English ATG Team- Open Voting

[LongHopCassidy]

Trueman and Bedser.

Barnes the consummate minnow-basher.

 

[watson]

Barnes's job was to develop a style of bowling that would make him more successful than his contemporaries on the pitches he got; not to develop a style of bowling that would've been theoretically successful some 100+ years later. You're judging him by something that he was not only trying to attempt but something that would've been entirely useless to him at the time. Can you imagine the looks he would've got if he told his captain that he was developing an entire new action because he was trying to get the new pill in watson's all-time great team, even though it'd mean they'd almost certainly win less games at the time?

Was Barnes further ahead of the average opening bowler of his time than Snow was of his? Yes? Get him in tharrr then. It's the only even vaguely reasonable way to compare eras like this, otherwise I can just pick a team of team of sweve bowlers every time because I've arbitrarily decided the match is going to be played on an 1890 English sticky.

Perhaps we should state the pitch conditions during our next Draft in the Draft League as it would be facinating to see what type of teams people come up with - '1890 English Sticky'.

Also, this is an incorrect question as it's not central to the brief (although still relevant): Was Barnes further ahead of the average opening bowler of his time than Snow was of his? Yes?

The correct questions is: 'Who is more likely to dismiss Barry Richards (for example) with the new ball? Barnes or Snow?

Or more broadly: 'Looking at both the batting line-up and bowling attack of the England ATG team and then contrasting to the South African ATG team (for example), who is more likely to win a 5-Test Series in a toe-toe fight?

 

[Cabinet96]

But again that question depends on whether you're playing on an 19th century English wicket or a 1960's South African wicket.

You can over complicate things by wondering how different bowlers and batsmen would have gone in different eras against different players, because ultimately, they wouldn't have played the same way if they were playing in a different era.

 

[watson]

But again that question depends on whether you're playing on an 19th century English wicket or a 1960's South African wicket.

You can over complicate things by wondering how different bowlers and batsmen would have gone in different eras against different players, because ultimately, they wouldn't have played the same way if they were playing in a different era.

Using your imagination to anticipate how SF Barnes would go against Barry Richards on a modern batting strip is half the fun - and highly relevant to creating opposing ATG teams.

Personally, I think that Barnes would have no problems at all translating to the modern era, and Barry Richards to the 1900s for that matter.That's why I select them in an ATG Draft.

But I am more hesitant with players like WG Grace, or Spofforth. I think that they would have real problems facing up to Marshall or Tendulkar in modern conditions, although both Marshall and Tendulkar would probably feel right at home in the 1890s after a short while of practice.

But this is all conjecture of course.

 

[Red]

Have we said that we're picking a side to play modern cricket?

No. We haven't specified an era, and I don't think it's necessary. I think you just judge players on the era they played in and don't try to speculate on what might happen in another era.

I guess the cliche stands here, "a champion in one era would always be a champion in another".

 

[L Trumper]

Using your imagination to anticipate how SF Barnes would go against Barry Richards on a modern batting strip is half the fun - and highly relevant to creating opposing ATG teams.

Personally, I think that Barnes would have no problems at all translating to the modern era, and Barry Richards to the 1900s for that matter.That's why I select them in an ATG Draft.

But I am more hesitant with players like WG Grace, or Spofforth. I think that they would have real problems facing up to Marshall or Tendulkar in modern conditions, although both Marshall and Tendulkar would probably feel right at home in the 1890s after a short while of practice.

But this is all conjecture of course.

In the same way we can teach Newton about theory of relativity, and we already know his theory of gravity. That doesn't make us better physicists than Newton. It is useless to speculate what X would've done 40 years before or after. The thing that should be considered is what he achieved in his time for his side compared to his peers.

 

[watson]

In the same way we can teach Newton about theory of relativity, and we already know his theory of gravity. That doesn't make us better physicists than Newton. It is useless to speculate what X would've done 40 years before or after. The thing that should be considered is what he achieved in his time for his side compared to his peers.

Then you have made the assumption that none of our ATG teams will ever get to play against eachother in a hypothetical but 'real' Test match series. You are merely selecting your ATG England team to act in complete isolation and never be part of a contest.

Also, it is not useless 'to speculate what X would've done 40 years before or after'. Sure, we cannot know for certain how 'X' would go in another era, but we have enough good information to make an 'informed guess' and draw some good conclusions.

