The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[bagapath]

But, firstly, he is not a bowling expert, he is a batting expert. Secondly. he didn't select Bedser ahead of Marshall, Hadlee etc, he selected Lillee and Lindwall ahead of Marshall, Hadlee etc.

That is lame. As a batsman he is expected to know more about bowlers than anyone else. Look mate, he selected a team that was **** all. So dont quote that to advance your case. And dont get into "I will accept the top 5 from his team. and then blah blah blah...". It was a bad team. So it is not the the most authoritative opinion on anything. So leave it. It was full of loopholes and Barry is one of them.

Granted your point that you won't select him for an ATG Test XI, where would you place him on an ATG Cricket XI, first xi, second xi, third xi?

P.S. The point about him not playing in different conditions is ....., because then you should exclude Bradman, Hobbs, Hammond etc as well from your discussions.

My point is he doesn't even come into the discussion of any all time test xi. 4 tests is my ass. worth nothing. and I dont give a **** if he was the king of FC cricket. Hobbs, Hammond, and Bradman played test cricket in different continents for decades. One series wonders cant be compared with them.

EDIT: Just saw that you have asked for my choice for an All-time XI, not limited to test cricket.

My answer:

Hobbs and Hutton for First XI

Gavaskar and Barry Richards for Second XI

 

[harsh.ag]

Part of being great is being exceptional over a long period in test cricket.

Otherwise I'm putting Stewie Dempster in my all time XI to partner Barry Richards.

I think it's fair to include FC record under certain circumstances when selecting for the national ATG level. Whether it be a lack of opportunities (Jack Cowie played all 9 tests NZ played in his time for example), bizarre selection politics (Dempster) or something else (sorry for all the NZ examples btw, I'm sure there are others) you can make a case for inclusion of players with limited test matches, especially if there is a lack of depth in the position you're looking at.

When you can select any player in history for the greatest XI then it gets cutthroat. Richards may have been a great test cricketer as well as a great first class cricketer, but he wasn't because he didn't play enough. Mathew Sinclair and Brad Hodge had great records after playing a few test matches but even at the time of doing it no one in their right mind would advocate either for their respective national ATG sides.

To me selecting Barry Richards in the world ATG eleven is equivalent to selecting Stewie Dempster in the world ATG XI. Both were screwed over by circumstances outside their control, both have ridiculously good but short records and both were lauded as being fantastic batsmen.

You have Hobbs, Hutton, Gavaskar etc to pick from. All three were superb. All three did more than Richards. All three make better cases than Richards.

Except that Dempster hasn't been backed up by scores of greats and Bradman as one of the top 5 openers of all time. And I have no beef with those who select Hobbs, Hutton, Gavaskar and Sutcliffe ahead of Barry. But some people say i) They will not select Barry behind even Greenidge, Trumper, Sehwag etc, even in the ATG Cricket XIs (not Test XIs), even in the second and third teams, and ii) They don't consider him to be in the same class as Hobbs, Huton, Sunny. It is quite obvious he was in the same class, and using the example of Dempster, Merchant, Hodge etc is a straw man argument.

 

[harsh.ag]

That is lame. As a batsman he is expected to know more about bowlers than anyone else. Look mate, he selected a team that was **** all. So dont quote that to advance your case. And dont get into "I will accept the top 5 from his team. and then blah blah blah...". It was a bad team. So it is not the the most authoritative opinion on anything. So leave it. It was full of loopholes and Barry is one of them.



My point is he doesn't even come into the discussion of any all time test xi. 4 tests is my ass. worth nothing. and I dont give a **** if he was the king of FC cricket. Hobbs, Hammond, and Bradman played test cricket in different continents for decades. One series wonders cant be compared with them.

EDIT: Just saw that you have asked for my choice for an Alltime XI, not limited to test cricket.

My answer:

Hobbs and Hutton for First XI

Gavaskar and Barry Richards for Second XI

That's all I needed bro.

I wasn't defending Bradman's team. But he did select a 2 fast bowler-1 medium pace bowler-1 o'reilly/barnes-kind- and 1 spinner combo and you said he selected Bedser ahead of Marshall, Hadlee etc. which he didn't. He selected Bedser ahead of other medium pace bowlers.

