The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[NUFAN]

What time in the video? I am at work and find it difficult to watch the whole video

lol

That is also why it was easy for McG to cash in. Reckless batting. You can't have it both ways

You can't either mate. But seriously I'm not debating Alan Davidson's brilliance but I wouldn't be picking him over McGrath for his accuracy or better economy rate. Pick him for his superior batting skills or left handedness or something that he actually has that McGrath doesn't.

 

[Dan]

btw if Davidson was to bowl out a team he would bowl them out for 204 in 100 overs.

McG would bowl a team out for 216 runs in 87 overs.

Now choose

This logic is so bad it doesn't dignify the length of this response.

 

[watson]

Watson.

No I'm not. SF Barnes is a leg-spinner, albeit a quicker one. Hence my England XI is, and has been;

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

12th. Botham

 

[NUFAN]

How do you know that?

What's the runs-per-over scored in the 1950s-60s compared to the 1990s-00s ?

Just did a quick look, the runs per over were around 2.3 - 2.4 in the 50s and 60s while in the 90s and 00s it was 2.8 - 3.0.

I think the Windies from the 60-61 Tied Test series started playing more attacking Cricket but before that it appears as though don't lose at all costs was the first priority (often, of course not always) and then try and win it.

 

[Dan]

He wasn't saying you were. His quote of Jager's Barnes-less side was directed at you.

 

[watson]

Just as an aside to the Davidson Vs McGrath economy thing; here are the RPO across the decades;

Pre-WWI: 2.71
WWI - WWII: 2.70
1940s-50s: 2.37
1960s: 2.50
1970s: 2.69
1980s: 2.87
1990s: 2.87
2000s: 3.19
All Tests: 2.79

It Figures | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

So yes, the scoring rates of the 1950s were slower relative to other decades.

 

[watson]

He wasn't saying you were. His quote of Jager's Barnes-less side was directed at you.

Oh OK.

 

[smash84]

This logic is so bad it doesn't dignify the length of this response.

What's wrong with logic there?

You can't either mate. But seriously I'm not debating Alan Davidson's brilliance but I wouldn't be picking him over McGrath for his accuracy or better economy rate. Pick him for his superior batting skills or left handedness or something that he actually has that McGrath doesn't.

I did mention his batting advantage in a previous post. All I am saying is that Davidson is definitely comparable to McG and with his batting (and I reckon fielding too since McG wasn't a great fielder) he is a better option for an AT Aus XI. That's all

 

[Red]

No **** Sherlock

btw if Davidson was to bowl out a team he would bowl them out for 204 in 100 overs.

McG would bowl a team out for 216 runs in 87 overs.

Now choose

In all seriousness, I'd take McGrath every time. Kind of the point I was trying to make.

Your batsmen need to make an extra 12 runs with McGrath. No big deal.

But that 13 over difference is massive with Davo, especially if the test is very close.

Look, I like Davidson, a lot. But to select him over McGrath as a bowler is wrong I think.

 

[Mike5181]

But a difference of 1 run in average at that level can be a lot and not IDENTICAL. This is where we disagree. There are 90 overs to be bowled in a day. 10 extra deliveries won't make that much of a difference. The added benefit of Davidson is that he will keep things tighter from one end allowing Warne and Lillee (or even McG) to attack better.

The substantially better batting equipment in McGrath's era alone more than compensates for the one run difference in their bowling averages.

 

[Dan]

What's wrong with logic there?

Where do you want me to start?

I think the biggest oversight is completely ignoring batsmen. I don't think an ATG WI team featuring Headley, Richards, Sobers et al. will succumb to either Davidson or McGrath for 210 on a regular basis.

Not to mention the lack of era adjustment, value of wickets taken, etc. Fine, use statistics as a guide - no qualms there - but suggesting Davidson/McGrath would bowl teams out for 10*AVG is quite ludicrous.

 

[Red]

Where do you want me to start?

I think the biggest oversight is completely ignoring batsmen. I don't think an ATG WI team featuring Headley, Richards, Sobers et al. will succumb to either Davidson or McGrath for 210 on a regular basis.

Not to mention the lack of era adjustment, value of wickets taken, etc. Fine, use statistics as a guide - no qualms there - but suggesting Davidson/McGrath would bowl teams out for 10*AVG is quite ludicrous.

