• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

Jager

International Debutant
I started watching cricket in the 90s and think this team is gun to watch XI

1. Michael Slater
2. Graeme Smith
3. Ricky Ponting
4. Brian Lara
5. Mark Waugh
6. Kumar Sangakarra
7. Adam Gilchrist
8. Shane Warne
9. Dale Steyn
10. Curtly Ambrose
11. Glenn McGrath
Surprised to see Martyn omitted and Smith making an appearance - hideous technique the big fella has.
 

Mike5181

International Captain
I started watching cricket in the 90s and think this team is gun to watch XI

1. Michael Slater
2. Graeme Smith
3. Ricky Ponting
4. Brian Lara
5. Mark Waugh
6. Kumar Sangakarra
7. Adam Gilchrist
8. Shane Warne
9. Dale Steyn
10. Curtly Ambrose
11. Glenn McGrath
1.
2.
3. Ricky Ponting
4. Brian Lara
5. Mark Waugh
6. Damien Martyn/Mohammad Yousuf
7. Adam Gilchrist
8. Christopher Cairns
9. Shane Warne
10. Dale Steyn
11. Shane Bond

Can't think of many openers I really enjoyed watching. Hadyn, I guess.
 

kyear2

International Coach
Bit rough leaving out Bishen Bedi in that bottom lot
The fearsome fiftteen: a look at the great bowlers



According to this limited study the order of preference is;

01. Murali
02. McGrath
03. Hadlee
04. Marshall
05. Ambrose
06. Imran
07. Lillee
08. Donald
09. Garner
10. Warne
No Linwall and no Holding tends to weaken and any bowler comparrisons for me. This is why stats are a strong guideline and not an absolute (still not an avenue for Larwood fans) Some of the ratings catergories that I don't think that are representative and eequired in such an analysis are total wickets (punishes great players with shorter careers), % of team load and team peer comparrisons (punishes players on good teams).
Catergories that show quality of players. Strike Rate, Accureatecy, Away Average (especially in comparrison to home average), % of top order wickets, total peer comparrisons and performance in matches won (what cricket is all about).
 

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
I like the final outcome of that analysis in ’it figures’ but there is much wrong with that approach. Firstly, those measures are not strictly independent, so you give benefit of one parameter more than once. Secondly, I find it funny that he says that he gives equal weight to all parameter because he doesn't want to bring in subjectivity. Equal weight is as arbitrary as unequal weight in absence of any justification. Finally, what he has got is a number that doesn't have any physical meaning. In Pews' or DoG's analysis we at least know what the final number roughly stands for. To critic this analysis is not to critic application of stats in general but abuse of stats.
 

Jager

International Debutant
Ankit remember your value of wicket study? Larwood had the highest score of averages, right?
 

smash84

The Tiger King
I like the final outcome of that analysis in ’it figures’ but there is much wrong with that approach. Firstly, those measures are not strictly independent, so you give benefit of one parameter more than once. Secondly, I find it funny that he says that he gives equal weight to all parameter because he doesn't want to bring in subjectivity. Equal weight is as arbitrary as unequal weight in absence of any justification. Finally, what he has got is a number that doesn't have any physical meaning. In Pews' or DoG's analysis we at least know what the final number roughly stands for. To critic this analysis is not to critic application of stats in general but abuse of stats.
dude, how come you haven't posed your value of wicket analysis yet :p
 

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
Surprised to see Martyn omitted and Smith making an appearance - hideous technique the big fella has.
I actually can't explain why I picked Smith. I always want him to perform badly as I have a bet with Pews that Cook will average above Smith.

I should have went with Haydos.

BTW, ignore my team its a bit of a contradiction, just wanted an XI with MWaugh in it really.
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Australian XI Worth Watching - Artists & Entertainers

1. Archie Jackson
2. Arthur Morris
3. Victor Trumper
4. Greg Chappell
5. Mark Waugh
6. Allan Kippax
7. Adam Gilchrist
8. Keith Miller
9. Shane Warne
10. Dennis Lillee
11. Ted McDonald
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Bradman deserves a place somewhere, surely?
Nah, they're the batsmen I'd love to watch. Bradman was an efficient run making machine, but he wasn't a particularly great batsman to watch.
 

Eds

International Debutant
He's probably not the greatest batsman to watch, but he's definitely in the top one.
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
He's probably not the greatest batsman to watch, but he's definitely in the top one.
No doubt first picked in a team I'd like to win. Those were more players I'd love to watch.
 

JBMAC

State Captain
Nah, they're the batsmen I'd love to watch. Bradman was an efficient run making machine, but he wasn't a particularly great batsman to watch.
You just got to be kidding!:blink: Bradman in full cry was a sight to be seen.And out of curiousity how many times have you seen Bradman bat?????
 

watson

Banned
Batsman who are 'Artists and Entertainers' appeal to the spectator because they live on the edge while batting. At any given time they look like they are about to succumb to a good ball but instead belt it the boundary with an unexpected brilliant shot.

Bradman doesn't really fit into the above description as he was a batting machine. Generally speaking a 4 was hit with minimum risk along the ground. Sure his cover drive or pull-shot were a great sight, but because of the lack of risk there would be little "Oooo" or "Ahhh" factor.

Charlie Macartney on the other hand liked to play his cut-shot to good length balls headed for the top of off-stump. The crowd would anticipate that his off-stump would go cart-wheeling but instead the fieldman would be picking the ball up somewhere near the third man boundary rope. It's this sort of unique shot selection and risk taking against good bowling that defines an 'Artist and Entertainer'.
 
Last edited:

kyear2

International Coach
From what I have read both Hammond and Headley were more stylish batsmen, while Bradman was more like a run machine.
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
You just got to be kidding!:blink: Bradman in full cry was a sight to be seen.And out of curiousity how many times have you seen Bradman bat?????
I've seen a fair bit of video footage of him. Obviously I never saw him bat "live"!

The batsmen I love to watch are the stylists. Mark Waugh is my favourite Australian batsman I saw. Obviously his brother, and Ponting and a few others have been more effective, but M.Waugh is the one I'd prefer to watch make 100.

The thing that strikes me about Bradman is his footwork and his bat speed. But I don't think he was overly graceful.
 

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
XI I would most like to watch
  1. Barry Richards
  2. Archie Jackson
  3. Charles Macartney
  4. Stan McCabe
  5. Frank Worrell
  6. Keith Miller *
  7. George Hirst
  8. Godfrey Evans +
  9. Ray Lindwall
  10. Harold Larwood
  11. Jim Laker
 
Last edited:

watson

Banned
I've seen a fair bit of video footage of him. Obviously I never saw him bat "live"!

The batsmen I love to watch are the stylists. Mark Waugh is my favourite Australian batsman I saw. Obviously his brother, and Ponting and a few others have been more effective, but M.Waugh is the one I'd prefer to watch make 100.

The thing that strikes me about Bradman is his footwork and his bat speed. But I don't think he was overly graceful.
What's a 'Stylist' though Monk? And is a 'Stylist' the same thing as an 'Artist and Entertainer'?

To me a Stylist is a batsman who makes batting look easy. Even when faced with a 'sand-shoe crusher' from the likes of Thomo or Waqar they will move slightly inside the ball and deflect it round to square leg for a single with a minimum of fuss. Because the stylist plays his shot with such apparent ease we are not aware that they just scored a run off a difficult delivery.

I think that it is also important to note that a Stylist looks stylish because they have lightening reflexes and impecable foot-work. Without those two qualities they could not appear unhurried and cool.

David Gower is an classic example of a English Stylist. Only Gower could look serene while facing Dennis Lillee.
 

Top