But honestly, I respect Bradman too much, especially his batting opinion to ever criticize his batting selections. Maybe my bad. I also think he didn't select Hobbs, Hutton, Hammond and Barnes because he really didn't like England at all. Selected their most sh** great bowler, Bedser

 

[bagapath]

but honestly bedser was, indeed, a great bowler. only he looks odd in that team. lillee, o reilly and grimmett look awesome. whereas lindwall and bedser could easily have been replaced by many other even more illustrious names, especially bedser. hadlee was a swing bowler - out and out FYI. he was faster than bedser. but he was an accurate masterly swing bowler. could easily have replaced sir alec.

bradman's XI

morris - no
barry richards - no
bradman - yes
tendulkar - yes and no
sobers - yes
tallon - no
lindwall - yes and no
bedser - no
lillee - yes
o reilly - yes
grimmett - yes

 

[NUFAN]

so it's fair enough to have tendulkar opening in an all time team when he's done it once and scored 15, yet barry richards has done it more and averaged comfortably over 70 and he shouldn't be there? barry is the more successful test opener and therefore a more deserving all time team opener than tendulkar, yeah tendulkar has scored a bucket load of test runs, but he hasn't done it as opener.

Why Tendulkar? Are you saying that because of the new guy putting Tendulkar opening and I commented on it? I was just being friendly, Tendulkar opening in Tests is silly.

 

[NUFAN]

Except that Dempster hasn't been backed up by scores of greats and Bradman as one of the top 5 openers of all time. And I have no beef with those who select Hobbs, Hutton, Gavaskar and Sutcliffe ahead of Barry. But some people say i) They will not select Barry behind even Greenidge, Trumper, Sehwag etc, even in the ATG Cricket XIs (not Test XIs), even in the second and third teams, and ii) They don't consider him to be in the same class as Hobbs, Huton, Sunny. It is quite obvious he was in the same class, and using the example of Dempster, Merchant, Hodge etc is a straw man argument.

What's class got to do with picking an all time team? Mark Waugh had more class compared to Steve Waugh, should I pick Junior? Waugh's first class record (minus Tests) is as good as Barry Richards. Why would the classy Barry Richards who averaged 72.57 from just 4 Tests average above Mark Waugh's 41.81 over a full career. Waugh was averaging above 60 after his first 7 Tests, of course 7 Tests is bugger all though.

Its cute though for people to overrate Test Cricketers who have completely unfinished careers.

 

[Flem274*]

His argument boils down to because Bradman said so.

Because we all know Bradman never said or did anything wrong, ever, and we always agree with former players on everything.

brb off to read me a Craig McMillan column on why the bouncer is the only legit wicket taking delivery.

 

[the big bambino]

You may question the choice of Bedser and that's your prerogative. But to be incredulous at the choice is not giving him the due his skill merits.

EDIT: It is fair to say that Bradman committed some selection howlers in his time that were far worse than his own dropping in 1928 is portrayed. Bradman knew the skill of the players he bumped whereas his own legend had yet to be made at the time he was dropped. Worse still he hadn't admitted his errors late in life and continued to justify them. His continued excuses for Ward over Grimmett made me embarrassed for him.

 

[watson]

Can Barry Richards handle backing up from a good series? Can he make any Test runs outside the comforts of South Africa? Since he has scored the same number of runs away from home as my bedside lamp has, it is without doubt a subjective opinion.

Yeah this is exactly my thoughts too. I would also include the likes of Cook, Smith, Slater, Turner, Jayasuriya, Kirsten, Taylor etc as more successful Test Cricketers. Anyone who had a good career over an extended period of time basically is ahead of Richards.



Exactly, so why give him an A+ equivalent by selecting him in your best team?

Yes. Barry Richards played 5 Super Tests in Australia and averaged 79.14. His highest score of 207 was compiled against Lillee, Gilmour, Walker, and Bright.

HowSTAT! World Series Cricket - Batting Statistics (Supertests)


He also played 10 Shield games for South Australia and averaged 109.85;

http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Players/1/1357/f_Batting_by_Team.html

And having looked at all those numbers, and the variety of teams that he played for, I think that there is very good case for easily placing Barry Richards in the ATG Second XI - provided that we combine those numbers with the plethora of glowing personal testimonies and eye-witness accounts.

 

[fredfertang]

"Bradman's Best" was authored by Roland Perry who has his, shall we say detractors to keep things polite - is there anywhere else that Bradman named that eleven?

 

[Red]

Its cute though for people to overrate Test Cricketers who have completely unfinished careers.

With all due respect, picking B.Richards is not about being "cute". It's about respecting the immense talent he possessed. Everyone was saw him bat testify to how great he was, many say he was the next best they'd seen after Bradman.

He was a brutal opener with a magnificent technique.

