The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[bagapath]

I do believe border was a marginally better batsman than s.waugh. His record in West Indies at their peak underlines his skills as a batter.

 

[Red]

This seems like a stretch tbh.

I dont think it is a stretch, especially with regards to the WIs in that era. We'd been smashed and pummelled (as had every nation) for 15 years by Roberts, Holding, Garner, Croft, Marshall, Walsh, Ambrose and Bishop.

Especially coming from the Aussie team.

We're not talking about the Australians of the late 90s/early 2000s here. The 95 team wasn't a dominating force in world cricket yet. McGrath wasn't established yet and we lost our main quicks (McDermott and Fleming) pre tests.

On May 3, 1995, the great wall crashed at last. After 15 years and 29 series, world cricket's longest-lasting dynasty was overthrown by the relentless, underestimated Australians - the most distinguished run of triumphant success gone with the Windies. The last time West Indies lost a series was in March 1980, when Clive Lloyd's tourists lost to Geoff Howarth's New Zealanders. Since then, they had won 20 and drawn nine (including two one-off Tests). Against Australia, the West Indians had won seven and drawn one since their defeat in 1975-76. It was 1972-73 when the last visiting team, Ian Chappell's Australians, had won a series in the Caribbean.

Mark Taylor led Australia to victory by 2-1, despite losing all four tosses. They had other problems: two leading pace bowlers, Craig McDermott and Damien Fleming, missed the series after injuries; only two batsmen - the Waugh twins - averaged over 26; the Australians had been thumped 4-1 in the one-day games; and during the First Test, Australian coach Bob Simpson developed a blood clot in his left leg and was admitted to hospital.

Against all expectations, ball dominated bat in the Tests, despite under-strength or outdated attacks. The Australian bowlers who had been belted to all parts of the Caribbean in the one-day series somehow restricted West Indies to three totals below 200 and a best of 265 in six completed innings. The cricket was like arm-wrestling, with white knuckles tilted back and forth until the strain told, the weaker man snapped and his arm was crunched into the table. It was strike-or-be-struck-down from the opening minutes of the series, when West Indies lost three batsmen for six, to the final wicket on the fourth afternoon of the last match. Two tests were completed within three days and the winning margins were all landslides - ten wickets, nine wickets and an innings and 53 runs.

How did Australia do it? All discussion must start and finish with Steve Waugh, whose 429 runs at 107.25 represented the most courageous, passionate and decisive batting of his life. With his low-risk, keep-the-ball-along-the-ground game, Waugh scored 189 more than the next Australian - his brother, Mark - and 121 more than West Indies' most prolific batsman, Brain Lara. But his tour was laced with drama from the first day of the First Test, when he claimed a catch off Lara which, seemingly unbeknown to him, had touched the ground as he tumbled. As an unsavoury consequence, he was heckled every time he came to the crease, branded a cheat by local crowds, publicly chastised by Viv Richards and subjected to intimidatory phone calls in the small hours. In Trinidad, he had a verbal clash with Curtly Ambrose, who had to be restrained by captain Richie Richardson. During the final Test, he woke up to discover a security guard in search of some unsanctioned souvenirs. Weary but undeterred, he went in next morning to conjure one of the best innings by an Australian in decades, batting nearly ten hours for a maiden Test double-century. Every media critic in Australia had, at some stage, branded Steve Waugh gun-shy against short-pitched bowling. Yet at Kingston, he took more than six blows on the hands, arms and body; over the series, he absorbed more than 500 rib-rattlers by ducking or offering a straight defensive bat, sometimes with both feet six inches off the ground. Nineteen Australian wickets fell to the hook, but he refused to play the stroke, arguing it was too risky.

Wisden - The Australians in the West Indies, 1994-95

 

[honestbharani]

All I am doing is pointing out the irony of the Aussies standing up to some other cricket team's bullying. I dont think the Aussies under Border were any nicer than the bunches that came after them.

 

[Red]

All I am doing is pointing out the irony of the Aussies standing up to some other cricket team's bullying. I dont think the Aussies under Border were any nicer than the bunches that came after them.

Mate, we were pathetic throughout the entire 80s really. Maybe I shouldn't have said bullying, maybe I should have said intimidation. Either way, the WIs had pretty much rolled everyone for about 15 years before this series.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah.. to me sledging and abusing opponents is bullying. Intimidation is a different beast. I get you. Got no problems with what you meant.

 

[the big bambino]

I doubt Waugh was thinking what Red Hill was saying during that incident. He was annoyed and told Ambrose to **** off. That's basically it.

understandable and believable in the context of waughs personality and how it was formed in adversity. His response to ambrose is consistent with that attitude.

 

[ImpatientLime]

Waugh bouncing Viv and having that interaction with Ambrose was more than being a tool or trying to be a hero. Waugh really understood how to play into the psyches of his opponents and most things he did were calculated and done for a reason. Essentially he was saying (from an Australian perspective) you guys have bullied teams for the last 15 years, and I'm drawing a line in the sand.

You just proved my point.

Its one bloke getting angry and another bloke telling him to **** off. There are plenty of batsman who would have done the exact same in that situation.

The real 'line in the sand' or psychological blow or whatever Hollywood nonsense you want to label it with was the innings he went onto play.

 

[OverratedSanity]

You just proved my point.

Its one bloke getting angry and another bloke telling him to **** off. There are plenty of batsman who would have done the exact same in that situation.

The real 'line in the sand' or psychological blow or whatever Hollywood nonsense you want to label it with was the innings he went onto play.

Quite.

