The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[jimmy101]

Im talking specifically about the recent posts regarding peak periods. I'm sure Jackson and Hayden feature on the all time standardised average list but I haven't checked it that thoroughly.

I actually had a browse myself but couldn't find it either. I did however see Hill's peak period. Smashed 'em.

 

[jimmy101]

Couple of other underrated pre-WWI cricketers in my mind are Frank Foster & Reggie Schwarz.

 

[trundler]

Also those stats would probably look even more absurd than they already are because a lot of the "sixes" he hit during those innings only earned Jessop 4 runs because you had to hit it out of the stadium to get 6.

A six or an FC tonne must have been a huge spectacle back then. Also, weren't 5 runs granted for shots that went all the way back then? Or something like that.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Pre Golden Era, the fuss probably comes from FC feats (Grace, Emmett etc). Test matches back then were rare and were only awarded test status retrospectivey. The Australian teams didn't get particularly strong until the turn of the previous century and tests weren't even seen as a level above other FC matches.

There's a great deal of nostalgia around Golden Era players. Pre WWII cricket was still very different from today and I'm not sure if its fair to apply modern standards to the stats of this era. There's a chance that Cardus was just a fanboy of some players from this era though we weren't there so we can't judge.

Style and entertainment value definitely seemed to be something writers of that era considered important. I think someone like Sehwag if born back then would have been the most beloved cricketer of the era. Flawed players capable of the extraordinary were celebrated more back then, unlike now when people look up boring home vs away stats on cricinfo to judge players.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Pre Golden Era, the fuss probably comes from FC feats (Grace, Emmett etc). Test matches back then were rare and were only awarded test status retrospectivey. The Australian teams didn't get particularly strong until the turn of the previous century and tests weren't even seen as a level above other FC matches.

There's a great deal of nostalgia around Golden Era players. Pre WWII cricket was still very different from today and I'm not sure if its fair to apply modern standards to the stats of this era. There's a chance that Cardus was just a fanboy of some players from this era though we weren't there so we can't judge.

fair to say if Cardus was to write today he'd have a bunch of people in the comments going "didn't happen"
"

 

[trundler]

Style and entertainment value definitely seemed to be something writers of that era considered important. I think someone like Sehwag if born back then would have been the most beloved cricketer of the era. Flawed players capable of the extraordinary were celebrated more back then, unlike now when people look up boring home vs away stats on cricinfo to judge players.

True. Suitable condition bullies didn't cop as much flak back then either seemingly. There seems to be great emphasis on elegance especially. Even more than Sehwag Laxman I feel would've been rated very very high.

 

[a massive zebra]

fair to say if Cardus was to write today he'd have a bunch of people in the comments going "didn't happen"
"

And it may well not have, or at least Cardus may have been rather liberal with the truth for the purpose of poetic licence. Arunabha Sengupta did a very thorough piece of detective work on my Cardus quote and found the following.

"Only, very few of the things actually took place. Gloucestershire did not visit Old Trafford till July that year. Jessop did bat and score 30, but Jack Sharp scored just 9. The Gloucestershire innings was started by FH Bateman-Champain (not HEB Champain) and Harry Wrathall, but they did not start batting at the end of any day. The visiting county side batted first, and they were 135 for 5 in their second innings at the end of the second day. So, there is no way that the openers could have started the innings at the end of a particular day.

But then, Cardus would seldom refer to the scorecard, the irritant he had dubbed an ass. Unless, of course, he had to write match reports after spending the playing hours sauntering around the streets of Manchester.

Again, memory lapses are normal. But there needs to be a semblance of consistency. In Autobiography, still referred to as a veritable Bible by some respected names in cricket, the lemonade had become ginger beer.

In the 1951 Wisden, the month had changed to July and the day had suddenly become dull. In this version, Jessop had left no impression on the young Cardus and he was also confused as to why he was at the cricket ground at all because his passion at that time was supposedly football.

In Cricket all the Year written in 1952, it was back to June.

In the Guardian, 1957, the month shifted back to July, and Cardus turned hungry rather than thirsty, and it was neither lemonade nor ginger beer that he was after, but a halfpenny bun.

In Play Resumed with Cardus, Jessop, who had left no impression on him that day, was busy cutting good length balls and hitting perfectly pitched off-breaks for six in front of his fascinated young eyes.

The match, as explained, was actually played from July 24, 1899. The day, we find out, was sunny with a slight breeze."

 

[trundler]

And it may well not have, or at least Cardus may have been rather liberal with the truth for the purpose of poetic licence. Arunabha Sengupta did a very thorough piece of detective work on my Cardus quote and found the following.