Or to put it another way - What is the capital of France? - is a 'closed' question. It's answer, Paris, is beautifully correct, but it is all intrinsically boring.

On the other hand, the question - How would Barnes fair in a 20th century contest with Barry Richards? - is 'open-ended' and therefore more stimulating for it's lack of a singular answer. It is a question that should be asked by most cricket enthusiasts, and by those people who like to dream.

Anyway, I think that we digressed way to far......

 

[Saint Kopite]

Barnes and Trueman.

 

[kyear2]

How long are we taking on each position?

 

[Red]

How long are we taking on each position?

Posting from my phone til Thurs, on camp for work.

Someone could tally the bowlers if they like, and do a list of keepers...

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Posting from my phone til Thurs, on camp for work.

Someone could tally the bowlers if they like, and do a list of keepers...

Combinations so far:

Larwood + Statham (1)
Trueman + Snow (1)
Barnes + Trueman (11)
Tyson + Trueman (3)
Trueman + Larwood (2)
Trueman + Willis (1)
Larwood + Barnes (2)
Trueman + Bedser (1)

Individuals so far:

Larwood (5)
Statham (1)
Trueman (19)
Snow (1)
Barnes (13)
Tyson (3)
Willis (1)
Bedser (1)

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

List of keepers (please suggest if missing):

Dick Lilley
Bert Strudwick
Les Ames
Godfrey Evans
Jim Parks
Alan Knott
Bob Taylor
Jack Russell
Alec Stewart
Matt Prior

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Alan Knott for me

 

[Howe_zat]

Les Ames.

This England side will value his batting a fair bit more than many of the other sides - the lower-middling struggling to accomodate the talented Mr. Beefy otherwise. Ames was one of the finest batsmen of his day, with over 37,000 first-class runs at 43, and over a hundred hundreds. He passed 1000 runs in a season on no less than 17 of his 26 seasons.

It's an easy leap to make to assume he isn't a patch on Knott with the gloves but it doesn't seem to be backed up by much evidence - in 1991 Wisden called Ames the greatest keeper-batsman of all time. His keeping was after all of a high enough quality to keep the gloves over a lengthy career in the Test side despite wicket keeping generally being considered a specialist's art, and included keeping to Larwood and Voce on the Bodyline tour without being taken out of his depth. According to Wisden, "His style was unobtrusive; there were no flamboyant gestures. He saw the ball so early that he was invariably in the right position without having to throw himself about. His glovework was neat and economical, his stumpings almost apologetic."

 

[Eds]

Les Ames. Of course.

 

[ankitj]

Les Ames.

This England side will value his batting a fair bit more than many of the other sides - the lower-middling struggling to accomodate the talented Mr. Beefy otherwise. Ames was one of the finest batsmen of his day, with over 37,000 first-class runs at 43, and over a hundred hundreds. He passed 1000 runs in a season on no less than 17 of his 26 seasons.

It's an easy leap to make to assume he isn't a patch on Knott with the gloves but it doesn't seem to be backed up by much evidence - in 1991 Wisden called Ames the greatest keeper-batsman of all time. His keeping was after all of a high enough quality to keep the gloves over a lengthy career in the Test side despite wicket keeping generally being considered a specialist's art, and included keeping to Larwood and Voce on the Bodyline tour without being taken out of his depth. According to Wisden, "His style was unobtrusive; there were no flamboyant gestures. He saw the ball so early that he was invariably in the right position without having to throw himself about. His glovework was neat and economical, his stumpings almost apologetic."

Good post. Les Ames will from now on be a lock in in my ATG England XI.

 

[Michaelf7777777]

Alan Knott (Mainly because I don't think I'd chose Botham in my AT England XI (Hammond and Grace are perfectly adequate. If I wanted Botham, I would have chosen Ames).

 

[BoyBrumby]

Slightest hint of the FTB about LEG. Only averaged 27 against Oz, who were the obviously the strongest oppo England faced back in the pre-war era.

Going with the APE man: Knott.

Must admit if Prior keeps it up he could be a shoo in come the end of his career.

 

[kyear2]

Going with Knotty, but only just..

 

[fredfertang]

Knotty, by a country mile