The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Bolo]

There is no sensible reason to question the quality of cricket. ROW games were tests when played, and only downgraded later. Both ROW and WSC had the world's two top sides. WSC reduces the test sides to B teams for a while, opening up an extra gulf in quality. Plus a team of the world's top players, including the RSA players who weren't playing tests. It's leagues above test cricket of its era in quality.

Players had more reason to be motivated than tests for WSC in particular. It was higher profile, had better competition and financial motivation. Multiple players stated it was the most competitive cricket they had ever played, but I've never heard of anyone indicating anything to the contrary. The RSA players should have been even more motivated to perform than most, it being their only opportunity at top levels. This applies to some extent to the AUS players with uncertainty over bans as well.

 

[AndrewB]

Were the 1971-2 matches regarded as Tests at the time? I've certainly a quote from someone (can't remember who or where, think it was someone who took part) that the 1970 matches had been but the 1971-2 matches were never more than exhibition matches. Certainly in "Sort of a Cricket Person" (1974 edition) by Swanton, at one point it gives Sobers' career figures as "98 Tests, 8620 runs, 256 wickets", which is consistent with only the 1970 matches being Tests. (That said, they've got his batting average wrong).

 

[Starfighter]

Were the 1971-2 matches regarded as Tests at the time?

Don't think so.

 

[Bolo]

I've only seen it of the 1970 tests now that I think about it. The 1971 games don't earn too of much praise in general, although I'm not sure how much of that is a result of quality and how much is visibility.

 

[fredfertang]

In the report in Wisden Tom Goodman referred to the five games against Australia being representative matches and the only time he uses the word Test he uses quotation marks - also the list of Test cricketers in the 1973 edition still references the five 1970 matches as having Test status, but makes no mention of the 1971/72 ones

 

[NotMcKenzie]

My response to those who whinge about the W.S.C. figures is that calling them 'high quality' really means less than what they make of it. Some have, IIRC, referred to Australian shield cricket in the 90s as higher quality than many test playing nations at the same time; should they be given test status? Is the coverse true, and low quality sides (Australia during W.S.C., W. Indies strike, etc.) should not have official status. Should the rebel tours—which Packer (or I've heard it was him who applied the pressure) payed several players to not go on—be given test status because S. Africa was high quality, or what of the comparative strength of the simultaneous Australian and Australian Rebel sides?

Furthermore, I doubt anyone would have been under the illusion that they were playing for anything but a private competition which would not mean anything for their representative careers.

So to the Ian Chappells and whatnot who whinge about this, I say: If you believed or believe (in retrospect) that W.S.C. was for the good of cricket, what about having a sense of sacrifice? What about saying, 'I risked my career, and I sacrificed my precious statistics for the good of the game?'

 

[Starfighter]

I've only seen it of the 1970 tests now that I think about it. The 1971 games don't earn too of much praise in general, although I'm not sure how much of that is a result of quality and how much is visibility.

I'd say the 71/72 games are much more appreciated because of Lillee vs Sobers and the 264*. Of the 1970 games I've seen Pollock's 119 occasionally brought up, but nothing else otherwise.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Barlow's hat-trick maybe? Or is it because that's something you can actually find footage of?

 

[bagapath]

Post 1983 Test and ODI XIs with different players

Test XI

Sunil Gavaskar
Matthew Hayden
Viv Richards
Jacques Kallis
Brian Lara
Allan Border *
Adam Gilchrist +
Richard Hadlee
Malcolm Marshall
Shane Warne
Dale Steyn

ODI XI

Sachin Tendulkar
Hashim Amla
Ricky Ponting
Virat Kohli
AB De Villiers
MS Dhoni +*
Imran. Khan
Shaun Pollock
Wasim Akram
Mutthiah Muralitharan
Glen McGrath

Left Over XI for both formats with fixed batting order

Virender Sehwag
Sanath Jayasurya
Kumar Sangakara +
Kevin Pietersen
Steve Waugh *
Shakib Al Hasan
Kapil Dev
Andrew Flintoff
Curtley Ambrose
Waqar Younis
Allan Donald

 

[Bolo]

Barry Richards' average drops big time from 72 to 64. It is quite obvious that numbers will be unstable until 40 tests or so. Best to ignore as always.

Dennis Lillee and Sunil Gavaskar's numbers come down a notch. Viv Richards' goes up a little. Not far from the numbers they touched at different points in their long careers. All within their quality range.

