World Test XI 1995-2020 versus World Test XI of 1970-1994? Who will win?

[Harsh Thakor]

I am trying to ***** whether standard of test cricket genuinely improved in last 25 years.I have selected a list of 1st and 2nd world test xis of 1970-94 and 1995-2020.Some cricketers have overlapped decades but I have placed them in the ears which shaped the major part of their careers .Wasim,Lara and Tendulkar are such examples or even Ambrose and excluding Sobers and Graeme Pollock.



Test World xi of 1970-94



Barry Richards

Sunil Gavaskar

Viv Richards

Greg Chappell

Javed Miandad

Ian Botham

Imran Khan

Alan Knott

Malcolm Marshall

Wasim Akram

Abdul Qadir



2nd world XI 1970-94



Gordon Greenidge

Geoff Boycott

Ian Chappell

Alan Border

Zaheer Abbas

Tony Greig

Rodney Marsh

Richard Hadlee

Dennis Lillee

Curtly Ambrose

Bishen Bedi







1995-2020 -1st test world XI



Virendra Sehwag

Graeme Smith

Brian Lara

Sachin Tendulkar

Virat Kohli

Jacques Kallis

Adam Gilchrist

Shane Warne

Dale Steyn

Alan Donald

Glen Mcgrath





2nd World XI-1995-2020

Matthew Hayden

Alistair Cook

Rahul Dravid

Steve Smith

Ricky Ponting

AB Devilliers

Andrew Flintoff

Waqar Younus

Shoaib Akhtar

Courtney Walsh

Muthiah Murlitharan





Perhaps not even a whisker seperates the teams of both the eras.Both sides have equally attacking batsmen in the middle order and equally lethal bowling.

The likes of Sehwag ,Sachin,Lara Kohli and Kallis are a perfect match for Barry,Gavaskar,Viv,Greg and Javed.

1970-94 bowling attack has more craft or variety with Wasim ,Qadir and Malcolm in its ranks but 1995-20 side attack has more skill, speed and control with the qualities of Mcgrath,Donald,Steyn and Warne.

1970-94 XI has more allrounders.

Both have match winners but the difference may well be the match-winning prowess of Adam Gilchrist and Shane Warne as against the magical craft of Wasim Akram.

If I had to guess I would back 1995-2020 World XI with improved athleticism,professionalism or or fitness in sport .Thus test cricket standard has not declined in the last 25 years but remained on par .Scoring rate has improved ,bowling craft increased and fielding standards improved.


The 2nd xi's are also more or less evenly matched with the latter era team being more agressive or dynamic.The variety in the 1995-20 2nd xi may give it an edge also.No doubt 1970-94 bowling attack is more potent .1995-20 has a more powerful batting line up.With a gun on my ahead I would back the 1995-20 2nd world XI with improved fitness and athleticism in recent times as well as scoring rate.

 

[tyron_woodley]

95-2020 anyday. all day. every day. ever ready.

2010- 2020 alone destroys any past teams except 2000-2010 era.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

95-2020 anyday. all day. every day. ever ready.

2010- 2020 alone destroys any past teams except 2000-2010 era.

Disagree .In last decade major decline in test cricket standards

 

[Mobashir]

That's the reason some posters here Consider that I am biased against India.

But, at present time, in what world Kohli makes a test world XI in front of Ricky Ponting or Steven Smith.

In the coming years he might become better than Bradman or whatever and Smith become a tailender, I don't even want to debate about that.
For the time being there is no comparaison at all.

 

[andy0204]

Where is Steve Waugh?

 

[Junaids]

Barry Richards
Sunil Gavaskar
Sir Viv Richards
Sir Garfield Sobers
Graeme Pollock
Mike Procter
Imran Khan
Alan Knott
Dennis Lillee
Wasim Akram
Erapalli Prasanna

By a landslide!

 

[tyron_woodley]

Disagree .In last decade major decline in test cricket standards

nope weak era was back then not now. different rules. All favouring bowlers. I ha e gone through this a million times I can't be bothered regurgitating myself. this is strongest era ever right now.

2000-2010 would kill any previous era Teams. pre 90s the rules were different anyway do you can only compare them to their contemporaries prior to 90.

90-2010 would be appropriate for this comparison. 2000 vs 2010 would be neck and neck.

