The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[bagapath]

washbrook averaged 43 as opener when he retired in 1951, which was a very good average at the time and, among english openers, it was below only hutton, sutcliffe and hobbs. five years later, when he was a selector, he had to put on the pads and play three more tests which brought down his average by 2 points. so i would say even statistically he is placed among the very best of his era. cowdrey was not a regular opener. when you go for these kind of dream teams, i am not too comfortable compromising on a specialist position and settling for a makeshift option.

 

[watson]

I tend to think picking someone just because someone else in his side was also a good player is rather silly, tbh.

If you value the skill of running between the wickets, or opening batsman complementing eachother with respect to temperment and style then picking an established opening pair is probably not a silly idea. That is, two defensive opening batsman stalling an innings by blocking-out over after over and then failing to take quick singles to move the score along is rarely beneficial to the team's cause.

Also, opening an innings against the likes of Lindwall and Miller, or Holding and Roberts is a harrowing experience for obvious reasons. I remember watching a documentary a while ago that showed Rick McCosker throwing-up in the dressing room before going out to face Michael Holding et al with the new ball. Therefore, it is helpful from a morale point of view if there is a firm amount of trust and mateship between the opening batsman. This is more likely with established opening pairs who have a mutual respect for eachother.

 

[Dan]

There are obvious intangible benefits to it, yes. But at the end of the day, who cares about the partnership of Opener A and Opener B if Opener X is far more likely to make runs than Opener B?

If we scale it down to Test level, it looks pretty ludicrous tbh. Does England pick Tom Westley to open the batting, just because he partners Cook at Essex? Should Australia have insisted on picking a Hughes/Warner opening combination because they worked together well at Shield level?

Not to mention, Opener A and Opener X could develop to be a better (or just as good) partnership anyway, it's just that they hadn't previously got the opportunity. I mean, in 2000 who would have called Hayden/Langer as an ATG opening partnership? In 2007, who would have expected that the mid-term successors to Hayden/Langer would be Shane Watson and Simon Katich, who themselves formed a pretty cohesive combination?

You never know until you put them together and try.

 

[watson]

There are obvious intangible benefits to it, yes. But at the end of the day, who cares about the partnership of Opener A and Opener B if Opener X is far more likely to make runs than Opener B?

If we scale it down to Test level, it looks pretty ludicrous tbh. Does England pick Tom Westley to open the batting, just because he partners Cook at Essex? Should Australia have insisted on picking a Hughes/Warner opening combination because they worked together well at Shield level?

Not to mention, Opener A and Opener X could develop to be a better (or just as good) partnership anyway, it's just that they hadn't previously got the opportunity. I mean, in 2000 who would have called Hayden/Langer as an ATG opening partnership? In 2007, who would have expected that the mid-term successors to Hayden/Langer would be Shane Watson and Simon Katich, who themselves formed a pretty cohesive combination?

You never know until you put them together and try.

I agree as a general principle, but picking an ATG team is different as we always pick very good batsman - not mugs. Therefore, you might want to select an established partner to another opener if all things are equal and you can't otherwise decide between 2-3 possible candidates. Think of it as a tiebbreaker.

 

[the big bambino]

AWTA

Also never quite sure whether Bowes was better than Farnes or not.

I think Bowes is probably the era's most under rated bowler. I can't recall the poster who made the good observation that some bowlers look as fast as they run in like Brett Lee. But others surprise the batsman bcos their demeanour doesn't appear as fearsome. If there is one bowler in test history that would surprise a batsman in such a way it would be Bowes, whose bookish appearance and shambolic run up probably lulled batsmen into a reflexive contempt. Might even partially account for the good number of victims he brained.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

There are obvious intangible benefits to it, yes. But at the end of the day, who cares about the partnership of Opener A and Opener B if Opener X is far more likely to make runs than Opener B?

If we scale it down to Test level, it looks pretty ludicrous tbh. Does England pick Tom Westley to open the batting, just because he partners Cook at Essex? Should Australia have insisted on picking a Hughes/Warner opening combination because they worked together well at Shield level?

Not to mention, Opener A and Opener X could develop to be a better (or just as good) partnership anyway, it's just that they hadn't previously got the opportunity. I mean, in 2000 who would have called Hayden/Langer as an ATG opening partnership? In 2007, who would have expected that the mid-term successors to Hayden/Langer would be Shane Watson and Simon Katich, who themselves formed a pretty cohesive combination?

You never know until you put them together and try.

I'm gonna guess Pup Clarke wouldn't have called Katich and anyone a norning pair.
Regardless of that I take ur point because those two were a great transition into the future for Australia.

 

[harsh.ag]

Today's XI:

Barry
Viv

Don
W G
Sobers

Miller
Gilly

Marshall
Warne
Steyn
Murali

Hell yeah! I know "the order is messed up" and "better balance required". Who cares? Love this team

 

[OverratedSanity]

The two Richards opening would be too awesome for words

 

[Red]

Todays XI from me

Barry Richards
Brian Lara
Don Bradman
Graham Pollock
Victor Trumper
Garry Sobers
Adam Gilchrist
Wasim Akram
Shane Warne
Dennis Lillee
Curtly Ambrose


Boss.

 

[Flametree]

I'm pleased to see my selections have incited interest and proved worthy of discussion.
I don't see an imbalance in the bowling options of the first post war team. England generally played two spinners in the 1950s and were the most successful side of the decade. Remember the game played in the decades following the war was different to modern cricket, not least because of the presence of wet wickets. If you want to add some pace to the side, I would prefer the selection of Tyson over Bedser, but the Surrey man led the England attack successfully for a much longer period.
......

