The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[sunilz]

But why? He has a good average but his strike rate is nothing special for his era and he's not even indisputably the best going around at the moment.

Yes 57 is only good average in ODI as opener . Then 36 is average of tailender .

 

[vcs]

But then you have to pick Dhoni as keeper and you don't have a choice.

Gilchrist averaged 11% higher than the average opener during his career and struck 30% faster than the average opener during that time.

Rohit averages 40% higher than the average opener during his career and strikes 7% faster than the average opener during that time.

Rohit is also known for making big, average- inflating hundreds and isn't as consistent as other batsmen, which IMO deflates the true value of his average (cf Bevan who did the opposite - was consistent with a lot of starts but very few large scores).

So Gilchrist and Rohit fulfill different opening roles. Gilchrist is going to be far more aggressive but only average a little better than the norm while Rohit is going to average more but not go much faster than the norm.

On batting alone in an AT team you probably want the former since you have Tendulkar, Viv, Kohli and de Villiers sitting in the sheds. So Gilchrist is probably going to fit into that side much better.

And you don't have to play Dhoni and can play the superior batsman in Bevan.

Gilchrist was much more inconsistent that Rohit though.

 

[ankitj]

Stephen vs. everyone in " let's stuff Indians vs. let's tuff Aussies in all time XI " battle

 

[sunilz]

Difference between batting average of Rohit and Gilchrist is twice as that of Smith and Kohli . But Smith is 2nd to Bradman and Rohit is not even good to replace Gilchrist in ODI ATXI . Talk about being biased and single eyed as a fan .

 

[stephen]

Gilchrist was much more inconsistent that Rohit though.

I could have sworn I read a cricinfo article recently which showed that Rohit is ridiculously inconsistent but once he got past 20 he tended to go huge. But now I can't find the article.

Gilchrist was usually good for a quick fire 30-50.

 

[sunilz]

I could have sworn I read a cricinfo article recently which showed that Rohit is ridiculously inconsistent but once he got past 20 he tended to go huge. But now I can't find the article.

Gilchrist was usually good for a quick fire 30-50.

Bradman also wasn't the most consistent test cricketer. Tony greig was. Let's replace Bradman with Tony Greig in AT XI.
Who are the most consistent players in Test history? | The Cricket Monthly | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[stephen]

Difference between batting average of Rohit and Gilchrist is twice as that of Smith and Kohli . But Smith is 2nd to Bradman and Rohit is not even good to replace Gilchrist in ODI ATXI . Talk about being biased and single eyed as a fan .

Lol talk about comparing apples to oranges.

Your statement is bad for multiple reasons, so I'll enumerate a few.
1) average is far more important in tests than ODIs
2) Smith and Kohli are contemporaries, Gilchrist and Rohit are not
3) Gilchrist strikes at a rate that was substantially faster than his contemporaries - a similar amount to how Rohit averages more than his contemporaries
4) Gilchrist can keep, meaning that an ODI side can play superior players in other positions

Rohit might be a better batsman than Gilchrist as an ODI opener but:
- Rohit spent his learning years as a batsman in the middle order and was rubbish, so his time as opener corresponds to his peak
- The era Rohit plays in is the easiest batting era in history and yet his record in some countries is utterly horrid
- Rohit doesn't strike faster than his contemporaries
- Rohit can't keep

Rohit is a flat track bully, which isn't a huge issue in ODIs but there's no way I'd pick him in an all time XI where he'd be facing bowlers of the calibre of Ambrose, Donald and McGrath.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I don't think you can compare averages across eras like this in odis. The game has changed too much in the last decade to make it a fair comparison to the older guys.

 

[sunilz]

Lol talk about comparing apples to oranges.

Your statement is bad for multiple reasons, so I'll enumerate a few.
1) average is far more important in tests than ODIs
2) Smith and Kohli are contemporaries, Gilchrist and Rohit are not
3) Gilchrist strikes at a rate that was substantially faster than his contemporaries - a similar amount to how Rohit averages more than his contemporaries
4) Gilchrist can keep, meaning that an ODI side can play superior players in other positions

Rohit might be a better batsman than Gilchrist as an ODI opener but:
- Rohit spent his learning years as a batsman in the middle order and was rubbish, so his time as opener corresponds to his peak
- The era Rohit plays in is the easiest batting era in history and yet his record in some countries is utterly horrid
- Rohit doesn't strike faster than his contemporaries
- Rohit can't keep

Rohit is a flat track bully, which isn't a huge issue in ODIs but there's no way I'd pick him in an all time XI where he'd be facing bowlers of the calibre of Ambrose, Donald and McGrath.

