The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[h_hurricane]

ok

Don't see much wrong in that bowling line up. May be a bowler extra, but such an all conditions lineup.

 

[stephen]

The only problem is that you then need to bat Gilchrist at 6 which was higher than what he batted for Australia. And if you get ther post 2005 Gilchrist he really isn't good enough to bat 6 and certainly not in an AT side.

An AT side can have whoever you want in it since it's your side but I personally think the best sides can bat down to 9 and have 4 ATG bowlers and 6 ATG batsmen plus Gilchrist.

Marshall, Hadlee, McGrath and Murali is easily enough bowling and batting. Similarly Imran, Warne, Ambrose and Garner is good enough in both departments. It's only really when you start going Imran, Miller, Botham, Hadlee and Warne that your tail becomes too long and your bowling doesn't make up for it. Or if you go Ambrose, Garner, McGrath and Murali you have great bowlers but a tail that can't stick around long enough for your numbers 6 and 7 to get the runs your side needs.

If truth be told no side needs more than 4 bowlers and one guy who can bowl maybe 20-30 overs a test. Most sides in history have played 4 bowlers and a part timer. In tests the 5th bowler is there to give the other guys a break when the ball is soft and isn't doing anything. And if you have Warne/ Murali they can shoulder the extra bowling load anyway.

 

[Logan]

I believe bowlers win matches. My ATG team would have Marshall, Steyn, Hadlee and Muralitharan as bowlers. For me, it comes down to choosing Sobers or Imran. Since Don Bradman is worth two batsmen, I would choose a bowling all rounder over a batting all rounder.

The fast bowlers would destroy any opposition team in Aus/SA/Eng/NZ pitches. In spin pitches, Muralitharan would obviously share the workload as far as bowling is concerned. All the four quicks especially Steyn and Marshall have great records in subcontinent pitches.

Of course, all this is purely hypothetical.

 

[Red]

Harris would be considered the australian Zaheer khan if he'd been picked earlier in his career. Dude would've averaged 35 for a decade and ended up with 250 wickets @ 30. Ridiculously overrated.

Difference being Australia didn't need to pick him because we had a zillion other pace bowlers succeeding in FC cricket while Harris wasn't.

 

[CricAddict]

Difference being Australia didn't need to pick him because we had a zillion other pace bowlers succeeding in FC cricket while Harris wasn't.

Obviously.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Difference being Australia didn't need to pick him because we had a zillion other pace bowlers succeeding in FC cricket while Harris wasn't.

Harris wouldn't have gotten a game for India during that period either

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Harris was 5th choice seamer in a weak team for the first half of his career, bowled about 130 tops back then. Almost unrecognizable from the bowler he was when he arrived internationally

 

[stephen]

It just goes to show how important coaching/ environment are for the development of cricketers.

 

[Prince EWS]

Harris was 5th choice seamer in a weak team for the first half of his career

Yeah and not only that but averaged 40+ in FC cricket until he was in his late 20s. It's not just that he had strong competition; he was legitimately ****. If he was forced to have the career Ishant Sharma did he'd average more than him and he remembered as a similar kind of player.

Saying "he had a short career" is just totally false. He had a long career, most of which wasn't played at Test level, and made it perfectly clear for most of it that he was absolutely crap by Test standards. Sometimes players with short Test careers like Graeme Pollock and Barry Richards were unlucky in that they were dominating domestically and just not getting chances to prove themselves in Tests, but Ryan Harris had a short Test career because he was only better than a grade bowler for a short period of time. I rate the period he was actually in Test cricket as highly as anyone (except maybe Flem who made a weird post about it) but having an Anderson or a Pollock etc really would be almost infinitely more useful to the average Test team over a long period than having a Harris.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

I tend to pretty much agree

I would definitely have him over Anderson though, but that's primarily because Anderson is such an insufferable ****

 

[Prince EWS]

I tend to pretty much agree

I would definitely have him over Anderson though, but that's primarily because Anderson is such an insufferable ****

Yeah you'd probably have Matthew Weeks over Anderson. Your biggest fault.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Yeah you'd probably have Matthew Weeks over Anderson. Your biggest fault.

Not even wrong though

 

[TheJediBrah]

but Ryan Harris had a short Test career because he was only better than a grade bowler for a short period of time.

That and injuries. He could have easily played 50+ Tests at his peak standard and had 250ish wickets otherwise.

I tend to pretty much agree

I would definitely have him over Anderson though, but that's primarily because Anderson is such an insufferable ****

Harris was easily a better Test bowler than Anderson. It's not even a contest unless you rate longevity way more than virtually every other metric combined.

 

[OverratedSanity]

That and injuries. He could have easily played 50+ Tests at his peak standard and had 250ish wickets otherwise.

He was already 34 when the injuries killed his career. He wasn't Bruce Reid ffs

 

[trundler]

He was already 34 when the injuries killed his career. He wasn't Bruce Reid ffs

Not even the worst part of that post.

 

[TheJediBrah]

He was already 34 when the injuries killed his career. He wasn't Bruce Reid ffs

You shouldn't try and correct someone when you're completely ignorant about the topic. He missed probably about 30 Tests during his career because of injury, which is obviously what I was referring to, not suggesting that he would have played on for years after the age of 34 ffs.

 

[OverratedSanity]

You shouldn't try and correct someone when you're completely ignorant about the topic. He missed probably about 30 Tests during his career because of injury, which is obviously what I was referring to, not suggesting that he would have played on for years after the age of 34 ffs.

Yes and many of those happened when he was pretty old already. Shane bond was unlucky with injuries. Harris was only good enough when he was a geriatric. Injuries are going to happen at that age.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yes and many of those happened when he was pretty old already. Shane bond was unlucky with injuries. Harris was only good enough when he was a geriatric. Injuries are going to happen at that age.

I think I get what you were trying to convey now, doesn't change the accuracy of anything I said though

 

[mr_mister]

I dunno if he was ever gonna bowl enough in 50 tests basically all played over the age of 30 to take 5 wickets per test and end up with 250 however.

Look how much Pattos WPM will likely drop if he ever reaches 30-40 tests. He's gonna be used in short spells for the rest of his career and they would have been the only way Harris reached 50 tests

 

[stephen]

Harris was injury prone for his whole career tbf, even his crap period with SA.

He had a roughly 5 year career from about age 29 to 34. That's usually not too old for fast bowlers these days but his knees were troublesome tstl. If he weren't injured during the time he could have played 50 or so tests which is a decent career. As it was he played half that and took 113 wickets which is a pretty decent effort even if it's a short career by modern standards.