Graeme Pollock's average becomes more normal after 30 tests, which looks logical. He might have finished at 50-52 if he had played 70 plus tests.

Greg Chappell's peak years coincide with the WSC phase, so his average goes up handsomely. He is an all-time great whether his average is 53 or 55.

Imran and Botham pretty much hold on to their overall career records. True champs, one must repeat.

Basically useless exercise. Nothing revealing.

Leave rebel cricket where it belongs, in the first class block.

Test cricket is played between nations.

You can't read much into Barry's record. Had all of his games been tests, and he played a full career performing at a level below test standard in the other games, he still would have ended as a very good bat. Or he could have maintained his standards and ended in a class of his own. Extremely speculative.

With Pollock the case is more clear. His 7 year test career is long enough to have some meaning by itself, although not particularly decisive, especially considering the number of games. But add in all 'internationals' from the 70s and 80s and he averages 58 over a 24 year period with (I think) a record number of tests for RSA.

There are some question marks over the quality of the rebel tours. I don't think anyone ever sent all their best bowlers, and the Windies was entirely a B attack. But they were not bad attacks. Only Pollock properly got on top of them, with nobody else averaging above the low 40s.

And if they were considered weak, the fact that he had spent the first 70% of his 'test' career playing almost exclusively against top teams would still leave him with a very good average quality of opposition.

His 'tests' came in two groups. The first was from when he was a teenager until his last ROW game at 28, followed by an 10 year gap with another 5 years of rebel tours. He was well known to be past it against pace in the 80s, which dominated the rebel tours, so the fact that he averaged 50% more than the next best bat is really impressive.

We don't know what he would have ended up averaging if he had played more. Maybe his test average would have come down a fair bit. But to hit 50 as you are suggesting, he would have needed to go at sub 40 in the 10 years of his peak after managing 58 at the wrong years, which seems unlikely.

 

[bagapath]

since his 60 plus average in 23 tests drops to 54 with the addition of just a few more games against quality opposition, expecting him to average in the low 50s over a 70+ test career is not illogical. After all, Compton and Harvey took a similar career curve. averaged in the high 50s and touched the 60s, even, for a while before settling down for low 50s/ high 40s average after long careers. Doesn't make any of them Denis, Graeme or Neil, lesser though. We are just talking numbers in test cricket, not their batting abilities.

Compton after 23 tests, the same as G. Pollock
23 37 6 2067 208 66.67 9 8 1

Ended his career with
78 131 15 5807 278 50.06 17 28 10


Harvey after 23 tests
23 39 4 2204 190 62.97 9 8 0
Ended with
79 137 10 6149 205 48.41 21 24 7

Am sure you remember Hussey's stats...


G.Pollock was a great batter. But his 23 test streak doesn't grant him a Hutton-Viv-Sobers-Sachin-Lara-G.Chappell-Gavaskar-Sangakara-Ponting-Kallis-Hammond-Hobbs status

 

[Coronis]

since his 60 plus average in 23 tests drops to 54 with the addition of just a few more games against quality opposition, expecting him to average in the low 50s over a 70+ test career is not illogical. After all, Compton and Harvey took a similar career curve. averaged in the high 50s and touched the 60s, even, for a while before settling down for low 50s/ high 40s average after long careers. Doesn't make any of them Denis, Graeme or Neil, lesser though. We are just talking numbers in test cricket, not their batting abilities.

Compton after 23 tests, the same as G. Pollock
23 37 6 2067 208 66.67 9 8 1

Ended his career with
78 131 15 5807 278 50.06 17 28 10


Harvey after 23 tests
23 39 4 2204 190 62.97 9 8 0
Ended with
79 137 10 6149 205 48.41 21 24 7

Am sure you remember Hussey's stats...


G.Pollock was a great batter. But his 23 test streak doesn't grant him a Hutton-Viv-Sobers-Sachin-Lara-G.Chappell-Gavaskar-Sangakara-Ponting-Kallis-Hammond-Hobbs status

Don’t forget Sutcliffe

 

[bagapath]

Don’t forget Sutcliffe

Herbert Sutcliffe after 23 tests
23 34 3 2092 176 67.48 7 11 1
Ended with
54 84 9 4555 194 60.73 16 23 2

It was all going down, bro

 

[Coronis]

Herbert Sutcliffe after 23 tests
23 34 3 2092 176 67.48 7 11 1
Ended with
54 84 9 4555 194 60.73 16 23 2

It was all going down, bro

Not really what I was referring to but ok.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Jimmy Adams had a phenomenal early career record but finished off with merely decent Test numbers. From everything I have read and seen he was never quite the same after being sconed by Andre van Troost in 1995.