I've already expressed my view on the bowling options of the first Post War team. In my opinion, your views are blinkered by using modern bowling conditions to select a team from two generations ago.

Yes, England played two spinners in a lot of matches through that era but in the 50s they had Trevor Bailey and / or Bill Edrich in their top 6, and in the 60's they had Barry Knight, Basil D'Oliveira and occasionally Brian Close. With useful allrounder spinners like David Allen, Ray Illingworth, Fred Titmus (plus John Mortimore somehow played 9 tests up against that competition for places), and Parks picked for his batting, they could often squeeze 3 seamers and 2 spinners into sides. I think it was only on seriously turning tracks they went with 2+2 plus someone like Dexter.

In the 1965 summer they played without a recognised allrounder for all 6 tests against NZ and South Africa. In 5 of those 6 tests they picked three seamers (out of Trueman, Snow, Cartwright, Rumsey, Larter, Higgs, Statham, Brown - selectors were busy!) and played Titmus as sole spinner. Bob Barber was the 5th bowler. Only once, at Nottingham, did they play two spinners, and John Edrich got 300 first up so they must have seen a flat track (Dexter didn't play the match, so there was no seam back-up at all).

 

[Red]

Australia, with players only being in one era each....


Pre WWI Test Era

Warren Bardsley
Charles Kellaway
Clem Hill
Victor Trumper
Warwick Armstrong
Monty Noble
Jack Blackham
Hugh Trumble
CTB Turner
Fred Spofforth
JJ Ferris

Inter War

Bill Woodful
Herbie Collins
Don Bradman
Stan McCabe
Bill Ponsford
Charlie Macartney
Jack Gregory
Bert Oldfield
Clarrie Grimmett
Ted McDonald
Bill O'Reilly


Post War to 1969

Bill Lawry
Arthur Morris
Neil Harvey
Lindsay Hassett
Keith Miller
Bob Simpson
Richie Benaud
Alan Davidson
Ray Lindwall
Wally Grout
Bill Johnstone

1970 to 1985

Ian Redpath
Keith Stackpole
Ian Chappell
Greg Chappell
Allan Border
Doug Walters
Rod Marsh
Ashley Mallett
Dennis Lillee
Rodney Hogg
Jeff Thomson

1985-1999

Mark Taylor
Michael Slater
David Boon
Mark Waugh
Steve Waugh
Dean Jones
Ian Healy
Shane Warne
Merv Hughes
Craig McDermott
Glenn McGrath


21st Century

Matt Hayden
Justin Langer
Ricky Ponting
Damian Martyn
Mike Hussey
Michael Clarke
Adam Gilchrist
Mitchell Johnson
Jason Gillespie
Ryan Harris
Stuart MacGill

 

[ankitj]

Don't know if this has been done, world XI for two decades between 1990 and 2010:

Matthew Hayden
Greame Smith
Ricky Ponting (c)
Sachin Tendulkar
Brian Lara
Jacques Kallis
Adam Gilchrist (wk)
Shane Warne
Curtly Ambrose
Muttiah Muralitharan
Glenn McGrath

12th man: Wasim Akram

A very, very formidable team, especially the bowling with the variety on offer. Can any other XI from a two decade period beat this? How does one formed from preceeding two decades compare:

Sunil Gavaskar
Gordon Greenidge
Greg Chappell
Viv Richards
Javed Miandad
Allan Border
Alan Knott (wk)
Imran Khan (c)
Richard Hadlee
Malcolm Marshall
Derek Underwood

12th man: Ian Botham

Very strong team again, but lacks spinners of the class of Murali and Warne. Also lacks the wicketkeeper batsman of Gilchrist class but that is probably made up for by presence of Imran and Hadlee in lower order.

 

[Howe_zat]

45 to 65

Hutton
Morris
Weekes
Compton
Harvey
Sobers
Walcott
Miller
Lindwall
Trueman
Laker

 

[Flem274*]

Family XI NZ

-
- Geoff Howarth
- Walter Hadlee
- Martin Crowe (c)
- Jeff Crowe
- Chris Cairns
-
- Richard Hadlee
- Lance Cairns
- Dayle Hadlee
- Hedley Howarth

Need an opener and a keeper

Family XI Australia

- Geoff Marsh
- Shaun Marsh
- Ian Chappell
- Greg Chappell
- Mark Waugh
- Steve Waugh (c)
-
- Trevor Chappell
-
-
-

Aussie one was from the top of my head. Any obvious omissions?

 

[Howe_zat]

Lee, Lee

 

[Flem274*]

Feels like cheating since Slee didn't play a test.

 

[Prince EWS]

Bannermans

 

[harsh.ag]

Nov 21, 2013 - Jan 5, 2013

Warner
Rogers
Watson
Clarke
Smith
Bailey
Haddin
Johnson
Siddle
Harris
Lyon

 

[Howe_zat]

Hugh and John Trumble both played tests, as did Ritchie and John Benaud. Greg Campbell who played 4 Tests in 1989-90 was Ricky Ponting's uncle.

Syd Gregory and Jack Gregory is probably the best pair I could find.

Edit: Andrew Hilditch is the son-in-law of Bob Simpson

 

[The Sean]

Yeah, the Bannermans and the Gregorys were my first thoughts.

Also, Vic Richardson.