90s would be the worst of the post rule changes era.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Barry Richards
Sunil Gavaskar
Sir Viv Richards
Sir Garfield Sobers
Graeme Pollock
Mike Procter
Imran Khan
Alan Knott
Dennis Lillee
Wasim Akram
Erapalli Prasanna

By a landslide!

Great team no doubt.What is your post 1994 XI ?Why no Abdul Qadir here?Sobers and Pollock hardly played in the 1970's comparitively,thus should be excluded.

 

[gazza619]

strange thread. You cant have a team from 70-94 or from 95-20

 

[Harsh Thakor]

strange thread. You cant have a team from 70-94 or from 95-20

explain

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Where is Steve Waugh?

just misses out by a whisker.disagree?

 

[andy0204]

just misses out by a whisker.disagree?

Yes because you are taking players like ab de Villiers and Andrew Flintoff,how come these players are better than Waugh in tests?

 

[tyron_woodley]

Yes because you are taking players like ab de Villiers and Andrew Flintoff,how come these players are better than Waugh in tests?

because wauugh played in an era where there was no drs, biased umpires, no no ball umpires and a lot of other meana of cheating that they used to get away with. Plus they never needed to play t20. Less workload.

 

[andy0204]

because wauugh played in an era where there was no drs, biased umpires, no no ball umpires and a lot of other meana of cheating that they used to get away with. Plus they never needed to play t20. Less workload.

Please have some knowledge then only post,unbiased umpiring started from 1992,drs started from 2008 and Flintoff retired in 2009 which means Flintoff played nearly played whole carrer without drs.
So Flintoff is better than Waugh?
Even there is biased umpiring that would be only at home soil when home umpires are there.
Check out Waugh's average away from home,he won 2 man of the series in South Africa and 1 in West Indies when Westindies were at their peak.
Devillers only scored 8000 runs in test there are many better players than Devillers in tests where as Waugh scored nearly 11,000 runs.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Please have some knowledge then only post,unbiased umpiring started from 1992,drs started from 2008 and Flintoff retired in 2009 which means Flintoff played nearly played whole carrer without drs.
So Flintoff is better than Waugh?
Even there is biased umpiring that would be only at home soil when home umpires are there.
Check out Waugh's average away from home,he won 2 man of the series in South Africa and 1 in West Indies when Westindies were at their peak.
Devillers only scored 8000 runs in test there are many better players than Devillers in tests where as Waugh scored nearly 11,000 runs.

ponting never played t20 much. bad ample rest unlike de villiers.

de villiers had every shot in the book. Ofcourse he would wreck waugh and ponting easily if he won't have to focus on multiple formats.

he is a great player.

You educate yourself before you even 1uote me. How would you factor in multiple formats? Player play more games now and workload is alot higher. Also there is no practice games before test series. Not as many as in the past where t3ams actually get to face multiple A level teams to get adjusted to the conditons.

 

[andy0204]

ponting never played t20 much. bad ample rest unlike de villiers.

de villiers had every shot in the book. Ofcourse he would wreck waugh and ponting easily if he won't have to focus on multiple formats.

he is a great player.

You educate yourself before you even 1uote me. How would you factor in multiple formats? Player play more games now and workload is alot higher. Also there is no practice games before test series. Not as many as in the past where t3ams actually get to face multiple A level teams to get adjusted to the conditons.

I have no doubt he is a great player,
I am educated enough but I feel pity on you that future generation kids will call these generation players useless,mark my words.

 

[tyron_woodley]

I have no doubt he is a great player,
I am educated enough but I feel pity on you that future generation kids will call these generation players useless,mark my words.

well maybe? rule changes again.
All I am saying is it's very hard to compare because every era had some rules that were tinkered with. However a great player will be great in any era. That's for sure.

waugh is great but you can't compare him to ABD. ABD played in a different era where he was required to focus on multiple formats.

 

[gazza619]

explain

Where would you fit players who started their careers in 1985 and ended in 2010?

 

[andy0204]

well maybe? rule changes again.
All I am saying is it's very hard to compare because every era had some rules that were tinkered with. However a great player will be great in any era. That's for sure.

waugh is great but you can't compare him to ABD. ABD played in a different era where he was required to focus on multiple formats.

The criteria of this thread is test matches not all formats,It's from 1995-2020 and Waugh definitely gets qualified.

 

[Bleedgreen4ever]

95-2020 anyday. all day. every day. ever ready.

