The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[the big bambino]

How many other cricketers picked for their bowling had an opportunity to average under Barnes in his era?

Blythe and Trumble come closest. I get the impression that the former's figures are flattering though he was a champion slow bowler. Trumble by all accounts was great. If I'm getting your drift you'd say Trumble should be a show at selection. Which would be fair enough I suppose.

Other well known bowlers from the era include Rhodes, Hirst, Cotter, Faulkner, Noble and Hordern. They averaged from 23 to 28 which is around the era's average or just a bit higher. Foster only played 11 games before war came. He averaged 20 in them.

 

[NUFAN]

Blythe and Trumble come closest. I get the impression that the former's figures are flattering though he was a champion slow bowler. Trumble by all accounts was great. If I'm getting your drift you'd say Trumble should be a show at selection. Which would be fair enough I suppose.

Other well known bowlers from the era include Rhodes, Hirst, Cotter, Faulkner, Noble and Hordern. They averaged from 23 to 28 which is around the era's average or just a bit higher. Foster only played 11 games before war came. He averaged 20 in them.

Yep that's one of my points. I don't think I've ever seen anyone consider Blythe or Trumble in an ATG side. I acknowledge Barnes 5 wickets is an innings rate is very impressive though.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Bit of a loose cannon by some accounts - fell out with the MCC, refused many Test tours and CC contracts because he earned more from bowling at hapless amateurs in the Lancashire League.

Although he did maintain an average of 9 there up to the tender age of 61.

 

[the big bambino]

Tbf Trumble should be a contender though. I mean its a great effort. Actually his ave against Eng is better then Barnes against Aus. Funnily enough Trumble missed out in his sole test against SA, taking 0/127.

Yet I find it hard to get past my prejudice against his style of bowler. The kind of medium pace spinner that I suspect would find it hard on true wickets. One point in favour of Barnes is he bowled from 1901 to 1914 whereas Trumble retired early 1904. Maybe Hugh sneaked in on some dicey pitches, idk. Anyway the easiest thing to do is just rate Trumble now more than I did. Barnes ahead of him but its a lot closer than I thought.

 

[kyear2]

Seeing is believing. Trouble is we wont and haven't seen it all. So you have to rely on 1st hand accounts and stats. I can't credit people who say stats aren't everything. When someone says that they are often attempting to establish the primacy of their opinion over facts. Stats and reports from the day are superior to anyone's opinions. Especially if you haven't seen the player.

The stats have been pretty comparable from every decade since the 20s making comparisons fairly authentic. The batting ave in Barnes' day was transitioning to that trend. In Lohamnn's day the batting average was low however. About 19. Thats gotta tell you something abt the state of the pitches. Which is why, I'm surmising, slow left armers and medium paced right armers dominated then. As pitches improve fast and leg spin bowling come into their own. Which is why I'm not certain Lohamnn, Turner, Ferris etc are transferable to a modern era. But someone like Barnes who could take Hill's off stump after pitching outside leg will always be a champion. Besides the Australian pitches of the time had improved as had our batting. Barnes was the best bowler in our conditions; the hardest in the world at that time.

Even though Barnes' time was one of transition you can still make a comparison with subsequent eras. That is why I think comparing a bowler's ave to the global ave has some merit. The global ave will give clues of the conditions prevailing. The individual ave, in comparsion, how good or bad the bowler is. For someone to establish a difference of 10 btwn his effort compared to the overall ave has done something that people like Marshall have done. And this with only the benefit of a few games against SA. He was special and if anything his ave is inflated due to the preponderance of games he played against Oz.[/QUOTE]

I find that comment strange, thats like saying Murali's average was inflated by playing too much vs Lara and Tendulkar and should have played Zim and Bangladesh more.
I don't rate players particularily on what they did againts minnows, be it Bradman, Weekes, Sangakkara or Murali and so it shouldn't be any different for Barnes.

 

[kyear2]

Tbf Trumble should be a contender though. I mean its a great effort. Actually his ave against Eng is better then Barnes against Aus. Funnily enough Trumble missed out in his sole test against SA, taking 0/127.

Yet I find it hard to get past my prejudice against his style of bowler. The kind of medium pace spinner that I suspect would find it hard on true wickets. One point in favour of Barnes is he bowled from 1901 to 1914 whereas Trumble retired early 1904. Maybe Hugh sneaked in on some dicey pitches, idk. Anyway the easiest thing to do is just rate Trumble now more than I did. Barnes ahead of him but its a lot closer than I thought.

Fully agree, and that is part of my point.

Back to Lillee though, when WSC is included his average is the same, not sure about the strike rate but it would certainly push him over 400 wickets. Holdings average was similar and Imran and Procter had better averages but from much fewer matches.
Great player no doubt and I rank him on par with Ambrose and in my second team. Just think Marshall and Mcgrath proved themselves in more places and conditions. Lillee was top tier though.

