The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[vcs]

If you've been on CW for long enough you can post whatever drivel you want with no fear of being called out. You need atleast 7 more years before you get to that status sunilz.

Is that why you made 7 different accounts so that you could get accepted in a year?

 

[smash84]

yeah, I certainly don't see slip fielding being as important as a fifth bowler or batting deep.

By and large good fielding teams will generally have a decent slip cordon. I can't recall a good fielding side who had a terrible slip cordon.

 

[Spark]

yeah, I certainly don't see slip fielding being as important as a fifth bowler or batting deep.

By and large good fielding teams will generally have a decent slip cordon. I can't recall a good fielding side who had a terrible slip cordon.

There's two different things going on here. Slip fielding could both be something that's really really important but also generally already covered in most good sides by default. The comparison is more with sides with mediocre slip fielding, as many modern sides do.

 

[smash84]

There's two different things going on here. Slip fielding could both be something that's really really important but also generally already covered in most good sides by default. The comparison is more with sides with mediocre slip fielding, as many modern sides do.

Yeah, but we're picking all time XIs, I don't see comparisons with mediocre fielding sides here. Or am I missing something?

 

[Logan]

If Virat Kohli retires today, would he be considered a greater Test batsman than any of the following players?

Dravid?

Sangakkara?

Kallis?

Ponting?

Richards?

Sobers?

Lara?

Sachin?

 

[srbhkshk]

No, quantity has a quality of it's own.

 

[h_hurricane]

Smith is already in that list.

Kohli is very close.Probably there but it is arguable. However, he is an ATG now.

 

[ankitj]

Kohli is already better than Dravid. Not others yet possible.

 

[Logan]

Sunil Gavaskar or Viv Richards?

The better Test batsman?

 

[kyear2]

As important is a bit of a stretch imo, but I get what you're saying.

You can be a good or even ATG team with having a great 5th bowler and definitely with being able to bat competently all the way to 10 or 11 or in some cases even 9. I've yet to see a team achieve consistent home and away success while having a poor cordon.

 

[Coronis]

Sunil Gavaskar or Viv Richards?

The better Test batsman?

Gavaskar.

 

[kyear2]

I put Headley and Pollock into “unproven” category and refuse to rate them (along with Barry Richards).

Kallis and Hammond weren’t better batsman than Viv. I am fairly convinced that Hutton and Hobbs both were better batsmen than Hammond.

As for Sachin vs Viv, it’s like choosing a favorite son. I grew up watching Sachin so I am inherently biased in his case. Viv on the other hand never wore helmet; and was probably the only batsman who intimidated bowers; instead of other way around.

I really can’t pick!

While I agree with every thing from the 2nd and substantive part of your post, I can't agree with the 1st little bit. Headley played cricket for about 20 years. We got limited opportunities to play cricket vs the big boys and could play against SA at all. Then the war broke out. It wasn't like he only played for 5 years and went off into the sunset. Added to that he only played vs teams considerably better than ours and was the only decent far less good batsman on the team. You can call him many things. Unproven isn't one of them. But that's just my opinion.

With regards to Barry, he more than held his own in the toughest cricket ever in WSC, he was regarded as among the top 2 in his era with the bat and his stats prove that, even if only in 1st class competition. But that's partially why we rate Grace and to some extent Hobbs, though more the former than the latter.

 

[kyear2]

Sunil Gavaskar or Viv Richards?

The better Test batsman?

Sir I.V.A. Richards but Coronis and I are both biased to some extent.

 

[kyear2]

yeah, I certainly don't see slip fielding being as important as a fifth bowler or batting deep.

By and large good fielding teams will generally have a decent slip cordon. I can't recall a good fielding side who had a terrible slip cordon.

And having a good fielding side with a great codon is more important to team success that batting to 11. The greatest and most successful teams through history didn't have great batting or bowling all rounders but had great cordons in particular. Teams that struggle in the cordons tend not to be overly successful. I've even seen teams hold on to players because they brought stability to the cordon.

I've even seen arguments of late stating that if Akram had better support in the slips he may have had better numbers, who knows. But Marshall, McGrath and Steyn and hence Australia, W.I and S.A by extension surely benefitted by having talented catchers to take their chances

Look, if you consistently can't hold the difficult chances offered, your team will have a much harder time winning matches.

 

[smash84]

And having a good fielding side with a great codon is more important to team success that batting to 11. The greatest and most successful teams through history didn't have great batting or bowling all rounders but had great cordons in particular. Teams that struggle in the cordons tend not to be overly successful. I've even seen teams hold on to players because they brought stability to the cordon.

I've even seen arguments of late stating that if Akram had better support in the slips he may have had better numbers, who knows. But Marshall, McGrath and Steyn and hence Australia, W.I and S.A by extension surely benefitted by having talented catchers to take their chances

Look, if you consistently can't hold the difficult chances offered, your team will have a much harder time winning matches.

You've missed the point. Pakistan's fielding sucked in general. If anything the slip cordon was probably better than the other fielding positions because inzy was decent in the cordon. That didn't stop the team being **** in general and dropping stuff at mid on

SA is a great example. A good fielding side in general, also has always had a fairly safe slip cordon. As I said, I have yet to see a team with bad fielding have a great slip cordon. Both the aus and wi great teams had great fielding sides and a great slip cordon. It's not like they had Saleem Malik's in the covers and point and mark Waughs in the slips.

