The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[stephen]

In looking over Pollock's career, I was not aware how much playing against Australia affected his bowling statistics. Averaging almost 37 against Australia with the ball, they're the only country he averaged higher than 24 against. When you take Australia out of his career stats his overall average drops by 2 and he averages under 29 in every country. I would guess that the reason Australia did so well against him is that he was so similar in style to McGrath and the Aussie batsmen of the era got to practice against McGrath in the nets all the time. Also having similar conditions and the best batting lineup in the world probably helped.

 

[bagapath]

A team made up of...

batsmen averaging between 40 and 45
bowlers averaging 27 and 32
Wk averaging 3 dismissals per match and under 35 with the bat
trying to post 350+ total per innings and take 18 wickets on average every match
From the last 40 years

Gordon Greenidge
Graham Gooch
Richie Richardson
Martin Crowe
David Gower
Tony Greig (c)
Jeff Dujon (wk)
Kapil Dev
Mitchel Johnson
Saqlain Mushtaq
Jeff Thomson

 

[trundler]

A team made up of...

batsmen averaging between 40 and 45
bowlers averaging 27 and 32
Wk averaging 3 dismissals per match and under 35 with the bat
trying to post 350+ total per innings and take 18 wickets on average every match
From the last 40 years

Gordon Greenidge
Graham Gooch
Richie Richardson
Martin Crowe
David Gower
Tony Greig (c)
Jeff Dujon (wk)
Kapil Dev
Mitchel Johnson
Saqlain Mushtaq
Jeff Thomson

Pretty awesome line-up. I'd have Benaud as the spinner instead of Saqlaid but he isn't from the last 40 years. Also, glad to see Crowe in an XI. Great player that gets overlooked

 

[Red]

I get the point of the exercise, and it's an interesting one, I just think Dev fails to meet the criteria. To call him an elite bowler is a stretch. I'm not even sure he'd even be sure of a consitent place in the current Indian team if you didn't factor his batting in.

Sorry, that's completely ridiculous.

 

[Red]

My ATG batting tail is:

Miller (batting 5)
Sobers (batting 6)
Gilchrist
Imran
Hadlee
Pollock
Warne

If you're going to put Miller into your top 6 somewhere, surely the reason you'd do it in an ATG scenario is to allow you to play two elite spinners?

 

[Bolo]

Sorry, that's completely ridiculous.

No. It would be ridiculous to assume you know with certainty that India would change their selection policy to suit a single bowler. They have far more bowlers who are viable options as per conditions then they have bowling slots. Hence they base selection on conditions. You might be justified in believing he's a better all condition bowler than anyone else (too early in the career of most of them to be sure tbf though), but to assume he's better in every set of conditions would just be wrong.

 

[Red]

No. It would be ridiculous to assume you know with certainty that India would change their selection policy to suit a single bowler. They have far more bowlers who are viable options as per conditions then they have bowling slots. Hence they base selection on conditions. You might be justified in believing he's a better all condition bowler than anyone else (too early in the career of most of them to be sure tbf though), but to assume he's better in every set of conditions would just be wrong.

You said "I'm not even sure he'd even be sure of a consistent place in the current Indian team if you didn't factor his batting in."

Are you honestly trying to say you think he wouldn't at the very least displace one of Ishant, Yadav or Pandya? Lol. He'd be first selected over any of them and over any Indian paceman ever.

I dont think Kapil is anywhere near the greatest, but he was great, and the amount of disrespect you're giving him is laughable.

 

[Slifer]

In looking over Pollock's career, I was not aware how much playing against Australia affected his bowling statistics. Averaging almost 37 against Australia with the ball, they're the only country he averaged higher than 24 against. When you take Australia out of his career stats his overall average drops by 2 and he averages under 29 in every country. I would guess that the reason Australia did so well against him is that he was so similar in style to McGrath and the Aussie batsmen of the era got to practice against McGrath in the nets all the time. Also having similar conditions and the best batting lineup in the world probably helped.

With the exception of Ambrose, most great fast bowlers of the 90s tended to struggle vs Australia relatively to their overall stats. It's for that reason that imo, Australia and not the Sc is the true test for non aussie Pacers.

 

[Bolo]

You said "I'm not even sure he'd even be sure of a consistent place in the current Indian team if you didn't factor his batting in."

Are you honestly trying to say you think he wouldn't at the very least displace one of Ishant, Yadav or Pandya? Lol. He'd be first selected over any of them and over any Indian paceman ever.

I dont think Kapil is anywhere near the greatest, but he was great, and the amount of disrespect you're giving him is laughable.

Wrong selection of players. Of course he a better bowler than them. Pandya is a batting allrounder. The other two don't always make the team- they are selected according to conditions.

As are better bowlers like Shami, Brumah, and Kumar who are a lot more comparable to Dev in quality, but don't always make the team themselves.

With 6+ pace options and sometimes only 2 spots available, to think that Kapil would be guaranteed a spot consistently as a bowler is beyond speculative. Every bowler offers something different and the recent Indian policy of horses for courses has resulted in all getting a game. Every one of these bowlers does certain things better than him.

