The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Red]

Most other threads seem to be heading in to ATG team discussion territory, and going off topic.

Post your ATG teams here, so others can tell you why you know nothing about cricket.

I'll kick off with my ATG Australian combo.


1. V. Trumper
2. B. Simpson
3. D. Bradman
4. G. Chappell
5. K. Miller
6. N. Harvey
7 . A. Gilchrist
8. S. Warne/ R. Lindwall
9. D. Lillee
10. B. O'Reilly
11. G. McGrath

 

[fredfertang]

Change Bob Simpson to Archie Jackson and Greg Chappell to Stan Mccabe and I'm with you

................. and Liz Hurley for Pigeon

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Australia XI

Trumper
Morris
Bradman
Chappell
Border
Miller
Gilchrist
Warne
Lillee
O'Reilly
McGrath

Very hard exclusion of Lindwall and Harvey

Finally came to conclusion about all time England team

England XI

Hobbs
Hutton
Hammond
May
Compton
Woolley
Knott
Larwood
Verity
Trueman
Barnes

 

[Red]

Change Bob Simpson to Archie Jackson and Greg Chappell to Stan Mccabe and I'm with you

................. and Liz Hurley for Pigeon

I can sense Miller taking a liking to Liz, and it being a problem for team morale.


Got an England XI Fred?

 

[watson]

One of the great Australia V South Africa Test matches (Capetown 1967) featuring two batting masterpieces - Simpson's 153 runs on the first day, and Pollocks 209 runs during the South African first innings. The rest of the South African first team added only 144.

2nd Test: South Africa v Australia at Cape Town, Dec 31, 1966 - Jan 5, 1967 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Incidently, the tour was a disaster for the Aussies as the middle-order failed repeatedly against the South African pace attack. Simpson's series average of 48.30 was remarkable considering the pressure he was under to prop up the batting order against Peter Pollock and Trevor Goddard.

 

[watson]

Australia XI

Trumper
Morris
Bradman
Chappell
Border
Miller
Gilchrist
Warne
Lillee
O'Reilly
McGrath

Very hard exclusion of Lindwall and Harvey

Finally came to conclusion about all time England team

England XI

Hobbs
Hutton
Hammond
May
Compton
Woolley
Knott
Larwood
Verity
Trueman
Barnes

Like the teams Andy.

Because Woolley could bowl competent left-arm spin it does enable you to play an extra paceman and still maintain balance. What do you think?

 

[NUFAN]

Might as well post it in here, just wanted to say that I'm not a fan of when people select a batting combination who played together in an All Time team just because they were successful unless its a toss of the coin job and you have no other way to split it. I'm talking about the Lawry and Simpson opening partnership here but have seen a few other examples recently too.

Obviously if they were successful it means they were very good/great batsman, but its just unfair for other batsman as they didn't have the opportunity or luxury to bat with someone as good.

 

[watson]

I still like the fire-power of 3 genuine quicks with proven class, and different qualities. Would make the team better equiped to respond to Marshall-Holding-Ambrose should they play a WI ATG team. Having 6 top-notch batsman would also allow the batting order to cope better with Marshall-Holding-Ambrose. Botham would be lucky to score significant runs if at No.6.

Also, time to declare my hand and promote Maurice Leyland as the finest left-handed batsman to play for England. Compton makes way for him because Benaud and Brearley rate Peter May very highly as a captain. May is the team's captain;

01. Hobbs
02. Hutton
03. Hammond
04. Barrington
05. Leyland
06. May*
07. Knott
08. Larwood
09. Snow
10. Trueman
11. Barnes

 

[watson]

Might as well post it in here, just wanted to say that I'm not a fan of when people select a batting combination who played together in an All Time team just because they were successful unless its a toss of the coin job and you have no other way to split it. I'm talking about the Lawry and Simpson opening partnership here but have seen a few other examples recently too.

Obviously if they were successful it means they were very good/great batsman, but its just unfair for other batsman as they didn't have the opportunity or luxury to bat with someone as good.

What's fairness got to do with selecting an ATG team? I don't see how it is relevant. Either an opening combination is good because it averages 60.94 runs and runs brilliantly between the wickets, or it isn't.

There is nothing morally wrong about selecting something that you know will work because you have hard evidence. Hard evidence is a fine thing, not a negative.

 

[Red]

How do Snow and Botham compare as bowlers? Would it be possible to argue for Botham's inclusion instead of Snow?

Statistically, Trueman is the only English bowler comparable with the statistical great fast bowlers (Marshall, McGrath, Ambrose, bowling averages close to 20). I know stats aren't everything etc.

Larwood is rated very highly, in spite of him figures. Not sure how to classify SF Barnes and those other early era guys.

