch VVS more due to his batting style, but need to admit RD was overall better. Much like admiration for SMG though I used to love Vishy(my first live match was seeing Vishy 97* in Chepauk)
[[
Ramesh, my first live match was at Chennai (then Madras) in which Hanumant Singh played arguably one of the greatest of innings played by an Indian. All of us wax lyrical, with justification, on Vishwanath's 97. Imagine Australia with an attack led by McKenzie and Hawke. India are 24 for 4, chasing 333 runs. when Hanumant comes in. He scored 94, with 18 of the most exquisite fours, out of a final total of 193. It was an innings which I remember after 46 years, one which defined the teenager's love for the game.
Ananth:
]]

Alex,
Was it you who mentioned the bit about “did they retire too late”? (too many comments to scroll back and check)
Very good idea. One of the most delicate aspects of a players career is his decision to retire. Who said you should retire when they ask Why? And not – why not?
We generally remember most players by their High points and their “highlight reels” (which is why a Sehwag can get away with murder ). Only the very very few Truly great like Tendulkar are also remembered by their flops (which some ppl absolutely love to go on about)not his innumerable hundreds or fifites or a Bradman and his last innings Duck.
For the vast majority it is the career “highlights” which stick in the memory.
For longish careers – (100 + matches, 15 years) Perhaps a way around this would be to Subtract the “flops” – say the lower 20% scores from a players career and so get a grip on what the public remember a player for the most part? This would take care of illtimed retirements, injuries etc. for say Dujon, Dravid, Laras ups and downs, Ponting ,Tendulkar around 2006 etc etc.

The resulting averages will probably flatter the “all or nothing” type of players but still -Just a thought.
[[
Abhi, you are too cynical. The true enthusiast remembers the wonderful moments. Only the one who wants to put down players will concentrate on failures. However it is essential for players to retire when their downward trend does not look like it would reverse. Like Dravid now. I am sure Tendulkar would quit when he stops enjoying the game. He is still like a 18-year old enjoying his successes whole-heartedly. I only wish he decides at one stage that he quits, say ODIs, to do justice to the Test career. Just my view.
Ananth:
]]

I am curious to look at Trescothick's figs against Aussies. With Ashes pressure and against Aussies with their famous mental disintegration strategy, if Trescothick can stand up and perform better than his average, could a coach & support staff done something on his other mental demons? It is sad to see players leave sports which give so much pleasure and relaxation to so many us from our daily life pressures.
[[
Let me see what I can do.
How do you say that he has performed at better than his career average. He has not.
Look at his figures below.
Career: 43.76
vs Aus: 15 30 0 (1013-33.77)
Adjusted: 1175.9 @ 39.20
% to career: 77.2%
Ananth:
]]

On Chris Gayle subject--I want to bring Packer episode into our discussion. How do we place the players(great they are)during that time? They deserted their boards. If reconciliation had not happened, it could have continued for some more years. Great players did not think too much about representing their counrty then. Both episodes don't leave us with good feeling. In both cases, boards have to take share of the blame.
[[
In fact if you had seen my comments I blame the WI Board more. But they are the people who virtually arm-twisted Lara into quitting 2 years ahead of time. Even during 1976, the official Board payments to players were peanuts so Packer could wave his chequebook. Now there is more money, maybe not necessarily fairly allocated. Anyhow even West indian supporters do not seem to think there is anything wrong.
Ananth:
]]

@Ramesh: Packer pulled a Vishwamitra on ACB so that he be allowed to earn fame & money through Channel 9. Here also money ruled but the main difference in WSC & IPL (besides the quality of cricket) is that the players back then earned pitiful wages through national cricket boards. In fact, Packer won the law suit vs ACB on this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Series_Cricket). To quote, "Justice Slade in his judgment said professional cricketers need to make a living and the ICC should not stand in the way just because their own interests may be damaged. He said the ICC may have stretched the concept of loyalty too far. Players could not be criticized for entering the contracts in secrecy as the main authorities would deny the players the opportunity to enjoy the advantages offered by WSC".

Gayle hasn't done anything wrong. The correct solution is to set aside 8-12 weeks in ICC calendar for IPL etc. so that all can earn more money without sacrificing national interests.

If you are going to use a different cutoff date for WI it should be 2000. The WI still had Ambrose and Walsh up to Sept 2000, they weren't exactly cannon fodder from 1995 to 2000, the batting declined, but the bowling still held them together to an extent.
It also doesn't surprise me that Greg Chappell is top vs WI, he was an exceptional batsmen. I would rate him a class or two above the current lot.

I still mantain that Clive Lloyd's team were the best ever team with their great pace attack and batsman.They beat stronger teams than the Australian champion sides led by Waugh or Ponting,vanquishing India and Pakistan on their home soil and beating a strong Australian tem in 1980 who had demolished England 3-0.Steve Waugh's team was thrashed by India in 1998 while Ponting's side faced reversals in England in 2005.Australia were more professional but did not posess the flair of the WEst Indian ranks.In 1988 Viv Richards side was close to Lloyd's vanquishing England and Australia on their soil 4-0 and 3-1.Imran's Pakistan team in 1987 was the closest to West Indies and Australia.It had a most creative bowling attack and great batting depth.

West Indies retained supremacy for a longer period than Australia because they could replenish their pace bowling atack and great batsman .However after losing Gilchrits,Warne and Mcgrath Australian cricket declined.

@Harsh Thakor. I`ve probably missed the boat due to my late reply, but still thought I`d put my 2 cents in. You`re certainly well within your rights, and I believe in the majority on this site at least, to claim that Lloyd`s team was the greatest ever. They were a simply brilliant side.

I`m not sure that they played against stronger teams than the Australians however, particularly when we consider the excellent South African and Sri Lankan sides the Australians faced. I`m sure you`d agree that India circa 1983 was a pale shadow of the team the Australians played, and 3 wins in 12 tests on Pakistani soil during the WI glory years hardly suggests a vanquishing.

re. the thrashing Australia suffered at the hand of India in 1998; a 2-1 away loss, with a threadbare attack hardly fits the bill does it? In many ways I would suggest that the Ausralian team possessed even more flair, and certainly a more attacking mindset. They certainly won more tests, and lost more, and as you point o