The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Flem274*]

Simpson
Trumper
That Bradman Guy
Ghappell
Border
Miller
Gilchrist
Lindwall
Warne
Lillee
McGrath

 

[Coronis]

With Miller in the team as the first change pace bowler there is no excuse for not playing both O'Reilly and Warne.

O'Reilly was comfortably the best and greatest bowler of his generation, and Warne was possibly the best and greatest bowler of his generation. The fact that they are very different leggies with O'Reilly employing a unique grip on the ball to spin it at pace is an added bonus.

Comfortably the best and greatest? Are you sure?

 

[Red]

I imagine Grimmett to have been very similar to Warne. O'Reilly was a little different to Warne and Grimmett. .

If you are to have two leggies in the team (which Miller in the top 6 does allow), it's better in my eyes to have Warne & O'Reilly or Grimmett & O'Reilly, but not Grimmett and Warne.

**** we're nerds, aren't we?

 

[watson]

Comfortably the best and greatest? Are you sure?

I'm never sure about anything Coronis, and if I give that impression then it is purely accidental.

However, have you checked Grimmett's stats against England? (The only team that really mattered during the 30s). I don't think that they are anything too special.

 

[Coronis]

I imagine Grimmett to have been very similar to Warne. O'Reilly was a little different to Warne and Grimmett. .

If you are to have two leggies in the team (which Miller in the top 6 does allow), it's better in my eyes to have Warne & O'Reilly or Grimmett & O'Reilly, but not Grimmett and Warne.

**** we're nerds, aren't we?

Yeah me too I guess it would be better to have O'Reilly and Warne. Goes against my heart though

I'm never sure about anything Coronis, and if I give that impression then it is purely accidental.

However, have you checked Grimmett's stats against England? (The only team that really mattered during the 30s). I don't think that they are anything too special.

Heh if anything I'm a bit biased. Yep, his stats are pretty bad against England, as are every bowlers pretty much, besides O'Reilly, who really stands out, against England.

 

[Dan]

My theory is that O'Reilly was the better bowler per se, in that his style and method of bowling could take wickets against everyone. There's an anecdote on Maurice Leyland's Cricinfo profile that's pretty telling:

If he knew himself to have the measure of the great O'Reilly, who was no paper tiger, he also retained the respect of one master for another. Describing an over of fearsome hostility, he said: "First he bowled me an off-break, then he bowled me a leg-break; then his googly, then a bumper, then one that went with his arm . . . ."

"But that's only five, Maurice. What about the last one ?"

"Oh, that," said Maurice deprecatingly. "That was a straight 'un and it bowled me."

Grimmett, on the other hand, had the multitude of variations - he was a mystery spinner - meaning he could absolutely tear through weaker sides, but he had a tendency to be found out a little against top opposition (not unlike an Ajantha Mendis or Sunil Narine). O'Reilly was the more consistent of the two.

I absolutely love Grimmett and his six variations of the flipper, but O'Reilly was the more successful bowler overall.

 

[watson]

My theory is that O'Reilly was the better bowler per se, in that his style and method of bowling could take wickets against everyone. There's an anecdote on Maurice Leyland's Cricinfo profile that's pretty telling:



Grimmett, on the other hand, had the multitude of variations - he was a mystery spinner - meaning he could absolutely tear through weaker sides, but he had a tendency to be found out a little against top opposition (not unlike an Ajantha Mendis or Sunil Narine). O'Reilly was the more consistent of the two.

I absolutely love Grimmett and his six variations of the flipper, but O'Reilly was the more successful bowler overall.

And Maurice Leyland was rated by O'Reilly as one of the best batsman he ever bowled too. Heaven help the rest.

 

[Coronis]

While we're on the subject of Aussie leggies, I believe I did read somewhere that Hobbs thought Mailey > Grimmett and O'Reilly, whilst others thought Mailey was crap compared to the two (Bradman I think?)

 

[watson]

While we're on the subject of Aussie leggies, I believe I did read somewhere that Hobbs thought Mailey > Grimmett and O'Reilly, whilst others thought Mailey was crap compared to the two (Bradman I think?)

I remember Hobbs stating that he thought that Mailey was better than Grimmett. But I don't recall anything about O'Reilly. He wrote about Mailey and Grimmett in his autobiography which I think was written in 1932, give or take.

 

[Red]

While we're on the subject of Aussie leggies, I believe I did read somewhere that Hobbs thought Mailey > Grimmett and O'Reilly, whilst others thought Mailey was crap compared to the two (Bradman I think?)

Bradman is on record saying that O'Reilly is the best bowler he faced. He also compared Grimmett to Mailey, saying that Mailey would sometimes bowl an unplayable ball, but could also be a bit loose, while Grimmett was more a master of control.

 

[watson]

Bradman is on record saying that O'Reilly is the best bowler he faced. He also compared Grimmett to Mailey, saying that Mailey would sometimes bowl an unplayable ball, but could also be a bit loose, while Grimmett was more a master of control.

Against England Mailey had the better Strike Rate, but Grimmett had the better Ecomomy Rate. The two things cancel eachother out so each player has a similar Average (from memory).

 

[Red]

Against England Mailey had the better Strike Rate, but Grimmett had the better Ecomomy Rate. The two things cancel eachother out so each player has a similar Average (from memory).

Makes sense then.

