The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[kyear2]

That's a poor way of looking at it. If instead of one of their great slip fielders, they had one great all rounder instead to provide more lower order batting, they would have been even better than they already were.

Remove joel garner, a quality gully fielder, and replace him with Imran Khan. You cannot in good conscience argue that west indies dont get instantly better. Imran's rubbish fielding becomes a non factor compared to all those extra runs he'd score making them even more unbeatable.

But we didn't need it. And was still one of the best 2 teams in history. Marshall more than capably filled the role at 8. So this 20 exra runs, or what ever it was after the not outs were factored in , wouldn't have made that great a difference. Plus I don't want to give up my gully fielder, why risk dropping Sunny or AB?

Plus I believe Garner was the better bowler and a better fit either as our first change bowler or when he formed with Marshall what was possibly one of the best ever opening attacks with perfectly contrasting styles.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Forget I said Imran khan since you obviously rate him lower than I do. Replace garner with an imaginary Joel garner who was the same bowler, wasn't a good Gully fielder but averaged 38 with the bat.

If you wouldn't take this imaginary Joel garner over the real one I think you're warped in the head a bit.

 

[smash84]

Dropping catches at mid on and being an overall bad fielding unit is lack of disciplin and practice, plus one can always hide one weak link in the field. And having an overall decent fielding team still doesn't guarantee you will have a special cordon. Like batting and bowling that takes practice and talent.

The point is, it seems that you believe, that having a great slip cordon adds a lot more value to the side over having a very good slip cordon. To me the value of having a great slip cordon over a very good one is less than having batsmen with average ~ 30 to be coming down at 10 and 11. Just because WI didn't need one great all rounder didn't mean that they couldn't have been even better with one.

 

[kyear2]

Forget I said Imran khan since you obviously rate him lower than I do. Replace garner with an imaginary Joel garner who was the same bowler, wasn't a good Gully fielder but averaged 38 with the bat.

If you wouldn't take this imaginary Joel garner over the real one I think you're warped in the head a bit.

But we didn't need it to win. That's my point. One can always make the team better in different positions. But we and Australia didn't need it to win.

 

[sunilz]

But we didn't need it to win. That's my point. One can always make the team better in different positions. But we and Australia didn't need it to win.

Well AUS and WI didn't even need Bradman to dominate teams. So are you telling me that if someone offered you Bradman instead of Viv Richards you won't take Bradman ?

 

[OverratedSanity]

sunilz puts things better than I ever could

 

[kyear2]

The point is, it seems that you believe, that having a great slip cordon adds a lot more value to the side over having a very good slip cordon. To me the value of having a great slip cordon over a very good one is less than having batsmen with average ~ 30 to be coming down at 10 and 11. Just because WI didn't need one great all rounder didn't mean that they couldn't have been even better with one.

My God.

1. I said having a great cordon over an average or poor one is invaluable.

2. You are saying you would be willing to sacrifice bowling quality in a team to be able to bat all to 11. That makes absolutely no sense. You are saying players like McGrath doesn't matter. You are even saying players like Marshall doesn't matter. Two of the top four or five bowlers play, regardless of batting, I would give you 8 and possibly 9, but come on. At some point you have to pick bowlers based on their primary skill. This CW fascination amazes me.

 

[Coronis]

Sir I.V.A. Richards but Coronis and I are both biased to some extent.

In what way may I ask, am I biased? Because I don’t rate your favourite player as highly as you do?

 

[smash84]

My God.

1. I said having a great cordon over an average or poor one is invaluable.

2. You are saying you would be willing to sacrifice bowling quality in a team to be able to bat all to 11. That makes absolutely no sense. You are saying players like McGrath doesn't matter. You are even saying players like Marshall doesn't matter. Two of the top four or five bowlers play, regardless of batting, I would give you 8 and possibly 9, but come on. At some point you have to pick bowlers based on their primary skill. This CW fascination amazes me.

1. Why exactly would you have a poor slip cordon in an ATXI? Most ATGs were pretty good and safe fielders. Plus one or two crap fielders can be put in at deep extra cover or hidden elsewhere where minimal chances will come.

2. I am saying that someone who is a comparable bowler to McGrath (even if slightly lower) but it is 5 times the batsman has a good case to be selected over him. It's not that hard to understand.

 

[smash84]

Well AUS and WI didn't even need Bradman to dominate teams. So are you telling me that if someone offered you Bradman instead of Viv Richards you won't take Bradman ?

I will let kyear2 answer this.

 

[kyear2]

Well AUS and WI didn't even need Bradman to dominate teams. So are you telling me that if someone offered you Bradman instead of Viv Richards you won't take Bradman ?

But you are literally repeating my point just above yours. You can always make a hypothetical team better by saying add Hobbs over Haynes or Langer etc. But instead of looking at what teams had to be successful and basing it on that formula, you-all are creating strawmen to make a point that didn't need to be made.

Look, I personally rate Imran just outside of the top 10 or so all time. Why would I skip 10 or 12 bowlers who I think are better for a it if batting. If you rate him top 5 then sure, other wise it's not worth it.

 

[trundler]

Well AUS and WI didn't even need Bradman to dominate teams. So are you telling me that if someone offered you Bradman instead of Viv Richards you won't take Bradman ?