That's true, but as a straight comparison of two bowlers it's ok (especially as I think it proves my point well!!)

 

[Dan]

That's true, but as a straight comparison of two bowlers it's ok (especially as I think it proves my point well!!)

Well, isn't it exactly the same as comparing their average anyway, since no additional variables have been taken into account? All you've done is multiply it by 10.

 

[smash84]

Where do you want me to start?

I think the biggest oversight is completely ignoring batsmen. I don't think an ATG WI team featuring Headley, Richards, Sobers et al. will succumb to either Davidson or McGrath for 210 on a regular basis.

Not to mention the lack of era adjustment, value of wickets taken, etc. Fine, use statistics as a guide - no qualms there - but suggesting Davidson/McGrath would bowl teams out for 10*AVG is quite ludicrous.

That's true, but as a straight comparison of two bowlers it's ok

Exactly. The analysis makes the same assumptions for both so it doesn't favor any of them. It is just a simple analysis that's it. Nothing LOGICALLY wrong with it.

And NO Monk, it doesn't prove your point

btw I love Davidson and do believe with all factors considered he has a case to be considered above McG

 

[watson]

In all seriousness, I'd take McGrath every time. Kind of the point I was trying to make.

Your batsmen need to make an extra 12 runs with McGrath. No big deal.

But that 13 over difference is massive with Davo, especially if the test is very close.

Look, I like Davidson, a lot. But to select him over McGrath as a bowler is wrong I think.

In a straight McGrath Vs Davidson contest I would agree that McGrath is the better bowler. Although by not that much.

However, some RH batsman don't like facing left-armers who swing the ball back into the stumps. So, you might like to include Davidson for the sake of some left-arm variety if you already have Lillee and Miller in the team.

So the question is not really McGrath Vs Davidson but rather;

Lillee-McGrath-Miller Vs Lillee-Davidson-Miller Vs McGrath-Davidson-Miller, as your Aussie pace attack. And that's a tougher question than the original proposition!

 

[smash84]

In a straight McGrath Vs Davidson contest I would agree that McGrath is the better bowler. Although by not that much.

However, some RH batsman don't like facing left-armers who swing the ball back into the stumps. So, you might like to include Davidson for the sake of some left-arm variety if you already have Lillee and Miller in the team.

So the question is not really McGrath Vs Davidson but rather;

Lillee-McGrath-Miller Vs Lillee-Davidson-Miller Vs McGrath-Davidson-Miller, as your Aussie pace attack. And that's a tougher question than the original proposition!

This too

 

[Days of Grace]

I'll share my adjusted averages and strike-rates for McGrath and Davidson:

McGrath: 22.40 ave, 57.7 s/r (standardised from 21.64, 51.9)
Davidson: 22.06 ave, 54.2 s/r (standardised from 20.53, 62.2)

Hopefully, this will add some perspective. Both have higher averages, but Davo has improved his strike-rate immensely due to the slow-scoring/high strike-rate era he played in.

 

[Red]

Well, isn't it exactly the same as comparing their average anyway, since no additional variables have been taken into account? All you've done is multiply it by 10.

Very true, and the only realistic way you can compare players on raw stats is if they played for the same team in the same era against the same opposition.

However, we can conclude that both have outstanding bowling averages in their own era (or any era post 1910-20 for that matter). There is a substantial difference in their career SRs though.

It'd be interesting to compare their SRs within their own eras. I may well be proven wrong. Anyway, I'll be back in a few hours, after a scratch footy match with mates and a few beers!

 

[Red]

I'll share my adjusted averages and strike-rates for McGrath and Davidson:

McGrath: 22.40 ave, 57.7 s/r (standardised from 21.64, 51.9)
Davidson: 22.06 ave, 54.2 s/r (standardised from 20.53, 62.2)

Hopefully, this will add some perspective. Both have higher averages, but Davo has improved his strike-rate immensely due to the slow-scoring/high strike-rate era he played in.

Method?

 

[smash84]

I'll share my adjusted averages and strike-rates for McGrath and Davidson:

McGrath: 22.40 ave, 57.7 s/r (standardised from 21.64, 51.9)
Davidson: 22.06 ave, 54.2 s/r (standardised from 20.53, 62.2)

Hopefully, this will add some perspective. Both have higher averages, but Davo has improved his strike-rate immensely due to the slow-scoring/high strike-rate era he played in.