Let's also apply the same logic to Kumble vs Warne :
Warne was a proven failure against all every ATG batsman of his era like Tendulkar, Lara and Kallis. Forget about taking wickets he used to leak runs like a part time bowler against every top batsman of his era.
Kumble was a more successful bowler against Lara , Ponting and used to keep things in control vs SA .
Warne was a weak batting bully . He won't be bowling to Cullinan and Atherton in ATXI . There is no way one can have a weak batting bully like Warne in ATXI.

 

[sunilz]

I don't think you can compare averages across eras like this in odis. The game has changed too much in the last decade to make it a fair comparison to the older guys.

But neither can you ignore difference in batting average of 21 . This like saying Bumrah would have averaged 12 in 90s as ODI bowler.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Rohit isn't a batsman I'd want on a green seamer opening the batting but I don't think it's fair to say he'd struggle against Mcgrath or Akram, there's absolutely no basis for this. Rohit has batted brilliantly against starc and he's as good if not marginally better than those guys.

Rohit struggles in tough conditions, maybe, but not necessarily against just high quality bowlers.

 

[srbhkshk]

Not a single one of Sachin , Rohit , Viv , Kohli , ABD or Dhoni are "slow" scoring batsman by any measure. The only thing that was keeping Gilchrist in the ATG side was the absence of a clearly superior batsman - now that Rohit is there (and I presume at least one English opener would be there in some time) - there's no place for him. 20 runs difference in average is massive and no amount of trivia statistics are going to change that.

 

[honestbharani]

The greatest thing about Dhoni's emergence as an ATG ODI player has been the fact that it makes it easy for me to pick the two best batsmen I have seen so far in my life to open the batting in my ATG ODI XI.


Sachin
Lara
Viv
AB
MSD (wk)
Hussey


is the batting line up I will go with. I am leaving out current players obviously and MSD looks like he is done, for all intents and purposes.

 

[srbhkshk]

Rohit isn't a batsman I'd want on a green seamer opening the batting but I don't think it's fair to say he'd struggle against Mcgrath or Akram, there's absolutely no basis for this. Rohit has batted brilliantly against starc and he's as good if not marginally better than those guys.

Rohit struggles in tough conditions, maybe, but not necessarily against just high quality bowlers.

Neither of them is averaging anything more than 20s in tough conditions against good bowlers, Rohit's flat out superior on roads though.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Not a single one of Sachin , Rohit , Viv , Kohli , ABD or Dhoni are "slow" scoring batsman by any measure. The only thing that was keeping Gilchrist in the ATG side was the absence of a clearly superior batsman - now that Rohit is there (and I presume at least one English opener would be there in some time) - there's no place for him. 20 runs difference in average is massive and no amount of trivia statistics are going to change that.

I kind of agree but don't you think the fact that their roles are so different has to be taken into account here. Rohit is a notoriously slow starter and Gilchrist was basically going for it from ball one. If you want an ultra attacking opener to pair with Tendulkar in an at xi and want him to provide a rapid start instead of steadily laying a platform, then Gilchrist is the superior choice.

 

[harsh.ag]

Then you pick Symonds and Klusener to fill out your 6 and 7. Because the role that Dhoni was good at was done better by Bevan. If you want hitters, those two will be your best options.

Few apart from Australian fans from Bevan's era would think this is categorically true.

 

[Logan]

But neither can you ignore difference in batting average of 21 . This like saying Bumrah would have averaged 12 in 90s as ODI bowler.

If this is a batting dominated era, then someone like Starc who averages 21 and has a SR of 25 is the GOAT ODI bowler.

 

[honestbharani]

Bevan was not as good as Dhoni as an ODI batsman. I wonder if the same posters will agree Zaheer Abbas was a better ODI batsman than Ricky Ponting.

 

[vcs]

Rohit struggles against early movement. I remember Steyn making him look like an absolute bunny in this match, where he must have played and missed some 10 times in Steyn's first 3 overs. I wish there was some YouTube footage of that spell.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...ia-1st-odi-india-tour-of-south-africa-2013-14

That said, I don't think his technical weaknesses are particularly more pronounced than Gilchrist, who was also made to look silly by the likes of Bond, Akhtar etc. on several occasions. I wouldn't be hugely confident of either of them surviving a Donald and McGrath opening spell, but I'd rather pick the guy with much better stats.

 

[stephen]

But neither can you ignore difference in batting average of 21 . This like saying Bumrah would have averaged 12 in 90s as ODI bowler.

No, because like every other piece of "analysis" you have, you don't fundamentally understand what had going on.

The best bowlers are still averaging the same because they are great. But the game favouring the batsmen means that the lesser bowlers have much higher averages.

The last decade has seen most of the best bowlers play minimal ODIs as well for workload management reasons. That has been inflating batting averages as well.