This may be the most bang on post to have ever banged on something

 

[kyear2]

1. Why exactly would you have a poor slip cordon in an ATXI? Most ATGs were pretty good and safe fielders. Plus one or two crap fielders can be put in at deep extra cover or hidden elsewhere where minimal chances will come.

2. I am saying that someone who is a comparable bowler to McGrath (even if slightly lower) but it is 5 times the batsman has a good case to be selected over him. It's not that hard to understand.

To your 1st point, which I already answered, if you choose a batting lineup of Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Tendulkar, Headley, Gilchrist, Imran, Hadlee, O'Reilly, Murali. Who is going into the slips? Just because someone is a safe fielder doesn't mean they can go into the slips. It's a specialist position. Think you are trying not to get that.

To you 2nd point, that player has never and may never exist. So let's stick to what we have.

You guys have really blown this out if proportion.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Tendulkar was a perfectly good slip catcher. He just didnt do it as much because Dravid was elite.

 

[smash84]

Tendulkar was a perfectly good slip catcher. He just didnt do it as much because Dravid was elite.

Tendulkar is exactly the person who comes to my mind when I think of a great batsman and pretty safe fielder. In fact Tendulkar was a pretty well rounded as a fielder and could field well in the slips as well as the outfield.

 

[smash84]

To your 1st point, which I already answered, if you choose a batting lineup of Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Tendulkar, Headley, Gilchrist, Imran, Hadlee, O'Reilly, Murali. Who is going into the slips? Just because someone is a safe fielder doesn't mean they can go into the slips. It's a specialist position. Think you are trying not to get that.

To you 2nd point, that player has never and may never exist. So let's stick to what we have.

You guys have really blown this out if proportion.

Not sure if it is intentional on your part but Warne will be in my team ahead of O'Reilly and Murali. And I choose him ahead of Murali because of his batting even though i think Murali might have been the slightly better bowler. He will be in the slips.

Right, and ATXI spanning 150 years of cricket have always existed.

 

[kyear2]

Not sure if it is intentional on your part but Warne will be in my team ahead of O'Reilly and Murali. And I choose him ahead of Murali because of his batting even though i think Murali might have been the slightly better bowler. He will be in the slips.

Right, and ATXI spanning 150 years of cricket have always existed.

I was trying to make a point with the selection of O'Reilly

Additionally Tendulkar was decent, but he wasn't elite as you phrased it and wasn't pulling off those catches. Same way I would say Warne and Marshall are good enough at 8 and you would say they didn't average as much as Imran and Hadlee.

With regards to me saying that player doesn't exist. I meant the bowler equal to McGrath as a bowler and 5 times the batsman as you put it.

Finally as I have said multiple times. A team can always be made better. You can replayed Langer with Hobbs and Hayden with Hutton. Replace Punter with Sir Don and so forth. But then it isn't the same ****ing team. By the time you are finished you have an ATG XI. It's a stranger argument.

What I was saying is look at the best teams who actually won and see what they had in common.
Great opening partnerships, ATG no. 5 with solid middle order support. ATG opening fast bowler and an ATG support and great cordons. Each also had decent no. 8's but nothing comparable to say a Hadlee etc. That was the only point I was making. I watch cricket, every series I can and have been for decades, a couple specialcatches or inversely drops here or there can swing a series. There is a video of WI during the 80's that Robelina uploaded showing how we dominated Australia, the catching was superb. Wasn't decent and it was elite. That was part of the success. You see the same thing when you watch clips of McGrath etc. Why are you making this difficult, I wasn't making some ground breaking discovery. Slip fielding is important and many a match has swung on what happened there.

 

[honestbharani]

Tendulkar was a perfectly good slip catcher. He just didnt do it as much because Dravid was elite.

Also coz he was one of the two fielders in our ODI set up then who actually had an arm that can get the ball in full or at least half volley to the keeper from the deep. The other was Agarkar.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Isn't arguing that a better slip catcher is more valuable than a good lower order batsman basically the age old great keeper who can't bat vs decent keeper who can bat argument. If kyear is actually consistent on this, he shouldn't pick Gilchrist in the all time xi since an there are several better elite keepers available, and Gilchrist's lower order batting just isn't that valuable. Keeping is arguably even more important than the slip catchers.

 

[kyear2]

Isn't arguing that a better slip catcher is more valuable than a good lower order batsman basically the age old great keeper who can't bat vs decent keeper who can bat argument. If kyear is actually consistent on this, he shouldn't pick Gilchrist in the all time xi since an there are several better elite keepers available, and Gilchrist's lower order batting just isn't that valuable. Keeping is arguably even more important than the slip catchers.

Twisting my words. I have said both have value, all depends on balance. Not going to drop Sachin for Hooper or Richardson. I also have Hadlee in my personal team and still have Sachin over Steve Smith despite the fact that Smith is elite in the cordon.

What I said that started all of this is having a great cordon is just as or even more important than having a great 5th bowler of "batting deep" especially using batting as a criteria bast the no 10 spot.

Please tell me what's wrong with that statement . You are comparing batting Gilchrist at the key no.7 position to choosing a bowler who bats at no 11 partially for his batting.

Again you 7 and 8 and possibly 9 should be able to bat. Same way your team should have a great 2nd slip and at least one of the other two should be at least very good. Look at some of ABDV catches at 3rd slip, some of Richardson's. It makes a difference.