vcs
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Really used to like Jadeja, He was dead to me after the match-fixing scandal though. Same with Azhar. But I'd agree that Jadeja > Raina.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread
- Thread starter Red
- Start date
Pap Finn Keighl
International Debutant
Why not? His avg and strike rate seems ganguleseque for the era, also if you check 2nd half of his career he was averaging 45 at close to 70.
Chrish
International Debutant
Gavaskar has no place in ODI side.Let's not be ridiculous now.
Anyways, Ganguly's struggle against short ball from Australians is still fresh in my mind. I genuinely struggle to think which player is most appropriate to partner Sachin. Would it be Dhawan or Sehwag?
Anyways, Ganguly's struggle against short ball from Australians is still fresh in my mind. I genuinely struggle to think which player is most appropriate to partner Sachin. Would it be Dhawan or Sehwag?
Pap Finn Keighl
International Debutant
What if we devide Gavaskar career in to two halves?
First half < Sehwag, Ganguly
2nd half > Sehwag, Ganguly
So what was the reason behind under performance in the first half?
We dont know for sure, but its safe to assume he didnt consider the new format seriously and huge intervals between the matches were not helping also. But all changed after 1983 WC i think. India Started playing odis regularly, and the format gained popularity and respect.
Ganguly or Sehwag had no such problems.. I am sure, if sunny was a 90s or 00s player... There wont be arguments over opening pair.
So i am ready to excuse his initial hiccups and take risk of including him in the 11.
45 avg in 80s, fastest 100.. not bad.
Last edited:
I've picked 2 teams. A 4 best bowlers team, and a team that compromises very slightly on the bowling quality to shore up the batting. The allrounders play an extra bowler to make both teams more comparable across both disciplines. Which is stronger?
Hobbs
Hutton
Bradman
Viv
Tendulkar
Sobers
Gilchrist
Marshall
Steyn
Murali
Mcgrath
Hobbs
Hutton
Bradman
Viv
Sobers
Gilchrist
Procter
Imran
Hadlee
Warne
Marshall
Hobbs
Hutton
Bradman
Viv
Tendulkar
Sobers
Gilchrist
Marshall
Steyn
Murali
Mcgrath
Hobbs
Hutton
Bradman
Viv
Sobers
Gilchrist
Procter
Imran
Hadlee
Warne
Marshall
Last edited:
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Hmm. I'd have Hadlee over Steyn anyway. I
also think Miller over Procter (slot Miller in at 5 and slide Sobers and Gilchrist back to their real positions).
I daresay that the second side you've picked would probably lose more often on juicy decks and win/ draw more often on roads.
All rounders and tail end batsmen tend to perform far better in easier circumstances while genuine batsmen tend to adapt better to difficult circumstances, particularly the top class batsmen.
Hadlee and Steyn are a bit of a toss up for third best quick ever in my mind. Hadlee would be my second pick after Marshall if I was trying to construct the strongest team, but McGrath and Hadlee are too similar in bowling styles, so Steyn gets the nod. If you aren't a big Steyn fan, he can be subbed out for just about any ATG bowler, I just wouldn't want it to be Hadlee if trying to pick the strongest bowling lineup.
Leaving Miller out is a knock-on effect from Imran. I think teams should be picked on their average career, not at the best. Imran is an atg fast bowler, but due to his changing career roles, you can't really consider average career for him. In an ATG side, I'd consider it fair to say if picking Imran the side should be picked to play 88 matches, and Imran plays a proportion representing his various stages of career quality.
I consider Miller very balanced, but if anything to be, a batting allrounder who overachieved with the ball and under achieved with the bat. And he only picked up around 3 wickets a game. He would bring perfect balance to the side with an average career Imran, but with a representative career Imran, the first side is going to be clearly ahead in the bowling department in too high a proportion of matches, which makes the exercise less interesting. It also makes the second side a definitely stonger batting unit in my mind, which is again less interesting.
On the tail overperforming in tricky circumstances (pitch conditions or quality of bowlers) and underperforming in tricky ones, I tend to agree, and think this team should mostly be picked with tricky ones in mind. However, the second tail is so much stronger that I consider the batting stengths of the teams very comparable anyway.