"Only, very few of the things actually took place. Gloucestershire did not visit Old Trafford till July that year. Jessop did bat and score 30, but Jack Sharp scored just 9. The Gloucestershire innings was started by FH Bateman-Champain (not HEB Champain) and Harry Wrathall, but they did not start batting at the end of any day. The visiting county side batted first, and they were 135 for 5 in their second innings at the end of the second day. So, there is no way that the openers could have started the innings at the end of a particular day.

But then, Cardus would seldom refer to the scorecard, the irritant he had dubbed an ass. Unless, of course, he had to write match reports after spending the playing hours sauntering around the streets of Manchester.

Again, memory lapses are normal. But there needs to be a semblance of consistency. In Autobiography, still referred to as a veritable Bible by some respected names in cricket, the lemonade had become ginger beer.

In the 1951 Wisden, the month had changed to July and the day had suddenly become dull. In this version, Jessop had left no impression on the young Cardus and he was also confused as to why he was at the cricket ground at all because his passion at that time was supposedly football.

In Cricket all the Year written in 1952, it was back to June.

In the Guardian, 1957, the month shifted back to July, and Cardus turned hungry rather than thirsty, and it was neither lemonade nor ginger beer that he was after, but a halfpenny bun.

In Play Resumed with Cardus, Jessop, who had left no impression on him that day, was busy cutting good length balls and hitting perfectly pitched off-breaks for six in front of his fascinated young eyes.

The match, as explained, was actually played from July 24, 1899. The day, we find out, was sunny with a slight breeze."

The legendary stands between CB Fry and Ranji didn't take place either.

 

[Bolo]

Style and entertainment value definitely seemed to be something writers of that era considered important. I think someone like Sehwag if born back then would have been the most beloved cricketer of the era. Flawed players capable of the extraordinary were celebrated more back then, unlike now when people look up boring home vs away stats on cricinfo to judge players.

There are good players, and there are players that are good to watch. Both are valued, but they are just conflated less than they used to be

 

[jimmy101]

Style and entertainment value definitely seemed to be something writers of that era considered important. I think someone like Sehwag if born back then would have been the most beloved cricketer of the era. Flawed players capable of the extraordinary were celebrated more back then, unlike now when people look up boring home vs away stats on cricinfo to judge players.

Spot on OS, technique was king back then by all accounts. Probably why we saw so much innovation within the game during that era.

 

[jimmy101]

Cardus in 1919:

“We are all too apt to make of our pastimes pretty routine affairs, with too much hard professionalism spoiling the surprise and gusto which are the life and soul of sport.”

 

[h_hurricane]

ATG XI of players averaging greater than 30 with the bat and less than 30 with the ball. Only retired players with minimum of 50 wickets and 1000 runs are considered.

Trevor Goddard
Wilfred Rhodes
Aubrey Faulkner
Mushtaq Mohammad
Asif Iqbal
Keith Miller
Ian Botham
Imran khan
Chris Cairns
Kapil Dev
Shaun Pollock

 

[Starfighter]

In the #batdeep tradition and looking at some Aussie XIs from the fifties I've been wondering about teams which have stupidly strong tails but a still real quality bowlers, rather than averaging 30+. Add to that 'can bowl' quality batsmen a bit like Flem and trundler were discussing a few pages back and I've got a few XIs trying to get bowlers close to or over 20+ batting averages and quality batsmen with a good amount of wickets in the finest 'utility' tradition.

Australia: Simpson (46.81, LB 42.26) Cowper (46.84, OB 31.64) G. Chappell (53.86, RM 42.70) McCabe (48.21, RMF 42.86) Border (50.56, SLA 39.1) Miller (36.98, RF 22.98) Gilchrist (47.60) Benaud (24.46, LBG 27.03) Archer (24.59, RF 27.46) Davidson (24.59, LFM 20.53) Lindwall (21.15, RF 23.08)

England: Grace (32.29, RSM 26.22) Edrich (40.00, RFM 41.29) Hammond (58.45, RMF 37.8) Barrington (58.67, LB 44.83) Compton (50.06, SLC 56.4) Botham (33.54, RFM 28.4) Ames (40.56) Rhodes (30.19, SLA 26.96) Foster (23.57, LFM 20.57) Tate (25.48, RMF 26.16) Larwood (19.40 RF 28.35)