 

[harsh.ag]

Dickie Bird's All Time Test XI apparently is:

Barry Richards
Sunil Gavaskar
Vivian Richards
Graeme Pollock
Greg Chappell
Garry Sobers
Imran Khan
Alan Knott
Shane Warne
Dennis Lillee
Lance Gibbs

What in the world is Gibbs doing there?? I think this is a team of players who he has actually seen play, so Don, Hobbs, Grace, Hutton, Barnes, Headley, Hammond, Miller were disqualified. But why Gibbs?

 

[harsh.ag]

I am guessing Sachin, Lara, Gilchrist and Murali are not considered since Dickie retired from umpiring in 96, and he only chose from players he had seen becoming great on the field while umpiring.

Of course, he still might have picked Knott and seen Murali's action as doubtful. But I have a feeling that he would have picked Lara ahead of Chappell. seeing that he likes attacking batsmen. Gavaskar ahead of Greenidge the only defensive option, but then again, Sunny could score fast if he wanted to.

 

[harsh.ag]

The disregard for the Windies pace bowlers continues on the lines of Benaud and Bradman. Gibbs ahead of Marshall. Malcolm would roll in his grave if he gave a f***

 

[fredfertang]

At one point Dickie had Abdul Qadir in above Warne

 

[kyear2]

The disregard for the Windies pace bowlers continues on the lines of Benaud and Bradman. Gibbs ahead of Marshall. Malcolm would roll in his grave if he gave a f***

Can some one please explain to me why there is this disregard of the W.I. quicks by Benaud, Bradman, Bird ect?
And don't say intimiatory bowling because that would be hypocrtical. Seems almost like they don't even want to mention his name along side Lillee, least anyone considers Marshall his superior.

 

[Red]

Can some one please explain to me why there is this disregard of the W.I. quicks by Benaud, Bradman, Bird ect?
And don't say intimiatory bowling because that would be hypocrtical. Seems almost like they don't even want to mention his name along side Lillee, least anyone considers Marshall his superior.

Perhaps it's as simple as they prefer Lillee to Marshall?

 

[Satyanash89]

Can some one please explain to me why there is this disregard of the W.I. quicks by Benaud, Bradman, Bird ect?

Don't know what to say,but that IS the reason... and yes, they're a bunch of hypocrites in my opinion.

 

[Satyanash89]

Perhaps it's as simple as they prefer Lillee to Marshall?

But Marshall wasn't even in Benaud's shortlist of players for his XI, apparently. I find that simply astonishing

 

[kyear2]

Thats not the question, that is obvious. But Gibbs before Marshall? Bedser and Lindwall above Marshall? Benuad has at least six bowlers above Marshall. It's not that he or the other quicks are not seen as the best, but not rated at all. Even read that Hadlee though that the de-evolved the game. What was with the lack of love for our quicks in general.

 

[Red]

Thats not the question, that is obvious. But Gibbs before Marshall? Bedser and Lindwall above Marshall? Benuad has at least six bowlers above Marshall. It's not that he or the other quicks are not seen as the best, but not rated at all. Even read that Hadlee though that the de-evolved the game. What was with the lack of love for our quicks in general.

Benaud rarely makes disparaging remarks about any aspect of the game. However, many cricket lovers loathed the WI's pace barrage of the 80s, the slow over rates, lack of subtlety in bowling tactics, and the absence of spin bowling. I would say he's making a point without actually saying anything.

 

[smash84]

maybe these guys honestly thought that at an individual level the WI pace battery was not quite as skilful, that they could only hunt in packs?

 

[smash84]

But Marshall wasn't even in Benaud's shortlist of players for his XI, apparently. I find that simply astonishing

It really isn't that astonishing

 

[Red]

Benaud's shortlist of fast bowlers (and by his own criteria he was limited to 6) were:

- Lindwall
- Trueman
- McGrath
- Larwood
- Lillee
- Barnes

It is very Anglo-centric (but he does include Imran, Botham, Hadlee and Kapil in the shortlist for all-rounders).

While you could argue for the inclusion of Marshall, and others like Waqar, Wasim, Ambrose & Holding, I don't think you can argue that any of the top six shouldn't be in there.

 

[kyear2]

maybe these guys honestly thought that at an individual level the WI pace battery was not quite as skilful, that they could only hunt in packs?

That would be stupid. Holding came on the scene when it was just him and Roberts and Croft only played 27 Tests (same as Barnes, back to that later). When Marshall made the team Croft was gone and Roberts was leaving. Holding started to decline after the '84 Aus series and was so injury prone throughout his career that the amount of games they actually played together was quite low. Walsh didn't come into his own until long after Marshall retired. Together they formed the greatest team in history with Marshall the spearhead and unquestioned leader. Doesn't seem like some thing to be punished for. Is Warne punished for playing with Mcgrath, Gillespie and Lee, seems like quite flawed and hypocritical once again.