2nd Match: WSC Australia v WSC World XI at Perth, Jan 27-30, 1978 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

His average in WSC was 79. In high level comp. Most guys who played it said it was tougher than test cricket. To put that average of 79 in to perspective, the next best were Viv Richards who averaged 55 and Greg Chappell who averaged 56.

The guy was unbelievably good. It's not about cuteness.

 

[Dan]

I reckon the selection of ATG XI sides is inherently subjective and, as such, people can pick pretty much whoever they want* and shouldn't be dismissed as "cute" for doing so. They're reflections of who we, as individuals, rate as the greatest of all time (and in the voting and aggregating exercises we've done, we've got XIs that are objectively extremely good).

If I want to pick an ATG XI of:

B Richards
A Jackson
D Bradman
V Richards
F Worrell*
K Miller
M Procter
R Hadlee
G Evans +
H Larwood
B O'Reilly

(which is an XI that I would love to see play, and everyone in there is undoubtedly an ATG or within that category's realm of possibilities), then I feel I should be able to without fear of being dismissed as an idiot for it. From that sample XI, all of B Richards, Procter, Jackson, Evans and Larwood don't stack up in terms of either statistical success or longevity, but those aren't the only markers by which we can rate players. If someone has researched, read or watched a player and come to the conclusion that they believe them to be one of the best of all time, who are we to say that their opinion carries any less weight because of who they select?**

You can't really argue that one person's opinion is objectively wrong just because you disagree with them, especially in such a nuanced and subjective discussion as "pick your best XI". And **** me, if people use class as an indication of how good a batsman was in conjunction with other reasoning, that isn't some terrible thing to do anyway. Its your ATG XI, and if you prefer a pretty batsman to a ruthless accumulator, than that is your call, and nobody else's.


*by this I mean people with at least a half-decent shout of performing, whether Richards did enough in Tests or not, we can pretty safely say he's a better choice for an ATG XI on FC stats, potential and historical account than, say, Graeme Wood (figured I should stop using Imrul Kayes as the example). Similarly, you could argue that Jim Laker is worthy of consideration/selection in a way that you cannot for Phil Tufnell.

**and I'm not talking people who go "Afridi the best coz he hit big 6", so don't be a pedant and start selecting XIs of consisting of Kayes, Wood, Afridi and Tufnell because you "truly believe" they are the greatest ever.

 

[Dan]

"Bradman's Best" was authored by Roland Perry who has his, shall we say detractors to keep things polite - is there anywhere else that Bradman named that eleven?

Hah! I remember when I thought him to be a decent author. I was 6 at the time.

 

[Red]

"Bradman's Best" was authored by Roland Perry who has his, shall we say detractors to keep things polite - is there anywhere else that Bradman named that eleven?

In fairness to Perry, the player bios he writes are quite good, but a bit vanilla. I think there were legitimate questions over the legitimacy of the team Bradman selected.

All that said, I think the team would've been substantially better if Bedser was dropped for another batsman. Tallon at #6 is stupidity.

 

[NUFAN]

Yes. Barry Richards played 5 Super Tests in Australia and averaged 79.14. His highest score of 207 was compiled against Lillee, Gilmour, Walker, and Bright.

HowSTAT! World Series Cricket - Batting Statistics (Supertests)


He also played 10 Shield games for South Australia and averaged 109.85;

The Home of CricketArchive

And having looked at all those numbers, and the variety of teams that he played for, I think that there is very good case for easily placing Barry Richards in the ATG Second XI - provided that we combine those numbers with the plethora of glowing personal testimonies and eye-witness accounts.

That's a very impressive performance for South Australia in First Class Cricket, no doubt about it. You would kind of expect Richards to average above 54 in first class cricket, given the high praise he gets. I'm not for a minute saying 54 isn't good, its terrific, but many players have averaged around that mark in first class cricket.

Those 'SuperTests' aren't even considered first class matches let alone Tests. Go ahead and pick Barry in an all time cricket team, but Test team? haha, very pretty aka cute.

 

[NUFAN]

I reckon the selection of ATG XI sides is inherently subjective and, as such, people can pick pretty much whoever they want* and shouldn't be dismissed as "cute" for doing so. They're reflections of who we, as individuals, rate as the greatest of all time (and in the voting and aggregating exercises we've done, we've got XIs that are objectively extremely good).

Yes its subjective, so if someone picks a cricketer in an all time great XI who I deem as a cute selection, why shouldn't I give my subjective opinion that they've been cute and selected a cricketer who didn't play even remotely close to a number of Test matches to make a Test XI.

If I go and pick Mark Waugh (who I'm sure Barry wishes he had a career as good as his) in my ATG XI I'm sure there will be a few wtf type comments.

