The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[mr_mister]

As is Dean Headley

 

[Slifer]

Everything you say is correct. I rate Walsh between [Ambrose, Donald, McGrath] and [Gillespie, McDermott and Botham].

Well the journey was long but at least we arrived at the same destination (more or less). I'll have a Corona, what will you be having??? Lol

 

[trundler]

Well the journey was long but at least we arrived at the same destination (more or less). I'll have a Corona, what will you be having??? Lol

A rare but beautiful moment of reconciliation in CC <3

 

[stephen]

Well the journey was long but at least we arrived at the same destination (more or less). I'll have a Corona, what will you be having??? Lol

Spiced rum for me .

 

[stephen]

Honestly it's more about where I draw the line at ATG. I think for me if there's clearly a step up then that isn't really ATG for me. Every ATG should not look out of place in an AT XI. To me Walsh just doesn't make that cut.

 

[Slifer]

Honestly it's more about where I draw the line at ATG. I think for me if there's clearly a step up then that isn't really ATG for me. Every ATG should not look out of place in an AT XI. You me Walsh just doesn't make that cut.

Spiced rum sounds good. But yeah Walsh is not an atg. Never said that. He certainly wouldn't be in a WI first XI, much less a world XI. If he were say from NZ or India he might possibly be in their XI. He's still a great though which imo is above the very goods like: Gillespie, Vaas, Botham, Johnson etc.

 

[ankitj]

darren gough is underrated as ****

As is Dean Headley

As is Ijaz Ahmed. Such anomalies can always exist.

 

[stephen]

Spiced rum sounds good. But yeah Walsh is not an atg. Never said that. He certainly wouldn't be in a WI first XI, much less a world XI. If he were say from NZ or India he might possibly be in their XI. He's still a great though which imo is above the very goods like: Gillespie, Vaas, Botham, Johnson etc.

As with most other things it's a continuum. Would I take Walsh in my side right now? In a heartbeat. Is he going to make a WI ATXI? Nope.

Something I've been pondering is whether Pollock or Walsh was better. Both have very good records and pretty much the same weakness in their record (namely: record against Australia). It's pretty hard to split them over their careers. I'd suggest that Pollock had a stronger start to his career but wasn't as good by the end, while Walsh finished quite strongly.

 

[bagapath]

I disagree but I'll have a spiced rum as well. cheers...

 

[Slifer]

Captain morgan, sailor jerry, appleton?? Or someone else??

 

[ImpatientLime]

As is Ijaz Ahmed. Such anomalies can always exist.

not an anomaly when it is in line with his career record but in comparison to some of the dud performances there by superior bowlers it really stands out.

he was just a fine bowler playing in mostly piss poor teams.

 

[Red]

Honestly it's more about where I draw the line at ATG. I think for me if there's clearly a step up then that isn't really ATG for me. Every ATG should not look out of place in an AT XI. To me Walsh just doesn't make that cut.

I'm sure this conversation's been had before, but this method just doesn't work. Sure, Walsh wont make a WI ATG XI ever, he has to contend with Ambrose, Marshall, Garner, Holding, Roberts, Bishop...

But he'd be first quick picked in an Indian ATG team.

It's much like saying is Alistair Cook, Geoff Boycott or Graham Gooch an ATG? Imo, yes, but he wouldn't make the England ATG team ahead of Hobbs, Hutton and Sutcliffe. But they'd be in the NX XI, and quite possibly the Australian XI, tbh.

I get that you are saying "shouldn't look out of place". But I think the ATG title runs deeper than what your definition is.

 

[Victor Ian]

I think the whole 'he has a hole in his record against X' is a steaming heap of crap sort of argument.

 

[h_hurricane]

Anyone whose average against an individual team deviates from his overall average has a 'hole'. By this definition all cricketers have holes.

 

[akilana]

I think the whole 'he has a hole in his record against X' is a steaming heap of crap sort of argument.

Nah that’s a good argument to make against anyone except your favourite.

 

[ankitj]

On rating Walsh, who really disagrees where this ranking by DoG put Walsh?:

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cri...-countdown-thread-100-1-a-44.html#post4110938

Except probably Ashwin and Rabada whose ratings will stabilize in future, it would appear Walsh is placed fine.

 

[ankitj]

Anyone whose average against an individual team deviates from his overall average has a 'hole'. By this definition all cricketers have holes.

And all non-cricketers too

 

[OverratedSanity]

On rating Walsh, who really disagrees where this ranking by DoG put Walsh?:

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cri...-countdown-thread-100-1-a-44.html#post4110938

Except probably Ashwin and Rabada whose ratings will stabilize in future, it would appear Walsh is placed fine.

Wouldn't have anderson or kumble ahead of him

 

[stephen]

On rating Walsh, who really disagrees where this ranking by DoG put Walsh?:

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cri...-countdown-thread-100-1-a-44.html#post4110938

Except probably Ashwin and Rabada whose ratings will stabilize in future, it would appear Walsh is placed fine.

I'd more argue against the positions of others on the list.

DoG's rankings have some bizarre places for some bowlers. Miller and Lindwall are far too low, especially by comparison to Davidson.

I guess a lot of how you rate Walsh comes down to how much you value longevity. Bishop was a better bowler than Walsh when they played together, but Walsh had a better career because he was more durable. Was Harris a better bowler than Walsh? Probably. It's he higher in ATG lists? Nope. All because of longevity.

 

[stephen]

Haha look at how much DoG overrated Anderson! 18th best bowler ever!