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
Agree with your sentiment here. Miller was used very sparingly as a bowler, and was mostly used as a strike weapon. During the 48 Ashes Miller only bowled 138 overs compared with Lindwall (222), Johnston (309) and Toshack (173). Bradman preferred to let Jonhston, Toshack and Johnson do the grunt work while Lindwall and Miller (Miller moreso) were used to strike.
I do think that had Miller not needed to bowl at all, his test batting average would have been in the mid 40s rather than the late 30s.
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Your reasoning is sound RE: Steyn and Hadlee.
One could easily argue to play then both and drop McGrath even if McGrath was marginally ahead as a bowler (which at that level is more debatable than we usually give credit for).
Imran could be the best quick ever based on his peak but when he was that good with the ball he was weaker with the bat. I think his batting average flatters him tbh but his bowling average under - sells him.
I'm more coming around to the idea these days that a stronger tail is more important for an AT side than pure bowling.
I mean the difference statistically between some of these ATG quick bowlers could literally be playing on an extra road or two over the course of their career.
One could easily argue to play then both and drop McGrath even if McGrath was marginally ahead as a bowler (which at that level is more debatable than we usually give credit for).
Imran could be the best quick ever based on his peak but when he was that good with the ball he was weaker with the bat. I think his batting average flatters him tbh but his bowling average under - sells him.
I'm more coming around to the idea these days that a stronger tail is more important for an AT side than pure bowling.
I mean the difference statistically between some of these ATG quick bowlers could literally be playing on an extra road or two over the course of their career.
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Are McGrath and Hadlee too similar in style? Frankly I'd say that Hadlee and Steyn are much more similar than Hadlee and McGrath. Skiddy outswing bowlers of moderate height. Maybe Hadlee used the seam a bit more at times, but he's far from McGrath's height-and-bounce style.
By ATG standards, Steyn is mostly a one trick pony. He's so good because he picked the best trick,and executes it better than anyone else. Fast, full, skiddy, big outswing with the ability to move the ball later than anyone else on conventional swing.
Although Hadlee used the outswinger a lot, he had a lot of tricks. He didn't have Mcgrath levels of height and bounce (which is why I think McGrath was a touch better, despite Hadlee being otherwise ahead), but he got reasonable bounce, especially when he was quicker. I think part of the perception on hadlee's lack of bounce vs McGrath comes from the decks they played on. I reckon McGrath operated almost exclusively as a good length bowler, Steyn was mostly a full length bowler, but Hadlee could switch between the two- on YouTube a lot of his wickets seem to show deliveries more spectacular Steyn type of deliveries, but they don't show how much time he spent nagging away from corridor length deliveries McGrath style.
Later career ATGs tend to converge to the same point to an extent though. Everyone eventually becomes a 130s nagger.
No real preference there. Sachin/Hammond/Pollock/Chappell would all make my team depending on what day I'm doing it on, and a couple others would also make it from time to time.
Neither of these bowling lineups were particlarly intended to be the best team. It was more an exersize in comparing the very best bowlers to a set of ATG bowlers who can bat.
The quality of the tail is definitely a major consideration for me. McGrath I consider the second best bowler ever, but it would be a cold day in hell before I put him an ATG lineup ahead of Hadlee. I think the difference in bowling quality is so negligible that I'd likely pick Hadlee if he averaged 15 with the bat.
Marshall is my number one bowler and handy with the bat, so he walks into my team.
I think Murali is a bit better than Warne, but I'd go 50/50 in picking them depending on the rest of the lineup and how I'm feeling that day.
Assuming a 4 man attack with Sobers, which is probably the route I'd want to go, the last spot is tricky. Imran is the first name in mind if you consider the strength of the tail. I think his bowling average is fair, but his batting average definitely flatters him a bit. Even with a mid 20s batting average he would walk into my team if condidered as a peak player or on average career. But considering that he spent so much of his career as a bits and pieces medium pacer/part timer/specialist bat leave me with some compunctions about selecting him in a 4 man attack. This said, there aren't really any other bowlers besides these 3 I can think of who can hold a bat that I think of as absolutely top class, and I wouldn't play a notably worse bowler to boost the batting, especially when I'm already picking other bowlers who can bat.
Assuming the motivation was there, yes. I have a feeling Miller's bowling physically didn't affect his batting much, but meant he took it less seriously on and off pitch.
