The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Coronis]

Perfectly legitimate based on what? I lilke the left-right combo and I honestly think Amla is a better test match batsman than Warner. FWIW, I am a big fan of Warner the batsman too. But don't let facts get in the way. The only reason Aussies are not selected is bias.

This isn’t anything to do with countries. Its to do with a player not being selected despite being one of two clear choices at the opening position. And being replaced with someone who literally played 1 innings as an opener in the decade. Doesn’t look like bias against this player at all....

 

[Coronis]

And the only reason I have Steve Smith at 5, if it needs to be reasoned out, is that I want the more aggressive option at 4 and Smith at 5 to balance a collapse out. It is how I envisage any test match XI:

Dour Opener
Positive Opener
Technically solid batsman
Aggressive batsman
Technically versatile batsman - can either stop a collapse or get on with it after a good start
Aggressive batsman 2 / all-rounder
Aggressive batsman 3 / all-rounder
Spinner who can bat
Fast bowler who can bat
Swing bowler
Swing/Fast bowler

And ideally one or two of the top 5 will be capable of bowling decently, and one of them can be the second spinner when needed. Otherwise, the all-rounder can be the spinner.

So most sides I pick will be around this template. I am sure it is perfectly more legitimate than Coronis' stupid claim in his post.

My apologies for questioning your positioning of Steve Smith in your XI. I will keep my thoughts to myself in the future..

 

[honestbharani]

This isn’t anything to do with countries. Its to do with a player not being selected despite being one of two clear choices at the opening position. And being replaced with someone who literally played 1 innings as an opener in the decade. Doesn’t look like bias against this player at all....

For a man with as many biased views on cricket as yourself, you sure do not have any idea when something is a biased pick and something is not.

 

[Coronis]

For a man with as many biased views on cricket as yourself, you sure do not have any idea when something is a biased pick and something is not.

I have no intention of getting caught up in all the petty Australia vs India crap that ravages this forum, especially this thread, so I’ll just say bias is not always nationalistically based.

 

[CricAddict]

Looking at his stats and saying "He was rubbish at 6" is a bit silly. During his peak he only ever batted 5 due to his versatility - he could stabilise an innings or he could hit out in the late overs.

First time I am hearing that a batsman playing at the same position all the time proves his versatility.

And the only reason I have Steve Smith at 5, if it needs to be reasoned out, is that I want the more aggressive option at 4 and Smith at 5 to balance a collapse out. It is how I envisage any test match XI:

Dour Opener
Positive Opener
Technically solid batsman
Aggressive batsman
Technically versatile batsman - can either stop a collapse or get on with it after a good start
Aggressive batsman 2 / all-rounder
Aggressive batsman 3 / all-rounder
Spinner who can bat
Fast bowler who can bat
Swing bowler
Swing/Fast bowler

HB, the posts don't connect. Actually, I too feel that Symonds is a good fit for the position based on Stephen's arguments. He may not be the best batsman/striker/bowler/all-rounder but he could be the best fit for that position.

 

[Daemon]

HB, the posts don't connect. Actually, I too feel that Symonds is a good fit for the position based on Stephen's arguments. He may not be the best batsman/striker/bowler/all-rounder but he could be the best fit for that position.

In the first two posts you've quoted he's referring to ODIs whereas that third post is for Tests.

 

[Daemon]

And the only reason I have Steve Smith at 5, if it needs to be reasoned out, is that I want the more aggressive option at 4 and Smith at 5 to balance a collapse out. It is how I envisage any test match XI:

Dour Opener
Positive Opener
Technically solid batsman
Aggressive batsman
Technically versatile batsman - can either stop a collapse or get on with it after a good start
Aggressive batsman 2 / all-rounder
Aggressive batsman 3 / all-rounder
Spinner who can bat
Fast bowler who can bat
Swing bowler
Swing/Fast bowler

And ideally one or two of the top 5 will be capable of bowling decently, and one of them can be the second spinner when needed. Otherwise, the all-rounder can be the spinner.

So most sides I pick will be around this template. I am sure it is perfectly more legitimate than Coronis' stupid claim in his post.

If you want dour and positive up top then I can't think of a better pair than Warner and Cook really. Amla literally opened the batting twice in his career.

 

[ataraxia]

My team of the decade:

Warner
Cook*
Sangakkara
Smith
Kohli
de Villiers +
Shakib - 5
Jadeja - 4
Philander - 3
Steyn - 1
Anderson - 2

 

[honestbharani]

I have no intention of getting caught up in all the petty Australia vs India crap that ravages this forum, especially this thread, so I’ll just say bias is not always nationalistically based.

I did not say the bias was nationalistic either, but I guess you see what you wanna see..