2010- 2020 alone destroys any past teams except 2000-2010 era.

It's completely the opposite the likes of Imran, Viv, Border and Akram would feast on these timid modern day cricketers only Steve Smith,Dale Steyn might give some competition

 

[tyron_woodley]

It's completely the opposite the likes of Imran, Viv, Border and Akram would feast on these timid modern day cricketers only Steve Smith,Dale Steyn might give some competition

they really wouldn't. none of them play the amount of games modern players do. add in t20 as well. It's not even close. totally different rules.

 

[Ab Fan]

Some points I would like OP to modify if he agrees on it.

1) Wasim Akram should be part of 1995-2020 period or previous one. Same for Waqar.

2) Steve Waugh should be there ahead of AB and AF.

3) Not having Shaun Pollock is quite ridiculous. He deserves a go ahead of Walsh and Shoaib Akhtar IMO.

Rest I will point if I find more.

 

[Ab Fan]

Please have some knowledge then only post,unbiased umpiring started from 1992,drs started from 2008 and Flintoff retired in 2009 which means Flintoff played nearly played whole carrer without drs.
So Flintoff is better than Waugh?
Even there is biased umpiring that would be only at home soil when home umpires are there.
Check out Waugh's average away from home,he won 2 man of the series in South Africa and 1 in West Indies when Westindies were at their peak.
Devillers only scored 8000 runs in test there are many better players than Devillers in tests where as Waugh scored nearly 11,000 runs.

Waugh and Pollock clearly deserves to be there ahead of some names in the list..

 

[Robert]

A difficult question to answer.

I think of the 1974-90 side I would drop Botham, push Captain Imran up to #6 and pick Hadlee at #8 if it was a greentop. Or Lillee if it was a flat wicket and you need long hostile spells. He and Imran would run in and attack all day, while Hadlee's head might go down if he was being hit.

If it was a green wicket then Sehwag would be sorted out by Hadlee very quickly.

I don't think the modern team's fast attack is any less potent, But Warne would be a big problem for the earlier side.

 

[Ab Fan]

The criteria of this thread is test matches not all formats,It's from 1995-2020 and Waugh definitely gets qualified.

Hey, de Villiers gets qualified as a wicket keeper batsmen. No point of discussing on that. Waugh can't keep gloves.

So, no place for Steve Waugh or maybe he can replace Flintoff. He can do a bit of bowling as fifth option.

 

[sindhiboy]

they really wouldn't. none of them play the amount of games modern players do. add in t20 as well. It's not even close. totally different rules.

Thing is modern day batsman don't have the temparement for test cricket like the older batsmen have.

Bowlers of the 90s may be overrated, but some batsman may have possibly averaged 5-8 runs higher if they played tests today

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Please participate here [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] looking forward

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Some points I would like OP to modify if he agrees on it.

1) Wasim Akram should be part of 1995-2020 period or previous one. Same for Waqar.

2) Steve Waugh should be there ahead of AB and AF.

3) Not having Shaun Pollock is quite ridiculous. He deserves a go ahead of Walsh and Shoaib Akhtar IMO.

Rest I will point if I find more.

Wasim played more test cricket and was more impactful before 1995 if you study his career and performances.Shaun Pollock is a great selection but remember the lethal pace of Alkhtar and match winning all round prowess of Flintoff.Waugh may replace Flintoff with his ability in s crisis,though.AB makes it as a wicket keeper in 2nd eleven,which you eventually agreed with.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

A difficult question to answer.

I think of the 1974-90 side I would drop Botham, push Captain Imran up to #6 and pick Hadlee at #8 if it was a greentop. Or Lillee if it was a flat wicket and you need long hostile spells. He and Imran would run in and attack all day, while Hadlee's head might go down if he was being hit.

If it was a green wicket then Sehwag would be sorted out by Hadlee very quickly.

I don't think the modern team's fast attack is any less potent, But Warne would be a big problem for the earlier side.

Which team would you give the edge with a gun on your head?

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Thing is modern day batsman don't have the temparement for test cricket like the older batsmen have.

Bowlers of the 90s may be overrated, but some batsman may have possibly averaged 5-8 runs higher if they played tests today

Which team would win?