 

[ankitj]

Post 1983 Test and ODI XIs with different players

Test XI

Sunil Gavaskar
Matthew Hayden
Viv Richards
Jacques Kallis
Brian Lara
Allan Border *
Adam Gilchrist +
Richard Hadlee
Malcolm Marshall
Shane Warne
Dale Steyn

ODI XI

Sachin Tendulkar
Hashim Amla
Ricky Ponting
Virat Kohli
AB De Villiers
MS Dhoni +*
Imran. Khan
Shaun Pollock
Wasim Akram
Mutthiah Muralitharan
Glen McGrath

Left Over XI for both formats with fixed batting order

Virender Sehwag
Sanath Jayasurya
Kumar Sangakara +
Kevin Pietersen
Steve Waugh *
Shakib Al Hasan
Kapil Dev
Andrew Flintoff
Curtley Ambrose
Waqar Younis
Allan Donald

Good effort. Couple of suggestions. Get Garner in the ODI XI. Imran surely more valuable test player than ODI.

 

[stephen]

Good effort. Couple of suggestions. Get Garner in the ODI XI. Imran surely more valuable test player than ODI.

Especially if he's not captaining.

 

[Bolo]

since his 60 plus average in 23 tests drops to 54 with the addition of just a few more games against quality opposition, expecting him to average in the low 50s over a 70+ test career is not illogical. After all, Compton and Harvey took a similar career curve. averaged in the high 50s and touched the 60s, even, for a while before settling down for low 50s/ high 40s average after long careers. Doesn't make any of them Denis, Graeme or Neil, lesser though. We are just talking numbers in test cricket, not their batting abilities.

Compton after 23 tests, the same as G. Pollock
23 37 6 2067 208 66.67 9 8 1

Ended his career with
78 131 15 5807 278 50.06 17 28 10


Harvey after 23 tests
23 39 4 2204 190 62.97 9 8 0
Ended with
79 137 10 6149 205 48.41 21 24 7

Am sure you remember Hussey's stats...


G.Pollock was a great batter. But his 23 test streak doesn't grant him a Hutton-Viv-Sobers-Sachin-Lara-G.Chappell-Gavaskar-Sangakara-Ponting-Kallis-Hammond-Hobbs status

I've given you the numbers for his career using all 'internationals'. Excluding one set because they are of the lowest quality would also open up the possibility of excluding the best quality as well. And other than two games, they weren't low quality- they would be comparable to or better than most attacks this century on the whole.

Alternatively, just on proper tests: he averaged 61, with all but one test coming against top sides. He didn't get to play in his prime, with all series bar one being played in his teens/early twenties. He had clearly improved with age, averaging consecutively in the 20s, 40s, and 60s in his first 3 years and in the 70s each year thereafter. Expecting him to follow a normal career path and peak in his late 20s and early 30s seems unrealistic simply because of how high the numbers would go. But we can't assume he would fall off a cliff either (particularly when he clearly didn't in other forms of cricket). To hit the figures you are suggesting he would need to be averaging in the early 40s for the rest of his career. This type of drop is pretty common after the early 30s (see Hussey), but he's a long way from that age. Possible (see Adams), just unlikely.

Alternatively, his domestic record is more of an outlier than his test record, and is distinctly more impressive. No bat that I know of is as far ahead of the curve in domestic (other than Bradman and Grace, obviously). Extrapolating from domestic is difficult, because some just can't step up, but he proved he could.

Maybe he shouldn't be talked about in the same way as the guys you are mentioning. Seven years at test level is far less than most of them, and we mostly discuss players based on national records. But in terms of projecting a test average for him given a longer career he ends up either comparable to them in a worst case, or significantly better in a best case.

 

[jimmy101]

Statistically speaking, statistics are filled with statistical anomalies. I'm sure there are some stats that could back this up.

 

[Prince EWS]

Good effort. Couple of suggestions. Get Garner in the ODI XI. Imran surely more valuable test player than ODI.

I'd definitely swap Ponting and Viv as well.