The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[jimmy101]

An interesting matchup...

Aus 2001 + Windies 1981

Gordon Greenidge
Mathew Hayden
Vivian Richards*
Ricky Ponting
Clive Lloyd
Steve Waugh
Adam Gilchrist+
Malcolm Marshall
Shane Warne
Michael Holding
Glenn McGrath

vs

Aus 1948 + England 1954

Arthur Morris
Leonard Hutton*
Donald Bradman
Neil Harvey
Denis Compton
Keith Miller
Ray Lindwall
Godfrey Evans+
Fred Tueman
Jim Laker
Jason Statham

 

[mr_mister]

Viv skipper over Lloyd and Waugh?

 

[Logan]

An interesting matchup...

Aus 2001 + Windies 1981

Gordon Greenidge
Mathew Hayden
Vivian Richards*
Ricky Ponting
Clive Lloyd
Steve Waugh
Adam Gilchrist+
Malcolm Marshall
Shane Warne
Michael Holding
Glenn McGrath

vs

Aus 1948 + England 1954

Arthur Morris
Leonard Hutton*
Donald Bradman
Neil Harvey
Denis Compton
Keith Miller
Ray Lindwall
Godfrey Evans+
Fred Tueman
Jim Laker
Jason Statham

Second team wins. Jason Statham is the BOSS.

 

[Coronis]

It is true but you did use the word "quality" spinner to go through the overs. Hence the discussion on what would be Warne's "quality" against this batting line up.And over rates not a problem if you can bowl out sides in 120 overs. Richards himself is good for 10 overs a day and maybe Hooper over Logie won't be such a big step down in quality as far as batting goes. Also, the Windies bowled that way then coz those were the rules. I am sure they will be able to adapt to present day rules just ifine, coz otherwise the argument is the same as Bradman would have struggled in Asia in turning conditions.

Right but the point is on any sort of wicket with even a bit of turn there’s a massive quality drop from Warne to whatever part time pie chucker the Windies might pull out of their ass. Oh I see the Windies will still consistently bowl out Australia in 120 overs and are able to adapt to modern rules but Australia would not be able to adapt to past rules regarding bouncers etc.

 

[jimmy101]

Viv skipper over Lloyd and Waugh?

Yeah, Tugga & Supercat are better choices now that you mention it.

 

[jimmy101]

Second team wins. Jason Statham is the BOSS.

Haha. Oops! At least that was a cool brain-fade on my part :-)

 

[honestbharani]

Right but the point is on any sort of wicket with even a bit of turn there’s a massive quality drop from Warne to whatever part time pie chucker the Windies might pull out of their ass. Oh I see the Windies will still consistently bowl out Australia in 120 overs and are able to adapt to modern rules but Australia would not be able to adapt to past rules regarding bouncers etc.

You should really try to understand the post better before pulling such a **** post as a response. Let me break this down:

1. Warne is a quality spinner and none of the Windies spinners of the 80s were of the same quality.
2. Warne was never all that good against the better battling line-ups of his time and Windies of the 80s are an ATG batting line up.
3. So the quality argument wont really stand as the 4th seamer of the Windies side will still be as good a weapon as Warne.
4. If over rate is the reason Windies will struggle to beat Australia, it is stupid, coz it is the Bradman will struggle against spin in Asia argument.
5. But even if we are to consider it seriously, in a hypothetical series, Windies will still need two or so violations before the captain can be banned. Series can well be dusted by then.
6. I dont think the batting line up loses much in comparison to Australia if Hooper were to replace Logie.

I fail to see what triggered you about any of these points, which are perfectly arguable AFAIC.

 

[bagapath]

An interesting matchup...

Aus 2001 + Windies 1981

Gordon Greenidge
Mathew Hayden
Vivian Richards*
Ricky Ponting
Clive Lloyd
Steve Waugh
Adam Gilchrist+
Malcolm Marshall
Shane Warne
Michael Holding
Glenn McGrath

vs

Aus 1948 + England 1954

Arthur Morris
Leonard Hutton*
Donald Bradman
Neil Harvey
Denis Compton
Keith Miller
Ray Lindwall
Godfrey Evans+
Fred Tueman
Jim Laker
Jason Statham

In 1981 Roberts would be a better choice than Macko. After 1983 is a different story.

 

[Slifer]

Right but the point is on any sort of wicket with even a bit of turn there’s a massive quality drop from Warne to whatever part time pie chucker the Windies might pull out of their ass. Oh I see the Windies will still consistently bowl out Australia in 120 overs and are able to adapt to modern rules but Australia would not be able to adapt to past rules regarding bouncers etc.

I honestly don't think that any of the oz batsmen would be able to survive without helmets + bouncers, with the possible exception of Ponting and S Waugh. And no the WI won't consistently bowl out Australia unless the wicket is of the old Sabina/Perth type. Then again, the WI would probably struggle against Warne at the SCG. What's certain imo, is that neither team will dominate the other.