Also, lots of people actually think this incident happened during the match winning 200 he played during the deciding test. Such a widespread myth. It happened in the 3rd test, which Australia actually lost, with Ambrose taking 9 wickets and killing Australia in both innings. So, really his "standing up" to Curtly here, didn't actually accomplish anything tangible except of course being extremely compelling and entertaining to watch

 

[bagapath]

2nd Test: West Indies v Australia at Port of Spain, Mar 16-21, 1984 | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

What border did in this test match takes more courage than telling a bowler to "**** off"

 

[mr_mister]

nah, it was a turning point in the series. west indies would have lost a series soon enough with that rapidly depleting side, but still this was great. i can see how some might think its corny and I dont agree with everything Steve did(bit of a nerd IMO) but I still love this moment

 

[mr_mister]

Quite.

Also, lots of people actually think this incident happened during the match winning 200 he played during the deciding test. Such a widespread myth. It happened in the 3rd test, which Australia actually lost, with Ambrose taking 9 wickets and killing Australia in both innings. So, really his "standing up" to Curtly here, didn't actually accomplish anything tangible except of course being extremely compelling and entertaining to watch

Steve still played a memorable, unbeaten innings. The second in a row where he scored 60 odd not out in tough conditions. He was just getting ready and warmed up for his masterpiece, the 200 to win the series. Laying the foundations for it.

It was the series that elevated Steve Waugh from great bat to ATG bat IMO

 

[honestbharani]

If we really saying that Waugh's 60 showed he was standing up to bullies, we should maybe say the same thing about Sourav's 40 odd in the Eden test 2nd innings.



EDIT: Before anyone loses their ****, I am obviously joking. Seriously, I do think there is a lot of urban legend about this Waugh/Ambrose story but hey, it made for compelling video and a great photo. That's just how history works, I suppose.

 

[Red]

Quite.

Also, lots of people actually think this incident happened during the match winning 200 he played during the deciding test. Such a widespread myth. It happened in the 3rd test, which Australia actually lost, with Ambrose taking 9 wickets and killing Australia in both innings. So, really his "standing up" to Curtly here, didn't actually accomplish anything tangible except of course being extremely compelling and entertaining to watch

I think it accomplished plenty. The attitude he bought into the team permeated right thru to the glory years of his captaincy.

 

[stephen]

Players like Waugh and Border ate the kind of guys you'd want batting for your life. They were seriously mentally tough.

England needed someone like that on their last ashes tour to Australia to stand up to Johnson and Harris but alas, the English were all mentally weak on that tour.

 

[stephen]

And the 1995 West Indies side was a really good cricket team. They had Ambrose, Walsh and Bishop was in and out of the side (Bishop was a largely forgotten all time great bowler who sadly missed a lot of cricket to injury). They also had Lara and a young Chanderpaul to bat for them. They were not a side lacking talent. Everyone was surprised that Australia beat them.

The West Indies didn't fall off a cliff until the retirement of Ambrose and Walsh. Since then their bowling attack has been utterly awful. Since the retirements of Lara and Chanderpaul their batting has been woeful too.

 

[AndrewB]

I don't know about "really good" - their next series was a draw with England. (And Chanderpaul, incidentally, missed the 1994-5 series). It was surprising that they lost largely because they were at home - they had, after all, come within 2 runs of losing in Australia a couple of years earlier.

 

[Burgey]

Remembering back to 1995, I think when Australia left for the Windies there was a genuine belief they would win. But once Fleming and McDermott got hurt that expectation went way down - they ended up with Brendan Julian opening the bowling ffs (and he bowled really well tbf). Australia's batting looked better than the Windies on paper for the first time in forever, and there were a number of blokes like Slats, Blewy, McGrath and Warne who weren't massively scarred by getting belted by the Windies over a long period of time.

The massive difference in the series (S Waugh aside) was really how well Australia bowled as a unit. Reiffel, Julian, McGrath, Warne were outstanding. Was a great series. Hectic stuff.

 

[Red]

With Ireland and Afghanistan in with test status, that makes 12 test playing nations. What's the best ATG test XII you can make if you have to use one player from each nation?

It's probably easier to pick the best players from the weaker nations first. That means Shakib goes in from Bangladesh. From Afghanistan we take the batsman Rahmat Shah, and from Scotland, Kyle Coetzer.

Moving through, the next obvious pick is Hadlee from NZ. While Crowe and Williamson and some other older day batsmen might stake a claim, Hadlee is as good a quick as ever had been, and he adds all-round depth to the XII.

Obviously from Australia we will take Bradman, which is a real no brainer. Seems obvious to take one of the great English openers as that's what they produce best. Len Hutton is my choice but it could be Hobbs.

Imran or Wasim from Pakistan seem logical, either would be fine. In this scenario, I'll have Imran.

So far:

Hutton
Koetzer
Bradman
-
-
-
Imran
Shakib
Hadlee
-
-


Garry Sobers seems the next logical choice. So he slots in to the line up as a batting AR. In order to complete the bowling attack, I'll take Steyn from SA, giving us:

Hutton
Koetzer
Bradman
-
Sobers
-
-
Imran
Shakib
Hadlee
Steyn

At this point it seems logical to pick Andy Flower from Zim at #5 and to keep, and Sachin from India to complete the batting line up, while picking Murali (SL) as the first choice spinner to complete the bowling attack:




Hutton
Koetzer
Bradman
Tendulkar
Flower +
Sobers
Imran
Shakib
Hadlee
Steyn
Murali
12th - Shah

 

[Prince EWS]

With Ireland and Afghanistan in with test status, that makes 12 test playing nations. What's the best ATG test XII you can make if you have to use one player from each nation?

It's probably easier to pick the best players from the weaker nations first. That means Shakib goes in from Bangladesh. From Afghanistan we take the batsman Rahmat Shah, and from Scotland, Kyle Coetzer.

Why pick from Scotland though?

 

[honestbharani]

Why pick from Scotland though?

Coz its Friday night And RH thinks Scotland and Ireland are one and the same.