England really haven't had many truly great fast bowlers, whereas Australia have had Lindwall, Miller, Lillee & McGrath (and Spofforth/Turner if we want to go back to ancient times), and the WIs have had, well, you know all of them. I guess the truly great aren't that common.

 

[Red]

What's fairness got to do with selecting an ATG team? I don't see how it is relevant. Either an opening combination is good because it averages 60.94 runs and runs brilliantly between the wickets, or it isn't.

There is nothing morally wrong about selecting something that you know will work because you have hard evidence. Hard evidence is a fine thing, not a negative.

I think NUFAN's point is that selecting a combo like that might not necessarily reward other players who weren't as fortunate to have a great opening partner, but were quite possibly better players.

 

[Red]

One more thought. Most English ATG teams have SF Barnes. Yet I never see an Australian STG with CTB Turner. Interesting I reckon.

Charlie Turner | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

Sydney Barnes | England Cricket | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Like the teams Andy.

Because Woolley could bowl competent left-arm spin it does enable you to play an extra paceman and still maintain balance. What do you think?

Tempted to go Bedser or Snow but thought of balancing the attack and bring in more variation; I think my Verity's inclusion also to do with the fact I couldn't leave him out. Verity got Bradman 8 times and McCabe 8 times.

Peter May to captain as well. I think it's more of his legacy that stands him out.

At the same time he was a conspicuously unselfish cricketer, always ready to shield a lesser player or to give himself up if he thought it was someone else's turn to bat. "A good day for the boys," he used to say, even when he knew it wasn't. To the public he was polite but unforthcoming. He gave them his time but not his attention. It was as though had modeled himself on Hutton. He had the same distant and yet disarming manner, the same flair for the enigmatic reply. Like Len he was quietly scathing about batsman who played recklessly in a crisis, and bowlers who had a job to make up their minds what field they wanted.

 

[watson]

How do Snow and Botham compare as bowlers? Would it be possible to argue for Botham's inclusion instead of Snow?

Statistically, Trueman is the only English bowler comparable with the statistical great fast bowlers (Marshall, McGrath, Ambrose, bowling averages close to 20). I know stats aren't everything etc.

Larwood is rated very highly, in spite of him figures. Not sure how to classify SF Barnes and those other early era guys.

England really haven't had many truly great fast bowlers, whereas Australia have had Lindwall, Miller, Lillee & McGrath (and Spofforth/Turner if we want to go back to ancient times), and the WIs have had, well, you know all of them. I guess the truly great aren't that common.

Alan McGilvray makes a good point when he selects his ATG England team in 'The Game Goes On', page 217 ;

Freddie was certainly a fine bowler and it is difficult to leave him out. But he did not have the same strike power that Alec Bedser, in his prime, and John Snow had. Bedser had marvellous control of the ball, and got plenty of wickets against perhaps the best batting side Australia has fielded. Snow had that rare capacity to make the ball rise sharply off a good length, and for all Freddie's fire and fury, Snow was simply a better bowler.

Botham could easily sit at No.7-8 in the batting order and add greater batting depth to the order as well as be a fabulous swing bowler.

But really, it is hard to go past the strike-power of Snow. It is possible to make a good case that John Snow was the best England quick of the modern era.

 

[Red]

Alan McGilvray makes a good point when he selects his ATG England team in 'The Game Goes On', page 217 ;



Botham could easily sit at No.7-8 in the batting order and add greater batting depth to the order as well as be a fabulous swing bowler.

But really, it is hard to go past the strike-power of Snow. It is possible to make a good case that John Snow was the best England quick of the modern era.

So, if we focus on bowling only, who is the greatest of the England quicks/mediums (I'll leave out Barnes from the discussion but include him in my team, as it's difficult to compare)? I'd always thought Trueman, but indications are that he is perhaps not.

The facts-

- Bradman rates Bedser very highly, and includes him in his ATG team.

- McGilvray rates Bedser and Snow's strike power higher than Trueman's, emphasises Bedser's success against the powerful Australian batsmen.

- McGilvray ranks Snow as better than Trueman.

So based on that (and it's enough for me, as Bradman and Mc saw more cricket than almost anyone), the first two picked would be Bedser and Snow. If we include Larwood over Trueman (and I'm basing that on what people on here who know more about English cricket than I do say), that completes the pace attack, and with SF Barnes included, that's the bowling attack sorted.

Which gives us something like....

J. Hobbs
L. Hutton
W. Hammond
P. May
D. Compton
F. Woolley/ I. Botham
A. Knott
H. Larwood
A. Bedser
J. Snow
S.F. Barnes

I reckon you need the 5th bowling option, so for me it has to be Botham or Woolley at 6.

I'd love to know what Fredfertang thinks....

