The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Gowza]

Imran scored his first Test century against the West Indies in 1980 (The bowlers were Clarke, Croft, Marshall, and Garner). And he scored his last Test Century against Australia in 1990 (The bowlers were Hughes, Rackeman, Campbell, and Taylor).

The point being that for a full decade Imran was a competent batsman and excellent No.7 or No.8. His average did peak between 1987-1990, but this does not mean that he didn't average well between 1980-86, or that he wasn't a bowling-allrounder of the highest order during that time;

HowSTAT! Player Analysis by Year

However, I am struggling to find a Test where Imran emulated Ian Botham and impacted a match with BOTH bat and ball (maybe someone else can find a good example!). In that respect Imran is a deficient allrounder in a way that other great allrounders are not.

there was this match:

3rd Test: Pakistan v India at Faisalabad, Jan 3-8, 1983 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

1982/83 against India Imran got 6/98 then 117 (strike rate 96.69) then 5/82. not sure of any other matches though...

 

[watson]

there was this match:

3rd Test: Pakistan v India at Faisalabad, Jan 3-8, 1983 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

1982/83 against India Imran got 6/98 then 117 (strike rate 96.69) then 5/82. not sure of any other matches though...

Well done. Because the match was played in 1983 his century would also go against the common notion that Imran could only really bat during the latter part of his career.

 

[smash84]

you could check out the 1981-92 series in England. Topped the bowling averages and was right up there in the batting averages for the series too. Although Pakistan lost 1-2 but still he was the standout player in that series. Also I think in the 1986-87 series in England which Pakistan did win and Imran got the man of the series.

 

[NUFAN]

I wonder if there are any Cricketers from kyear's top 3 ATG sides (who bat in the top 6) who don't make DoG's 100 best batsman of all time?

IIt would have to be a pretty weirdly selected player if he can't find a place in the top 100..

 

[Coronis]

I wonder if there are any Cricketers from kyear's top 3 ATG sides (who bat in the top 6) who don't make DoG's 100 best batsman of all time?

IIt would have to be a pretty weirdly selected player if he can't find a place in the top 100..

Doubt anyone would miss out from his 4th, either.

 

[NUFAN]

Doubt anyone would miss out from his 4th, either.

Yeah the top 4 should all without doubt make the top 50. Only a real barry would miss out.

 

[marc71178]

However, I am struggling to find a Test where Imran emulated Ian Botham and impacted a match with BOTH bat and ball (maybe someone else can find a good example!). In that respect Imran is a deficient allrounder in a way that other great allrounders are not.

It's not just that, he's never managed to do it over a series with both at the same time.

 

[NUFAN]

Yep I agree Watson and marc, which is my reasoning behind punishing Imran slightly and not including him in my ATG team. Still makes the second team, so its a slight punishment.

 

[marc71178]

Funny thing is I'd still include Imran more often than not based on his bowling, which I feel seems to kind slightly under-rated because of his batting (which I feel gets grossly over-rated)

 

[The Sean]

Funny thing is I'd still include Imran more often than not based on his bowling, which I feel seems to kind slightly under-rated because of his batting (which I feel gets grossly over-rated)

Yeah, I broadly agree with this. I think Imran is slightly over-rated as an all-rounder (a great one no question, but not quite as "genuine" as say Botham or Miller) but is generally underrated as a bowler - where, at his peak, he stands comparison with anyone in the history of the game.

Add to that his leadership skills, and you get a player whose overall value as a cricketer is exceeded by very, very few.

 

[Gowza]

you could check out the 1981-92 series in England. Topped the bowling averages and was right up there in the batting averages for the series too. Although Pakistan lost 1-2 but still he was the standout player in that series. Also I think in the 1986-87 series in England which Pakistan did win and Imran got the man of the series.

yeah the 82' series he did quite well, in the first test he did: 7/52, 22, 2/84, 65. in the 2nd test he did: 12, 2/55, 2/84. 3rd test he did: 67*, 5/49, 46, 3/66. in the 87' series 1st test: 10*. 2nd test: 2/90. 3rd test: 3/37, 26, 7/40. 4th test: 0, 6/129, 37, 2/61. 5th test: 118, 1/39, 0/59. in the 82' series he did better on a match by match basis i.e. performed with both bat and ball together in the matches more often but he still did well with both bat and ball over the course of the series in 87'.

 

[centurymaker]

I have just realized that the only true greats in the 70s and 80s were those who performed overseas since home-umpiring was very prevalent. There is a serious case for discounting home averages. I was just looking through some scorecards and was surprised at the number of LBWs given to away teams compared to home teams.

 

[kyear2]

Funny thing is I'd still include Imran more often than not based on his bowling, which I feel seems to kind slightly under-rated because of his batting (which I feel gets grossly over-rated)

Agree, as over rated as his batting can be, hos bolwing is often under rated and at the end of the day, he brings too much to a team to be omitted.

 

[Red]

Having a guy like Imran at 8 is a massive bonus regardless of whether you underrate or overrate his batting skills. He averaged nearly 40 with the bat, so to have him at 8 is a huge bonus when you consider he is without doubt an ATG quick bowler. I love the idea of teams where everyone is a competent batsman, especially when guys like Sobers and Gilchrist are at 6 and 7. If the tail can stick with either of those guys for a session or more, a score of 300 becomes 500 very quickly.

