The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Second Spitter]

Couldn't hit it off the square though. Mr no tons Laird was what Homer Simpson was to boxing. Just good at taking hits to the body and tiring the opposition out


And no I haven't seen any footage of him play

An unworthy reputation considering he has two Supertest tons against the Windies. That said, his FC record reads pretty ordinary.

On a related point, can we safely say at this point the ICC will never recognise WSC records?

 

[Prince EWS]

They're obviously never going to be recognised as Tests (and nor should they be), but I still wouldn't be surprised if they were retrospectively given First Class status down the line.

 

[morgieb]

Australia vs West Indies 1979

Greenidge
Haynes
Richards
G Chappell
Border (c)
Hughes
Murray (wk)
Roberts
Garner
Holding
Lillee

12th: Thompson

No Lloyd or Marsh?

 

[Red]

If test number 1768. is recognised as a test, I dont see why WSC shouldn't be.

 

[Second Spitter]

I'm with you, and I still regard Lillee as the first to 400 Test wickets.

 

[marc71178]

If test number 1768. is recognised as a test, I dont see why WSC shouldn't be.

One was organised officially, the other was effectively a rebel series therefore one is far more deserving than the other.

 

[AndrewB]

An unworthy reputation considering he has two Supertest tons against the Windies.

His WSC/Test careers make a curious contrast: 3 hundreds in 13 WSC Supertests but an average of only 25, against 0 hundreds in 21 Tests but an average of 35.

 

[fredfertang]

They're obviously never going to be recognised as Tests (and nor should they be), but I still wouldn't be surprised if they were retrospectively given First Class status down the line.

Can't see it myself, but it is interesting that no one these days forgets about WSC when talking about players of that era, and I see Gideon Haigh's long out of print 'The Cricket War' has just been re-released - does anyone know whether it's a straight reprint or a genuine second edition?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Can't see it myself, but it is interesting that no one these days forgets about WSC when talking about players of that era, and I see Gideon Haigh's long out of print 'The Cricket War' has just been re-released - does anyone know whether it's a straight reprint or a genuine second edition?

I haven't physically seen a copy, but according to abebooks it has extra photographs and a new introduction by the author.

 

[srbhkshk]

Team with best batting averages (at least 3000 runs - (1-5), 2000- (6-7), 1000-(8-9), 500(10-11)) -

H Sutcliffe -- 61.10
L Hutton -- 56.47
D Bradman -- 103.63
E Weekes -- 63.62
AB DeVilliers -- 61.42
S Chanderpaul -- 64.82
A Gilchrist -- 46.44
D Vettori -- 39.76
S Broad (It was Vettori again, but I don't want to play 2 of him.) -- 20.93
D Steyn (Only one) -- 12.55
M Muralidharan (Funnily enough, only 1 person has made more than 500 at 10, but there are 3 at 11) -- 11.32


Vettori and Broad the slight weak links, but fair team otherwise.

 

[AndrewB]

Sutcliffe and Hutton are the top two if you count "opener" as a batting position; fwiw if you actually pick the best averaging batsmen at #1 and #2 in the line-up you'd pick Hobbs (58.14) at 1 and Sutcliffe (63.26).

Out of curiosity I tried merging other batting positions; you get (top averages for 3000+ runs):

3/4: Bradman, Smith
3/4/5: Bradman, Smith, Sobers
3/4/5/6: Bradman, Smith, Sobers, Walcott

4/5: Smith, Root
4/5/6: Root, Smith, Chappell
4/5/6/7: Root, Smith, Weekes, Sobers

5/6: Clarke, Chanderpaul
5/6/7: Clarke, Chanderpaul. Sobers
6/7: Sobers, Laxman (or Chanderpaul, Sobers if you drop the requirement to 2000 runs)

 

[oblongballs]

I like to see Holding recognised because he's often overlooked. I can't say the same for Garner, especially with Ambrose available.

Holding was one of the greats, I can't imagine a West Indies XI without him.

As for Garner, he edges it compared to AMbrose for me. Garner had more about his bowling, seemed to be more lethal in his spells, while AMbrose was consistency personified. I guessi ts based on what one likes. Both were great and deserve a mention.

 

[oblongballs]

I like to see Holding recognised because he's often overlooked. I can't say the same for Garner, especially with Ambrose available.

Almost picks itself that side - only thing I'd be tempted to do is include Sarfraz instead of Wasim Bari and then pick Fazal instead of Yousuf - would be a bit of a tail, but with that attack would that really matter?

Ah Fazal Mahmood. My father was fond of him and saw his great spell on the England tour. I recently included him in an Asian XI.

Yousuf for me is one of the most gifted and all round batsmen of the 21st century and the one who seems to be overlooked far too often. the man doesnt seem to get test or ODI mentions and yet was better than many of his contemporaries when it came to performing in those formats.

 

[bagapath]

From the 2001 kolkata test... And the man of the match doesn't get selected

Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Tendulkar
Dravid
S.Waugh ©
Gilchrist +
Warne
Harbhajan
Gillespie
McGrath

 

[Second Spitter]

Holding was one of the greats, I can't imagine a West Indies XI without him.

As for Garner, he edges it compared to AMbrose for me. Garner had more about his bowling, seemed to be more lethal in his spells, while AMbrose was consistency personified. I guessi ts based on what one likes. Both were great and deserve a mention.

It's nice to see that nobody in the Holding v. Garner debate lets objective criteria, like those pesky stats get in the way of their selection decision.

 

[stephen]

No Lloyd or Marsh?

I was specifically looking at the Brisbane test. The Melbourne test had Lloyd playing so he would slot in at 6.

I was thinking of the wrong Murray when I included him in the XI. So Marsh gets in ahead of him.

Greenidge
Haynes
Richards
Chappell G
Border (c)
Lloyd
Marsh (w/k)
Roberts
Garner
Holding
Lillee

12th: Croft (Thompson didn't play in Melbourne)

That's a mighty fine team and would be better than any other team from any period (sans-Bradman).

 

[Second Spitter]

WI XI (All-Time)
Greenidge
Haynes
Lara
Richards
Chanderpaul
Sobers (c)
Dujon (wk)
Marshall
Holding
Ambrose
Garner

12th man: Harper
--------------------------
Notes:
Hard to leave Lloyd out but Chanderpaul was a machine on considerably shittier teams.
Hard to leave Gibbs out but there's enough spin in Sobers and Richards. On a turner he comes in for Holding

 

[jimmy101]

As much as I love Chanders I'd have Weekes, Worrell, Walcott, Lloyd & Headley ahead of him any day.

Roger Harper is a good choice for 12th man, absolute gun in the field.

 

[oblongballs]

Before I get onto an Indian XI and the rest of the lesser test sides I wondered what an all time world T20 XI would look like. It is the newest format where players do not have to be great to make an impact.

This is something I came up with:

1. C. Gayle WI
2. B. McCullum NZ c/wk
3. V. Kohli IND
4. ABD SA
5. Y. Singh IND
6. S. Watson AUS
7. S. Afridi PAK
8. D. Sammy WI
9. U. Gul PAK
10. S. Ajmal PAK
11. L. Malinga SL

As most T20 sides would like it, there is plenty of flexibility with the batting order and at least 5 players that can bat and bowl.

 

[jimmy101]

ATG NZ XI

Glenn Turner
Bert Sutcliffe
Kane Williamson
Martin Crowe
Stephen Fleming
Brendon McCullum+
Chris Cairns
Richard Hadlee
Daniel Vettori
Jack Cowie
Shane Bond

12th: John R Reid