 

[LongHopCassidy]

I'm going to post a less-than-conventional ODI XI:

1. Adam Gilchrist
2. AB de Villiers
3. Ricky Ponting
4. Paul Collingwood
5. Andrew Symonds
6. Jonty Rhodes
7. Tillakaratne Dilshan
8. Carl Hooper
9. Roger Harper
10. Heath Streak
11. Brett Lee

Average-looking XI on paper, but you might have noticed that they were all unbelievable in the field.

I firmly believe that this side would save 50-60 more runs in the field than an average ODI side if you factor in unlikely stops, the constant threat of run-outs and taking half-chances. The fact they can slog down to 11 (outfielders are fairly hard to rate) doesn't hurt, despite only having 3 frontline bowlers.

The only worry I have is who to put at backward point.

 

[Red]

I'm going to post a less-than-conventional ODI XI:

1. Adam Gilchrist
2. AB de Villiers
3. Ricky Ponting
4. Paul Collingwood
5. Andrew Symonds
6. Jonty Rhodes
7. Tillakaratne Dilshan
8. Carl Hooper
9. Roger Harper
10. Heath Streak
11. Brett Lee

Average-looking XI on paper, but you might have noticed that they were all unbelievable in the field.

I firmly believe that this side would save 50-60 more runs in the field than an average ODI side if you factor in both unlikely stops and taking half-chances. The fact they can slog down to 11 (outfielders are fairly hard to rate) doesn't hurt, despite only having 3 frontline bowlers.

Only worry I have is who to put at backward point.

Love it. I would pay a lot of money to watch that. I'd trade one of the quicks for Garner, who was great in the gully. Then, watch batsman try to turn the strike over against this field with Garner bowling at them.

I'd also trade Hooper for V. Richards or Clive Lloyd.

Awesome!

You could make the combo really strong I reckon.

A. Gilchrist (wk)
M. Waugh- Slip, or anywhere in the infield. Best all round fielder I saw
V. Richards- Basically same as M. Waugh, great throw from short range
R. Ponting- Point/covers/slip- best at throwing down stumps
AB DeVilliers- All rounder, freakishly talented bastard!
P. Collingwood- Backward point. The best in that spot
J. Rhodes- Cover/point. Moved like no one else, best ground fielder. Good judge of a run out too.
A. Symonds- Mid on/off- So agile and powerful
H. Streak- "a magnificent outfielder with a howitzer-like throw".
B. Lee- Same as Streak
J. Garner- Gully, very sharp for a massive man


Others- Clive Lloyd: midwicket
Harper- anywhere.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

I think we can't leave out Trueman from England XI that easily;

Trueman's career lasted twenty seasons, an extremely long span for a fast bowler, and John Arlott noted of him that he maintained his form and ability "much longer than the peak period (i.e., a decade) of even the best of the kind (and) he was, when the fire burned, as fine a fast bowler as any".

Wisden described Fred Trueman as "probably the greatest fast bowler England has produced"

In Kilburn's view, "(Trueman's) place among the truly great bowlers of cricket history is beyond question". He had a "resilience of spirit (that was) as marked as the physical power that gave him such remarkable freedom from injury over the years". Trueman's method was a long, accelerating run-up ending in a wide delivery stride with a "cartwheel" swing of the arms and a balanced follow-through. Technically, he was "highly accomplished" as he had much more than mere speed at his command, for he learned in-swing, out-swing and variation of pace and length.[103] Kilburn's final analysis of Trueman's contribution to Yorkshire cricket is: "In an XI representing all the county history he would be selected".

 

[NUFAN]

What's fairness got to do with selecting an ATG team? I don't see how it is relevant. Either an opening combination is good because it averages 60.94 runs and runs brilliantly between the wickets, or it isn't.

There is nothing morally wrong about selecting something that you know will work because you have hard evidence. Hard evidence is a fine thing, not a negative.

Well everything actually. The object of the game is to pick the eleven best players. Its not like football or rugby league where combinations are more vital.

Agree there is nothing morally wrong of course, but if Morris was born later could he have done what Lawry did? Could Trumper or Barnes have done what Simpson did??

I think NUFAN's point is that selecting a combo like that might not necessarily reward other players who weren't as fortunate to have a great opening partner, but were quite possibly better players.

That's exactly what I was getting at. Again I have no problem if you can't split say a Lawry and a Morris for the second spot, but I've just felt reading posts from the last week or two players are moving up the pecking order of teams due to their combination, personally I don't like it.

 

[Mike5181]

NZ:

Tests
1.Glenn Turner
2.Stewie Dempster
3.Bert Sutcliffe
4.Martin Crowe
5.Martin Donnelly
6.John R Reid (c)
7.Christopher Cairns
8.Richard Hadlee
9.Ian Smith+
10.Shane Bond
11.Jack Cowie