South Africa Barlow (45.75, RMF, 34.05) Mitchell (48.88, LB 51.11) Kallis (55.37, RFM 32.65) de Villiers (50.66, RM 52) Faulkner (40.79, LBG 26.58) Goddard (34.57, LM 26.23) Lindsay (37.67) Procter (25.11. RF 15.02) Pollock (33.12, RFM 23.11) Llewellyn (20.14, LSM 29.6) Pollock (21.68, RF 24.19)

For Australia the top was the most difficult to do, it seems that bowling no. 3s have not been our thing so I've chosen to play Chappell out of position and went for McCabe's much higher WpM over Walters' much better average. Cowper did average 63 as an opener but it was only over 5 innings, but heck I'm sticking with it otherwise it would have been Watson. If I was actually selecting a test XI rather than sticking to arbitrary criteria I'd have Warne over Benaud but not for the purpose of this exercise.

England was much harder to do. They have not had too many openers willing to have bowl, Barber being the only realistic option (35.59 batting), so I've played Edrich away from his preferred no. 3 position even though he averaged less than half opening than there, and under the assumption his average would translate better on better pitches the grand old man WG himself. It seems almost criminal for Dexter to miss out but Hammond and Barrington have to take 3 and 4. I've picked up from Wisden's description that Compton could probably have done a lot more with his bowling if he'd taken it a bit more seriously, so he goes 5, while Botham and Ames take 6 and 7 naturally (I suppose you could pick Prior over Ames, but I'm not). Woolley and Greig were tempting, but Botham's there and I want his pace. With the obvious exception of Tate the tail was just as perplexing. I always think of England as being more allrounder heavy than Australia but apparently the bowling doesn't tend as high quality. Went for Rhodes over Briggs though he was more 'bowled or batted'. I remembered Foster existed so that saved picking Allan or Bailey, who I feel weren't quite there with the ball. Larwood rounds out the pace attack, I wanted a genuine quick even if it meant slightly worse batting.

SA is the natural land of the allrounder, so no surprise tee's some real good 'uns there. However this seems to mean fewer good middle order part timers especially no. 4s. I went for de Villiers under the not-unreasonable assumption he can do anything. Interestingly SA do perhaps have a lot of handy wicketkeeper batsmen too compared to other countries. Went for Llewellyn to add more variety in the bowling compared to Snooke, neither McMillan nor Klusener average under 30.

Anyway, that exercise proved a bit harder than I'd anticipated when you apply fairly strict criteria (bat 40> and bowl decently or bowl <30 and bat 20+). It turns out the amongst those three countries Australia perhaps has more top-tier batsmen who were also handy part timers, and although the other two have maybe produced more balanced allrounders trying to fit the 'either good batsmen or good bowler' criteria actually makes composing the XIs a bit harder. I certainly think 'bats deep bowls deep' has its limits, but it wouldn't take too much modifying these XIs to create something both very good and more realistic.

 

[trundler]

In the #batdeep tradition and looking at some Aussie XIs from the fifties I've been wondering about teams which have stupidly strong tails but a still real quality bowlers, rather than averaging 30+. Add to that 'can bowl' quality batsmen a bit like Flem and trundler were discussing a few pages back and I've got a few XIs trying to get bowlers close to or over 20+ batting averages and quality batsmen with a good amount of wickets in the finest 'utility' tradition.

Australia: Simpson (46.81, LB 42.26) Cowper (46.84, OB 31.64) G. Chappell (53.86, RM 42.70) McCabe (48.21, RMF 42.86) Border (50.56, SLA 39.1) Miller (36.98, RF 22.98) Gilchrist (47.60) Benaud (24.46, LBG 27.03) Archer (24.59, RF 27.46) Davidson (24.59, LFM 20.53) Lindwall (21.15, RF 23.08)

England: Grace (32.29, RSM 26.22) Edrich (40.00, RFM 41.29) Hammond (58.45, RMF 37.8) Barrington (58.67, LB 44.83) Compton (50.06, SLC 56.4) Botham (33.54, RFM 28.4) Ames (40.56) Rhodes (30.19, SLA 26.96) Foster (23.57, LFM 20.57) Tate (25.48, RMF 26.16) Larwood (19.40 RF 28.35)

South Africa Barlow (45.75, RMF, 34.05) Mitchell (48.88, LB 51.11) Kallis (55.37, RFM 32.65) de Villiers (50.66, RM 52) Faulkner (40.79, LBG 26.58) Goddard (34.57, LM 26.23) Lindsay (37.67) Procter (25.11. RF 15.02) Pollock (33.12, RFM 23.11) Llewellyn (20.14, LSM 29.6) Pollock (21.68, RF 24.19)

For Australia the top was the most difficult to do, it seems that bowling no. 3s have not been our thing so I've chosen to play Chappell out of position and went for McCabe's much higher WpM over Walters' much better average. Cowper did average 63 as an opener but it was only over 5 innings, but heck I'm sticking with it otherwise it would have been Watson. If I was actually selecting a test XI rather than sticking to arbitrary criteria I'd have Warne over Benaud but not for the purpose of this exercise.