 

[ataraxia]

In 1981 Roberts would be a better choice than Macko. After 1983 is a different story.

Garner over Roberts please.

 

[jimmy101]

Really good to have HB back. Has been hitting some of the more dire posters on here for six over the past week

 

[stephen]

You should really try to understand the post better before pulling such a **** post as a response. Let me break this down:

2. Warne was never all that good against the better battling line-ups of his time and Windies of the 80s are an ATG batting line up.

That simply not true. Yes he struggled against India, but Sri Lanka were almost as good against spin and he had no issues with them. And other than his post- surgery series in 1999 against the Windies he performed against all others.

The 4th seamer would be very good for the West Indies but if the wicket isn't offering anything for the first three seamers, it's unlikely that the 4th will get anything out of it. Most of the 4th seamers that the WI fielded averaged around 30 during the era, which is pretty good for a 4th seamer but wouldn't add to the team like a quality spinner would.

During the 90s Hooper bowled a decent chunk of overs for the Windies (averaged 24 overs per test for the decade and bowled the third most overs for the Windies).

 

[mr_mister]

Really good to have HB back. Has been hitting some of the more dire posters on here for six over the past week

Which posters are you referring to?

 

[jimmy101]

Which posters are you referring to?

Not you brother. That fart-huffer coronis.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Bad post. Coronis is quality.

 

[jimmy101]

Here's an interesting concept, perhaps, if you could create a World XI from players which were active during a single calendar year, which year could boast the strongest XI?

Off the top of my head, here's a side from the year 2000 (entire career considered).

Matthew Hayden
Saeed Anwar
Brian Lara
Sachin Tendulkar
Ricky Ponting*
Adam Gilchrist+
Shaun Pollock
Wasim Akram
Shane Warne
Curtly Ambrose
Allan Donald

Really hard to leave the Waughs, Dravid, Murali, McGrath & Waqar out of this side. Anyone out there reckon they could put together a team from a particular year that could beat this side?

 

[jimmy101]

Bad post. Coronis is quality.

Not really.

 

[ataraxia]

Here's an interesting concept, perhaps, if you could create a World XI from players which were active during a single calendar year, which year could boast the strongest XI?

Off the top of my head, here's a side from the year 2000 (entire career considered).

Matthew Hayden
Saeed Anwar
Brian Lara
Sachin Tendulkar
Ricky Ponting*
Adam Gilchrist+
Shaun Pollock
Wasim Akram
Shane Warne
Curtly Ambrose
Allan Donald

Really hard to leave the Waughs, Dravid, Murali, McGrath & Waqar out of this side. Anyone out there reckon they could put together a team from a particular year that could beat this side?

I once thought about this and 2004 is madly good in terms of batters.

Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Martyn
Waugh
Clarke
Lehmann
Jayasuriya
Atapattu
Dilshan
Sangakkara
Jayawardene
Tendulkar
Dravid
Laxman
Sehwag
Gambhir
Ganguly
Pietersen
Strauss
Fleming
McCullum
Inzamam
Younis
Yousuf
Misbah
Saeed
Kallis
Amla
de Villiers
Kirsten
Lara
Chanderpaul
Gayle

I'll try 1946:

L Hutton
AR Morris
DG Bradman
WR Hammond - 5
GH Headley
AD Nourse (just beating Compton)
RR Lindwall
D Tallon +
WJ O'Reilly
AV Bedser
J Cowie

Nowhere near as good as yours.

 

[CricAddict]

On the big Aussies vs Windies discussion, why are we focussing so much on side issues such as over-rates and helmets over their actual cricketing achievements? Based on the discussion so far, believe it would have been a very fiercely contested and competitive series between the 2 sides with no one being able to predict who might win at the end of the day.

 

[honestbharani]

That simply not true. Yes he struggled against India, but Sri Lanka were almost as good against spin and he had no issues with them. And other than his post- surgery series in 1999 against the Windies he performed against all others.

The 4th seamer would be very good for the West Indies but if the wicket isn't offering anything for the first three seamers, it's unlikely that the 4th will get anything out of it. Most of the 4th seamers that the WI fielded averaged around 30 during the era, which is pretty good for a 4th seamer but wouldn't add to the team like a quality spinner would.

During the 90s Hooper bowled a decent chunk of overs for the Windies (averaged 24 overs per test for the decade and bowled the third most overs for the Windies).

This is simply not true either.. Windies won a bunch against India in India with 4 seamers. Something that Aussie side could never do (bagel India in India in a test series). The point here is unless it is an absolute rank turner, Warne is really not gonna make a difference AFAIC, especially given the quality of whoever the 4th seamer is in the 80s Windies side. Even Australia won in India when they finally played with 3 seamers and stopped picking a spinner just for the sake of it. And Hooper did bowl a lot in the 90s, but not in the 80s. Also, fun fact, Harper, who was their main spinner in the 80s, averages 28 or 29 per wicket. Not all that far off Warney as you may have thought.