 

[Jager]

Where does Archie Jackson rate in the pantheon of Australian batsmen? I really struggle to omit him from any side - same with Davidson.

 

[Mike5181]

Best NZ players I've seen (since 99ish):

1. Mark Richardson
2. Brendon McCullum
3. Stephen Fleming
4. Ross Taylor
5. Nathan Astle
6. Jesse Ryder
7. Chris Cairns
8. Adam Parore
9. Daniel Vettori
10. Tim Southee
11. Shane Bond

 

[Daemon]

Best Indian side since I started watching '06+

1. Sehwag
2. Gambhir
3. Dravid
4. Sachin
5. Ganguly
6. Laxman
7. Dhoni
8. Harbhajan
9. Kumble
10. Zaheer
11. Yadav

 

[Jager]

While we're on the subject of Aussie leggies, I believe I did read somewhere that Hobbs thought Mailey > Grimmett and O'Reilly, whilst others thought Mailey was crap compared to the two (Bradman I think?)

No surprises here - Hobbs concerned with the beauty and enjoyment of the game taking Mailey and Bradman purely concerned with results and numbers picking O'Reilly/Grimmett.

 

[watson]

'Sir Jack Hobbs, My Life Story' (Published 1935)

Faulkner will go down in history as South Africa's greatest allrounder. He really was a splendid googly bowler, keeping an immaculate length, much faster than Grimmett, and perhaps the best of the googly bowlers. With the exception of Arthur Mailey.

I might have to revisit my opinion on Faulkner.

 

[watson]

Where does Archie Jackson rate in the pantheon of Australian batsmen? I really struggle to omit him from any side - same with Davidson.

It's a question that cannot be answered because there is not enough evidence or data. And hence is a bit like asking, 'Does God exist?' In the end you have to take it on faith one way or the other.

I do like this piece by Harold Larwood though;

When first approached to write a foreword I politely refused. However, it was explained by this persistent fellow that he had spent considerable time researching on a cricketer he believed I must have admired. I asked who this could be? His reply left me humbled, for it was none other than Archie Jackson.

It hit me just about as hard as Archie did that day at Adelaide in 1929 when, in his first Test innings for Australia, with 97 runs against his name and having had his back to the wall, he cover-drove me to bring up his hundred. That ball was delivered as fast as any I had ever bowled previously.

That glorious stroke has lived in my memory to this day for its ease and perfect timing. I am sure that few among the many thousands present sighted the ball as it raced to the boundary.

I personally had a very great admiration for Archie, and I am sure we `Poms' counted him as one of us. He never failed to congratulate the bowler or fieldsman whenever he was dismissed by a good ball, and at the same time he would be the first to let you know when he thought you were not bowling so well. He would say: `You must have had a late one last night, Harold!'

He was always friendly, no matter the tenseness of the situation - you just had to find a place in your heart for a fellow like him. The respect he showed for others grew on you.

I remember once, in England during the 1930 series, in scoring 73 at the Oval in the fifth Test, he was taking quite a physical beating. As he came down the wicket to level a high spot or two he said: `Well, Harold, it's only a game, but what a grand one we're having today! I hope you're enjoying our battle as much as those spectators seem to be. You know, you've hit me almost as many times as I've hit you! I wish you'd drop one a little off line occasionally.'

I never knew him to flinch or complain at any time.

No, Archie Jackson, like his hero Victor Trumper, was born to be great, and great he was, for he received the same respect from us `Poms' as from his own team.

But we had a feeling that something was amiss with this young fellow in 1930. Those of us who were closely associated with him knew that the English climate did not suit him; he was not himself. He still batted with the same charm that only he was capable of, but it was apparent that he was not the same Archie as that of 1928-29.

One of my most cherished possessions to this day is a personal telegram sent to me by Archie while undoubtedly a very sick boy in Brisbane; it congratulated me on my bowling in that controversial Test of 1933. At the time he must have been very close to meeting his Maker, but he was still conscious enough to remember an old friend.

I remember also a number of us Englishmen visiting Archie in the private hospital in Brisbane one afternoon after practice before the fourth Test. It was the last time we were to see him, for during the final stages of that Test match he passed away. We felt the depression that was cast over the ground when early that morning the news came through that Archie was no more.

It was hard to believe. We knew that our loss was Australia's also. Privileged were those who had known him. I for one could never forget Archie Jackson.

Adapted from The Archie Jackson Story by David Frith, published in 1974 in a limited edition of 1000, and out of print since 1975.

The Archie Jackson story | Cricket Features | Wisden Cricket Monthly | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[fredfertang]

Where does Archie Jackson rate in the pantheon of Australian batsmen? I really struggle to omit him from any side - same with Davidson.

Fascinating character who makes any Australian all time XI I pick, but then I'm an incurable romantic.

Those who deal in raw numbers will crucify us, but I don't give a flying **** about stats, unless it suits my purpose to of course

 

[Red]

In my dreams Archie Jackson and Victor Trumper walk out to open the innings in an Australian All Time XI. Even their names sound awesome together:


1. Victor Trumper
2. Archie Jackson



I guess we could post "Australian Dream XI". The most graceful, and easy to watch cricketers we've produced....

- Victor Trumper
- Archie Jackson
- Neil Harvey
- Greg Chappell
- Mark Waugh
- Stan McCabe
- Don Tallon
- Ray Lindwall
- Shane Warne
- Dennis Lillee
- Ted McDonald