England was much harder to do. They have not had too many openers willing to have bowl, Barber being the only realistic option (35.59 batting), so I've played Edrich away from his preferred no. 3 position even though he averaged less than half opening than there, and under the assumption his average would translate better on better pitches the grand old man WG himself. It seems almost criminal for Dexter to miss out but Hammond and Barrington have to take 3 and 4. I've picked up from Wisden's description that Compton could probably have done a lot more with his bowling if he'd taken it a bit more seriously, so he goes 5, while Botham and Ames take 6 and 7 naturally (I suppose you could pick Prior over Ames, but I'm not). Woolley and Greig were tempting, but Botham's there and I want his pace. With the obvious exception of Tate the tail was just as perplexing. I always think of England as being more allrounder heavy than Australia but apparently the bowling doesn't tend as high quality. Went for Rhodes over Briggs though he was more 'bowled or batted'. I remembered Foster existed so that saved picking Allan or Bailey, who I feel weren't quite there with the ball. Larwood rounds out the pace attack, I wanted a genuine quick even if it meant slightly worse batting.

SA is the natural land of the allrounder, so no surprise tee's some real good 'uns there. However this seems to mean fewer good middle order part timers especially no. 4s. I went for de Villiers under the not-unreasonable assumption he can do anything. Interestingly SA do perhaps have a lot of handy wicketkeeper batsmen too compared to other countries. Went for Llewellyn to add more variety in the bowling compared to Snooke, neither McMillan nor Klusener average under 30.

Anyway, that exercise proved a bit harder than I'd anticipated when you apply fairly strict criteria (bat 40> and bowl decently or bowl <30 and bat 20+). It turns out the amongst those three countries Australia perhaps has more top-tier batsmen who were also handy part timers, and although the other two have maybe produced more balanced allrounders trying to fit the 'either good batsmen or good bowler' criteria actually makes composing the XIs a bit harder. I certainly think 'bats deep bowls deep' has its limits, but it wouldn't take too much modifying these XIs to create something both very good and more realistic.

One minor suggestion. John Waite over Lindsay. Longer career and a more proven keeper'. Great effort though.

 

[bagapath]

In an ATXI which pace attack would you go for (assuming Warne, Murali, O'Reilley and Grimmett would be the spin options and complete the attacks)?

Super fast 90+miles
Imran (all-rounder)
Marshall
Holding
Steyn

Fast 85+ miles
Miller (all-rounder)
Akram
Trueman
Lillee

Fast-medium 80+ miles
Botham (all-rounder)
Hadlee
Ambrose
Davidson

Medium-fast under 80 miles

Kapil Dev (all-rounder)
S.Pollock
Alec Bedser
McGrath

 

[harsh.ag]

Imran was faster than Lillee?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Steyn doesn't really bowl 90+ most of the time either. Only on rare occasions with the slightly older ball when it isn't moving much.

 

[ankitj]

Which group will Waqar and Donald fall in?

 

[Starfighter]

While Imran was very fast around '81-'83 I doubt he was quicker that Lillee was at his fastest. He was damned quick and was timed at 154 km/h after his back injury.

That group I'd rank in pace:

Marshall, Holding, Lillee (up to WSC), Imran ('81-'83), Akram (earlier), Steyn, Trueman (up to '59), Miller

It shouldn't be forgotten that quite a few changed pace through their career. Imran started off medium, eventually became very fast until he broke his shin, then was slower but still respectable before tailing off markedly near the end. Lillee started off very fast, came back very fast though perhaps not quite as consistently after his back stress fracture, then gradually slowed down after missing the '77 Ashes and focussing on smarts over speed. Hadlee had his quite sharp moments earlier in his career but was often crap before switching his focus to line and length. Pollock was also quite quick for a short while. Botham slowed down a lot as the pounds piled on and ended his career as pretty much military medium. And of course Bedser was completely different to the other bowlers in that category, ad the others changed too etc etc.

 

[bagapath]

Which group will Waqar and Donald fall in?

super fast for sure

of course, I know everyone slowed down after a point. even marshall and waqar bowled at 80-82 miles in their final years. this is just to broadly categorise them.

so should lillee be upgraded and imran pulled down?