 

[the big bambino]

"Bradman's Best" was authored by Roland Perry who has his, shall we say detractors to keep things polite - is there anywhere else that Bradman named that eleven?

David Frith, goaded by Perry's many errors and possibly by his unaccountable celebrity, absolutely destroyed his research and authourship in one memorable article that still gives me pleasure to read.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yes its subjective, so if someone picks a cricketer in an all time great XI who I deem as a cute selection, why shouldn't I give my subjective opinion that they've been cute and selected a cricketer who didn't play even remotely close to a number of Test matches to make a Test XI.

If I go and pick Mark Waugh (who I'm sure Barry wishes he had a career as good as his) in my ATG XI I'm sure there will be a few wtf type comments.

Mark Waugh is an excellent example in that if he did played no or very few Tests he probably would've been rated much higher than he is now. In fact, if his Test career never happened for reasons outside of his control I'm almost certain we would have people putting him in their first or second elevens. He was absolutely majestic to watch, possessed arguably unmatched talent within his generation, and outside of Test cricket he scored 18,826 First Class runs at the ridiculous average of 58. After seven Tests he was averaging 61. Lets say it ended there - with the non-Test FC record he amounted and the absolute pleasure he was to watch when he was batting well, he would've been rated a real gem. For years we'd have bemoaned the lost chance to see a special talent have a - no doubt in our minds - illustrious Test career.

A long-term Test career is a different beast though that presents different challenges; it can - for periods - conquer even the most gifted of us all. That's why we use its findings to rate someone like Mark Waugh and, while recognising his great talent and what he brought to the game, mark him down below other talents who achieved more.

It would be unfair to just assume Barry Richards would've been a Test disappointment (relative to talent and non-Test FC performance, of course) like Mark Waugh, but equally it'd be naive to just assume he wouldn't. Barry Richards was a great cricketer no doubt, but there have been many great cricketers and indeed great openers throughout history who achieved more than him at the level we cherish, so to me anyway it seems somewhat needless to elevate him above them.

 

[NUFAN]

Mark Waugh is an excellent example in that if he did played no or very few Tests he probably would've been rated much higher than he is now. In fact, if his Test career never happened for reasons outside of his control I'm almost certain we would have people putting him in their first or second elevens. He was absolutely majestic to watch, possessed arguably unmatched talent within his generation, and outside of Test cricket he scored 18,826 First Class runs at the ridiculous average of 58. After seven Tests he was averaging 61. Lets say it ended there - with the non-Test FC record he amounted and the absolute pleasure he was to watch when he was batting well, he would've been rated a real gem. For years we'd have bemoaned the lost chance to see a special talent have a - no doubt in our minds - illustrious Test career.

A long-term Test career is a different beast though that presents different challenges; it can - for periods - conquer even the most gifted of us all. That's why we use its findings to rate someone like Mark Waugh and, while recognising his great talent and what he brought to the game, mark him down below other talents who achieved more.

It would be unfair to just assume Barry Richards would've been a Test disappointment (relative to talent and non-Test FC performance, of course) like Mark Waugh, but equally it'd be naive to just assume he wouldn't. Barry Richards was a great cricketer no doubt, but there have been many great cricketers and indeed great openers throughout history who achieved more than him at the level we cherish, so to me anyway it seems somewhat needless to elevate him above them.

That is exactly my point (did you read my post 2326 btw). Its why I subjectively consider Barry Richards selection in these sides as very cute. I have never once said he would be a failure if he had a long Test career and I do feel sorry for him that his career coincided with South Africa's apartheid but that's just the way it is.

 

[Dan]

Yes its subjective, so if someone picks a cricketer in an all time great XI who I deem as a cute selection, why shouldn't I give my subjective opinion that they've been cute and selected a cricketer who didn't play even remotely close to a number of Test matches to make a Test XI.

If I go and pick Mark Waugh (who I'm sure Barry wishes he had a career as good as his) in my ATG XI I'm sure there will be a few wtf type comments.

Expressing disagreement is one thing, but personally I'd prefer to express it in language that doesn't come across as incredibly condescending to those making the unconventional selection. There is a massive difference between "Oh, you picked Barry Richards, that's an unconventional selection that I don't agree with because of the length of his Test career" and "Oh, you picked Barry Richards on the basis of 4 Tests and FC stats, how cute".

I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying - I'd personally take Hobbs and Hutton because they are proven, but would rate Richards above the likes of a Slater regardless of his lack of Test success - however the part I take issue with is dismissing another person's selection as "cute". It is somewhat semantic and pedantic, I will admit.