 

[Red]

Viv's in a category of his own, beyond comparisons with mere mortal batsmen.

I dread to think what Viv might've done in modern times with modern bats. I doubt anyone has ever hit the ball cleaner and harder than peak Viv.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah, but we're picking all time XIs, I don't see comparisons with mediocre fielding sides here. Or am I missing something?

Let's look at this from 2 perspectives.

For the sake of argument here, your batting line is Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Open slot, Steve Waugh / Headley, Gilly, Imran, Murali etc. You don't see the benefit of playing Steve Smith, Lara or Sobers (injured so not bowling) ahead of Sachin?

That team has good fielders, just none of them special or even specialists in the slips? Half of the chances will go a begging.

You loose more from a secondary skill perspective to have that batting line up than to have a bowling lineup of Marshall, Murali / Warne, Garner and McGrath.

Likewise if you were a county team and could only get one over seas player do you go for Sachin or Smith? In addition to both being about equal with the bat (though I still give Sachin the edge) Smith is ATG slip fielder. How is that not an added benefit.

 

[kyear2]

You've missed the point. Pakistan's fielding sucked in general. If anything the slip cordon was probably better than the other fielding positions because inzy was decent in the cordon. That didn't stop the team being **** in general and dropping stuff at mid on

SA is a great example. A good fielding side in general, also has always had a fairly safe slip cordon. As I said, I have yet to see a team with bad fielding have a great slip cordon. Both the aus and wi great teams had great fielding sides and a great slip cordon. It's not like they had Saleem Malik's in the covers and point and mark Waughs in the slips.

Dropping catches at mid on and being an overall bad fielding unit is lack of disciplin and practice, plus one can always hide one weak link in the field. And having an overall decent fielding team still doesn't guarantee you will have a special cordon. Like batting and bowling that takes practice and talent.

Secondly, those great West Indies and Australian teams didn't have great lower order batting or great 5th bowlers, both departments were decent at both as neither Warne nor Marshall are seen as bowling alrounders, but it more than sufficed.

I honestly believe this batting deep thing is more of a statistical CW fascination than a real world formula for success. Don't get me wrong though, the odd rear guard resistance is sometimes required but that's more of a factor with weaker teams in general. And the role of the 5th bowler is the spell the main guys and possibly break a partnership or two. Anything more is a bonus, while having a good to great cordon is a must for a team to have sustained long term success.

Then there is the factor of diminishing returns. As great as your 5th bowler is (Kallis, Stokes, Sobers, Hammond, either Waugh, Border etc) he isn't a great bowler and isn't going to bowl that much, after all he is your 5th best bowler. In a hypothetical ATG XI how many overs do you want Sobers to really bowl.
Similarity a good or even great no 8 batsman (Imran, Hadlee, Davidson, Pollock) is still down there for a reason. In an ATG scenario or against a great attack a batsman averaging 37 or 29 isn't going to give you consistent runs and in a scenario where the top order of Bradman, Hutton and co fizzled, the likelyhood of a rear guard action isn't that likely. Yes they have a role, stick around with a Sobers or Gilchrist but that same role can be done by a Marshall or a Warne especially if they are better bowlers. With the Greta slip fielders there is no diminishing returns. Sobers, Smith, Lara, Kallis, Hammond etc are all ATG catchers in the cordon. Richards, Warne etc were very good to excellent. There are no caveats like decent 5th bowler or good lower order batsman.
So even with someone like Sobers, his possible contribution in the cordon likely exceeds his own with the ball or an Hadlee with the bat. Regardless, most selectors wouldn't be factoring in batting skill past the no. 9 position in any instance.

Anyways, apologies, this is way off topic and of the question I initially asked.

So Sachin or Viv or do we believe both are safe?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Secondly, those great West Indies and Australian teams didn't have great lower order batting or great 5th bowlers, both departments were decent at both as neither Warne nor Marshall are seen as bowling alrounders, but it more than sufficed.

That's a poor way of looking at it. If instead of one of their great slip fielders, they had one great all rounder instead to provide more lower order batting, they would have been even better than they already were.

Remove joel garner, a quality gully fielder, and replace him with Imran Khan. You cannot in good conscience argue that west indies dont get instantly better. Imran's rubbish fielding becomes a non factor compared to all those extra runs he'd score making them even more unbeatable.

 

[Chrish]

While I agree with every thing from the 2nd and substantive part of your post, I can't agree with the 1st little bit. Headley played cricket for about 20 years. We got limited opportunities to play cricket vs the big boys and could play against SA at all. Then the war broke out. It wasn't like he only played for 5 years and went off into the sunset. Added to that he only played vs teams considerably better than ours and was the only decent far less good batsman on the team. You can call him many things. Unproven isn't one of them. But that's just my opinion.

With regards to Barry, he more than held his own in the toughest cricket ever in WSC, he was regarded as among the top 2 in his era with the bat and his stats prove that, even if only in 1st class competition. But that's partially why we rate Grace and to some extent Hobbs, though more the former than the latter.

Headley never faced full-strength English team. His record against Australia is modest and he didn't face O'Reilly. And the quality of bowling he faced in FC circuit is also questionable.

I know Cardus and CLR James had good things to say about him regarding his ability on difficult wickets; but this isn't enough sample size for me to compare him to his fellow WI batsmen from different era.