 

[Ab Fan]

Wasim played more test cricket and was more impactful before 1995 if you study his career and performances.<B>Shaun Pollock is a great selection but remember the lethal pace of Alkhtar and match winning all round prowess of Flintoff.</B>Waugh may replace Flintoff with his ability in s crisis,though.AB makes it as a wicket keeper in 2nd eleven,which you eventually agreed with.

We have Waqar in that side whose pace was as lethal as Akhtar at its peak. I wanted Pollock in this side because he really deserves it. You look at his numbers and his performance everywhere including Asia, it's brilliant really. Then he is as good a batsmen as say, Hadlee. So, having him bat at 8 is another big luxury. You have Waqar, Walsh, Akhtar and Murali. All these guys are nobodies as batsmen. It's like playing tailenders completely from no.8. You must have Shaun in your second side.

Yes, Waugh can't replace AB as I saw afterwards that he is playing as keeper. Now, Sanga can make it ahead of AB but feel AB would do better justice to the role of no.6 or 7 than Sanga would, playing as a keeper.

Regarding Wasim, I think Waqar was even better than Wasim in the first half and the second half of Waqar wasn't even as great to begin with.

 

[tyron_woodley]

A difficult question to answer.

I think of the 1974-90 side I would drop Botham, push Captain Imran up to #6 and pick Hadlee at #8 if it was a greentop. Or Lillee if it was a flat wicket and you need long hostile spells. He and Imran would run in and attack all day, while Hadlee's head might go down if he was being hit.

If it was a green wicket then Sehwag would be sorted out by Hadlee very quickly.

I don't think the modern team's fast attack is any less potent, But Warne would be a big problem for the earlier side.

any 'less' potent?? more like more potent.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Thing is modern day batsman don't have the temparement for test cricket like the older batsmen have.

Bowlers of the 90s may be overrated, but some batsman may have possibly averaged 5-8 runs higher if they played tests today

take out t20 and let them focus purely on tests like they did in the past along with more tune up games prior to playing tests then I am certain modern era will triumph easily. Good players from either ers would be good in any era but this is more applicable to current era.

 

[Robert]

Which team would you give the edge with a gun on your head?

I don’t think I can. Both your sides are so strong.

Maybe you need smaller pools. Seventies vs eighties vs nineties vs noughties vs teens. I think eighties or nineties would win due to pure fast bowler power.

 

[therealAB]

because wauugh played in an era where there was no drs, biased umpires, no no ball umpires and a lot of other meana of cheating that they used to get away with. Plus they never needed to play t20. Less workload.

Waugh averaged significantly more after introduction of neutral umpires.
No no balls is worse for batsmen as they get recalled
Cheating was always fielding driven (tampering), made it harder for batsmen
DRS goes both ways.

Your arguments are in favour of Waugh, not to mention higher standard of bowling, and harder pitches

 

[The_Odd_One]

they really wouldn't. none of them play the amount of games modern players do. add in t20 as well. It's not even close. totally different rules.

I think you do not even know that there is a thing called FC and some of these players played a lot of county cricket besides international cricket.

For example, Wasim Akram has played over 450 international games. If you count FC and List A, then that's 850+ games.

Border played over 150 tests and 273 tests. FC and List A combined takes him to almost 800 games.

Players also did not skip many games or formats in the past. There were almost no ODI specialists. So, your claim that they did not play as much cricket as modern cricketers has no legs.

 

[tyron_woodley]

I think you do not even know that there is a thing called FC and some of these players played a lot of county cricket besides international cricket.

For example, Wasim Akram has played over 450 international games. If you count FC and List A, then that's 850+ games.

Border played over 150 tests and 273 tests. FC and List A combined takes him to almost 800 games.

Players also did not skip many games or formats in the past. There were almost no ODI specialists. So, your claim that they did not play as much cricket as modern cricketers has no legs.

lol. you don't think players play domestic now?
indian players play ranji
Australians play shield
Pakistanis play quetta whatever it is called

every country plays domestic tournaments and other additional t20 franchises

on top of that they have to play odi, t20 and tests.

So your point is moot.

modern cricketers have to play more cricket and also adapt to more formats than ever before. That's why they are the best.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Waugh averaged significantly more after introduction of neutral umpires.
No no balls is worse for batsmen as they get recalled
Cheating was always fielding driven (tampering), made it harder for batsmen
DRS goes both ways.

Your arguments are in favour of Waugh, not to mention higher standard of bowling, and harder pitches

lol at higher standards of bowling. Australians back then were the only team to ever take fitness seriously. standards have changed. what about outs not given? what about caught behinds not given. what about lbw's not given. 2008 series rofl.