It is not disrespectful to Kapil's to compare his bowling unfavourably to a collection of the best bowlers in history. It is a simple statement of fact. I seriously doubt you believe he's up there with peak Botham, Imran, or Warne.

 

[Red]

It doesn't matter if he's up there with peak Botham, Imran or Warne. I didn't even try to argue that he was. I'm arguing with you saying "I'm not even sure he'd even be sure of a consistent place in the current Indian team if you didn't factor his batting in."

If you think that a fully fit Kapil wouldn't be first quick picked in any Indian AT XI then I just dunno. Let along suggesting he might not be selected in a current XI.

I mean, please....

 

[Bolo]

That he had the greatest career of any Indian quick is not in question. I never suggested it.

Neither Bumrah nor Kumar has a consistent place in the current side. They have both outperformed Kapil statistically and have both bowled better judging from the subjective eye test. If these guys are getting passed over at times by the current selectors in favour of more pace and bounce, how can you be sure that it would not happen to Kapil as a specialist bowler? Or that he would consistently be selected ahead of them consistently in spite of their superior performances?

The Indian selectors are working off what they think would be most likely to win them a match, not greatness of career.

 

[Victor Ian]

They both have better stays because they are selectively picked. Compare their stats to Kapil's when he played on pitches that suited him.

 

[Starfighter]

Kapil's when he played on pitches that suited him.

Average of 39 in England, 42 in NZ.

 

[Victor Ian]

They are obviously not the ones that suited him. Take it the other way... How much worse would the current crops stats be if they played all games.

 

[vcs]

We'll be able to make a much better assessment of the current lot by this time next year when they've all got full tours of England, Australia and New Zealand (is it scheduled?) under their belt. They did pretty well in South Africa and they've been good in Asia.

 

[Bolo]

My point isn't that Kumar and Bumrah are better than Dev because they have better stats- that's completely speculative at this stage. Their bowling has been great, but it's way to soon to judge.

It's that they are left out in favour of bowlers they have outperformed as a result of picking according to conditions. What reason is there to believe this wouldn't have happened to Dev if he was playing today? Looking at Dev's England and NZ numbers, would he be preferred in every game there? Those numbers are bad.

 

[stephen]

My point isn't that Kumar and Bumrah are better than Dev because they have better stats- that's completely speculative at this stage. Their bowling has been great, but it's way to soon to judge.

It's that they are left out in favour of bowlers they have outperformed as a result of picking according to conditions. What reason is there to believe this wouldn't have happened to Dev if he was playing today? Looking at Dev's England and NZ numbers, would he be preferred in every game there? Those numbers are bad.

I'd like to say yes, but then Kohli is mercurial and makes stupid choices at times.

 

[Bolo]

I'd like to say yes, but then Kohli is mercurial and makes stupid choices at times.

Kohli definitely should shoulder a large amount of the blame for selections. The idea that pace and bounce > quality came before him though.

The horses for courses policy is correct in India's case though. See Jadeja. It's just been implemented a bit badly. With the two policies in place I seriously doubt if Kapil would be played all the time. I'm not sure whether or not he should be either, but it's not something I have much of an opinion on or care to argue on- my point was confined to who would be selected. Contrast with bowlers who are one step down from the best like Walsh and Pollock who would get a game every time.

 

[Victor Ian]

My point isn't that Kumar and Bumrah are better than Dev because they have better stats- that's completely speculative at this stage. Their bowling has been great, but it's way to soon to judge.

It's that they are left out in favour of bowlers they have outperformed as a result of picking according to conditions. What reason is there to believe this wouldn't have happened to Dev if he was playing today? Looking at Dev's England and NZ numbers, would he be preferred in every game there? Those numbers are bad.

Because if Dev played today with all the analysis and special training he'd be so much better than what he was in the era he played. Time travel typically involves skills updates through the wormhole. Teams don't pick horses for courses when dealing with all time greats. Every Indian player was **** when touring, full stop. Modern training and coaching and support is the reason this has finally stopped. Dev would be benefiting from that too. By your logic, Australia would leave Bradman out of the team because he is not one of the boys.

 

[Bolo]

Because if Dev played today with all the analysis and special training he'd be so much better than what he was in the era he played. Time travel typically involves skills updates through the wormhole. Teams don't pick horses for courses when dealing with all time greats. Every Indian player was **** when touring, full stop. Modern training and coaching and support is the reason this has finally stopped. Dev would be benefiting from that too. By your logic, Australia would leave Bradman out of the team because he is not one of the boys.

It's highly speculative to say that Dev would somehow be a better bowler today. How do you account for the fact that bowlers were better in his day, and that we have seen the batting average increase by era?

Modern coaching did not exactly do wonders for Anderson.

You are putting down a pretty broad net for ATG if you include Kapil as a specialist bowler. A lot of people don't include Walsh and Pollock in this category, and it would be difficult to make an argument for him ahead of them.