L. Hutton
B.Richards
D. Bradman
G. Chappell
V. Richards
G. Sobers
A. Gilchrist
I. Khan
R. Hadlee
M. Marshall
S. Warne

 

[Prince EWS]

This is no doubt where some absolute moron will come in and say that the batting lineup is already really strong and that you don't need a competent number eight, ignoring the fact that strength is relative, the fact that the standard of the opposition is unknown and therefore the fact that we have no real idea how strong that batting lineup really will be.

Marshall at eight was/would be fine in a fixed moment in time in Test cricket. However an all-time world XI as a concept would play at a theoretical level a couple above Test cricket, so that argument is the equivalent of saying it'd be all good to bat Jimmy Anderson at #8 for England because he averages in the 20s playing club cricket and the rest of the batting lineup is ridiculously strong anyway, all boasting club cricket averages in the 70s. Unfortunately for England and for Jimmy Anderson, their opposition will also be full of such players from another country's mirrored setup and not your typical club cricketers; therefore a batsman competent to bat eight at the level of the match is required. Against a theoretical attack on equal footing with the all-time World XI, however you want to imagine that attack, Marshall at 8 is the equivalent of Anderson at eight in a Test.

 

[watson]

This is no doubt where some absolute moron will come in and say that the batting lineup is already really strong and that you don't need a competent number eight, ignoring the fact that strength is relative, the fact that the standard of the opposition is unknown and therefore the fact that we have no real idea how strong that batting lineup really will be.

Marshall at eight was/would be fine in a fixed moment in time in Test cricket. However an all-time world XI as a concept would play at a theoretical level a couple above Test cricket, so that argument is the equivalent of saying it'd be all good to bat Jimmy Anderson at #8 for England because he averages in the 20s playing club cricket and the rest of the batting lineup is ridiculously strong anyway, all boasting club cricket averages in the 70s. Unfortunately for England and for Jimmy Anderson, their opposition will also be full of such players from another country's mirrored setup and not your typical club cricketers; therefore a batsman competent to bat eight at the level of the match is required. Against a theoretical attack on equal footing with the all-time World XI, however you want to imagine that attack, Marshall at 8 is the equivalent of Anderson at eight in a Test.

I think that 'absolute moron' is probably a mild exaggeration. The Cricinfo 'Jury' picked Marshall-Akram-Warne-Lillee as their ATG bowling attack, and I don't think that you could call Clive Lloyd or Ian Chappell 'abolsute morons'.

All-time XI | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Obviously they picked the best available bowling attack as they saw it, and considered that the No.1 priority - as it should be.

 

[Flem274*]

And that's why you use all the ATG bowlers who can bat in the ATG XI, not spend hours and hours splitting them as pure bowlers and putting some muppet at eight.

 

[watson]

And that's why you use all the ATG bowlers who can bat in the ATG XI, not spend hours and hours splitting them as pure bowlers and putting some muppet at eight.

I agree that some 'muppet' should NOT be at No.8. But you'd hardly call Marshall, Akram, or Warne 'muppets'. Lillee at No.8 would be asking too much of Lillee, but not of the other 3 bowlers.

I'm not saying that Imran isn't an excellent choice at No.8, but the fact remains some people don't consider him the best bowler for the job, and just so happen to think that an attack with 3 other quick bowlers is stronger. That could be right, or it could be wrong. Who knows?

 

[Prince EWS]

I think that 'absolute moron' is probably a mild exaggeration. The Cricinfo 'Jury' picked Marshall-Akram-Warne-Lillee as their ATG bowling attack, and I don't think that you could call Clive Lloyd or Ian Chappell 'abolsute morons'.

All-time XI | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Obviously they picked the best available bowling attack as they saw it, and considered that the No.1 priority - as it should be.

I've met quite a few absolute morons who also happen to be excellent cricketers. I've even met a few are good captains, and - believe it or not - I've met a few who know a thing or two about the history of the game as well. This phenomenon would of course not be limited to people I've met, but former players and experts as well. This exercise is as much about conceptual understanding as it is about technical cricket knowledge or experience and it's of no surprise to me to learn that some former players fail at the former even when they excel at the latter.

All that said, I don't actually have a great deal of issues with that particular lower order. It'd be weak tail no doubt; I reserve the right to roll my eyes at anyone who says it'd be decent based on their logic of imagining it in action against a national side in a fixed point in time or worse still arguing it didn't matter because of the supposed strength of the top order, and I'd be looking at that as a weakness of the side, but it's not a deal-breaking weakness in the way that picking, say, Marshall-Warne-Lillee-Ambrose would be. That'd be fine in a Test match but we need to stop thinking about this side as if it's going to play the Pakistan side of 1994 or the South Africa side of 2001 because that'd be pointless.

 

[Prince EWS]

I agree that some 'muppet' should NOT be at No.8. But you'd hardly call Marshall, Akram, or Warne 'muppets'. Lillee at No.8 would be asking too much of Lillee, but not of the other 3 bowlers.

I'm not saying that Imran isn't an excellent choice at No.8, but the fact remains some people don't consider him the best bowler for the job, and just so happen to think that an attack with 3 other quick bowlers is stronger. That could be right, or it could be wrong. Who knows?

Warne would absolutely be a muppet with the bat at the theoretical level of cricket this would be played at. That's the point I'm making here. It's a couple of levels above. If we look a couple of levels below Test cricket, we see all sorts of players we'd consider muppets at Test level with the bat up at 7 or 8 making useful runs.