Much tougher now in the current era. every team plays more games across multiple formats. Teams are much fitter. everyone takes strnegh and conditioning seriously now.

better gameplans and most teams are strong at home making wins away from home very difficult to achieve.

 

[Robert]

lol. you don't think players play domestic now?
indian players play ranji
Australians play shield
Pakistanis play quetta whatever it is called

every country plays domestic tournaments and other additional t20 franchises

on top of that they have to play odi, t20 and tests.

So your point is moot.

modern cricketers have to play more cricket and also adapt to more formats than ever before. That's why they are the best.

Modern players play more internationals, but before central contracts, England players were pretty much playing cricket seven days a week. During the test match Sunday rest days, they would be expected to play a Sunday League 40 over match for their County. The day the test finished they would go straight into a three day CC game. That’s why the bowlers broke down so much. Since central contracts the international players don’t face this constant pressure.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

A difficult question to answer.

I think of the 1974-90 side I would drop Botham, push Captain Imran up to #6 and pick Hadlee at #8 if it was a greentop. Or Lillee if it was a flat wicket and you need long hostile spells. He and Imran would run in and attack all day, while Hadlee's head might go down if he was being hit.

If it was a green wicket then Sehwag would be sorted out by Hadlee very quickly.

I don't think the modern team's fast attack is any less potent, But Warne would be a big problem for the earlier side.

Very analytical with regards to Lillee and Hadlee.They all but made it to my first XI.Still preferred Botham with his match winning prowess.No player won more games at his peak as Ian.

 

[therealAB]

lol at higher standards of bowling. Australians back then were the only team to ever take fitness seriously. standards have changed. what about outs not given? what about caught behinds not given. what about lbw's not given. 2008 series rofl.

Much tougher now in the current era. every team plays more games across multiple formats. Teams are much fitter. everyone takes strnegh and conditioning seriously now.

better gameplans and most teams are strong at home making wins away from home very difficult to achieve.

SA, NZ, ENG were fitnessed focused. West Indies as well. Pakistan still isn't. Sri Lanka was. India probs only one to have changed. DRS goes both ways. What about when he got out but wasn't out. Didn't play in 2008. Can't take on series as some series it will be pro-batsmen and vice versa.

Format question is somewhat relevant, but when we analyse how good a test cricketer a player was, we can only look at their career accomplishments and performances without taking all those other factors into it. Can we say Waugh should be rated higher due to extra burden of captaincy, because I do not believe we can.

Most teams are strong at home due to some poor techniques, often caused by player putting $$ in t20 leagues above experience in overseas first class cricket. Not Waugh's fault

 

[tyron_woodley]

SA, NZ, ENG were fitnessed focused. West Indies as well. Pakistan still isn't. Sri Lanka was. India probs only one to have changed. DRS goes both ways. What about when he got out but wasn't out. Didn't play in 2008. Can't take on series as some series it will be pro-batsmen and vice versa.

Format question is somewhat relevant, but when we analyse how good a test cricketer a player was, we can only look at their career accomplishments and performances without taking all those other factors into it. Can we say Waugh should be rated higher due to extra burden of captaincy, because I do not believe we can.

Most teams are strong at home due to some poor techniques, often caused by player putting $$ in t20 leagues above experience in overseas first class cricket. Not Waugh's fault

that's fair.

but australia had like 9 decisions go in their favour to like 2 for india. That is indeed extremely poor officiating. scandalous to the say the least.

 

[Robert]

lol at higher standards of bowling. Australians back then were the only team to ever take fitness seriously. standards have changed. what about outs not given? what about caught behinds not given. what about lbw's not given. 2008 series rofl.

Much tougher now in the current era. every team plays more games across multiple formats. Teams are much fitter. everyone takes strnegh and conditioning seriously now.

better gameplans and most teams are strong at home making wins away from home very difficult to achieve.

The West Indies were the fittest test side of the eighties. You would see them on the outfield before play doing their shuttle runs and such. This was a factor in their success.

The Aussies didn’t start to focus on fitness until a few years into Border’s reign. By 1989 they were running the first run fast, putting pressure on the fielders.

 

[therealAB]

Terrible officiating. While I do not believe they were cheating, they were useless. The relevance of that to our argument was??