Jager
International Debutant
Surprised to see Martyn omitted and Smith making an appearance - hideous technique the big fella has.
-
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
- Thread starter Red
- Start date
Mike5181
International Captain
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.
Mike5181
International Captain
Beat me to it. Martyn was awesome to watch.
kyear2
International Coach
Who would you have left out?
kyear2
International Coach
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.
smash84
The Tiger King
dude, how come you haven't posed your value of wicket analysis yet
NUFAN
Y no Afghanistan flag
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.
JBMAC
State Captain
You just got to be kidding!
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'.
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:
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
I've seen a fair bit of video footage of him. Obviously I never saw him bat "live"!You just got to be kidding!
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.
watson
Banned
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.