 

[honestbharani]

HB, the posts don't connect. Actually, I too feel that Symonds is a good fit for the position based on Stephen's arguments. He may not be the best batsman/striker/bowler/all-rounder but he could be the best fit for that position.

In the first two posts you've quoted he's referring to ODIs whereas that third post is for Tests.

yeah obviously ODI line ups have to be a lot more fluid.

If you want dour and positive up top then I can't think of a better pair than Warner and Cook really. Amla literally opened the batting twice in his career.

I think I explained it pretty clearly earlier. I feel Amla is a better batsman for tests than Warner and I think he always had the game to be an opener. When selecting a team of the decade, I feel it is more important to get in the quality players than trying to strictly go position for position, especially since opening and #3 are not as dissimilar as other slots can be in test cricket.

 

[Red]

To bat at 4, yes. And Symonds overall average gives you the right perspective of his level as an ODI player. Like I said, he is a class below the ATGs of ODI cricket.

His value is as an allrounder more than just a middle order batsman. And there have been better all-rounders. It really is that simple.

It's a bit like stephen's argument against Rohit in the ATG XI imo. Symonds wouldn't add as much to a strong side as he would to a weaker one. There are better 5th bowling + lower order batting options out there.

He'd easily make the best rig xi though

He has to be considered as a package (not just his rig, although that's a part of it)

His career started 20 years ago and finished 10 years ago. His SR (esp for that era) is phenomenal and on top of that he averages 40+. I think he's a far better ODI bat than you give him credit for.

In addition, he is the best (absolutely) ring fielder I've ever seen. This is a huge factor for me. Epic fielder. Having him in the inner ring causes so much hesitation around short singles. His bowling is a nice bonus.

I can understand him being the most contentious selection in my ODI ATG XI, but I have no hesitations.

 

[Red]

In an ATG team, Kohli bats at number 3 and Richards bats at number 4. That’s the position they played the most.

Wrong, in an ATG team Viv decides where he'd like to bat and Kohli bats where Viv tells him to.

 

[Red]

First time I am hearing that a batsman playing at the same position all the time proves his versatility.

And honestly, it is very very simple. He is not good enough to bat top 5 in any ATG second XI, forget ATG XI (and will struggle to fit into the top 5 of an ATG third XI), he is not good enough as an all-rounder to bat 6 or 7 in any ATG first, second XIs. The sheer mental gymnastics required to justify a lousy pick is now reaching ridiculous levels.

The sheer vitriol you continually pour on Aust players is what is now reaching ridiculous levels, mate.

 

[Red]

He really has not batted all that much at #6 either, it seems. Or at least if he did, he did not average all that high. Check it out. Average of 29 after 66 matches, 40 innings and a SR of 97. Just not good enough for an ATG side.

Perfectly legitimate based on what? I lilke the left-right combo and I honestly think Amla is a better test match batsman than Warner. FWIW, I am a big fan of Warner the batsman too. But don't let facts get in the way. The only reason Aussies are not selected is bias.

So you wouldn't drop Symonds down the order to bat at 6 in a pretend ODI team, but you'll promote Amla to open in a pretend test XI in spite of the fact he only opened in 1 innings in the whole decade. And the guy you'd leave out in favour of Amla is Warner. Okay.

 

[Red]

I've decided from now on I will heavily emphasise ring and slip fielding in my ODI ATG XIs top 6, and henceforth my team shall reflect that. The inner ring fielding would easily compensate for any perceived loss of batting, although I'd back these batsmen to the hilt anyhow. There'd be no short singles or plenty of run outs were singles attempted.


Adam Gilchrist +
Mark Waugh
Ricky Ponting
Viv Richards
Andrew Flintoff
AB DeVilliers
Andrew Symonds
Wasim Akram
Joel Garner
Muttiah Muralitharan
Glenn McGrath

 

[Burgey]

My team of the decade:

Warner
Cook*
Sangakkara
Smith
Kohli
de Villiers +
Shakib - 5
Jadeja - 4
Philander - 3
Steyn - 1
Anderson - 2

This is not a bad side at all given those available, however it demonstrates the lack of properly great openers, keepers and bowlers tin he last 10 years.

The latter is kind of odd as I think there are more strong bowling units around now, but there’s been a lack of stand out Individual greats apart from Steyn

 

[srbhkshk]

Wrong, in an ATG team Viv decides where he'd like to bat and Kohli bats where Viv tells him to.

lol

 

[Red]

My team of the decade:

Warner
Cook*
Sangakkara
Smith
Kohli
de Villiers +
Shakib - 5
Jadeja - 4
Philander - 3
Steyn - 1
Anderson - 2

Second XI

Azhar
Amla
Younis
Williamson
Root
Matthews
Watling +
Herath
Rabada
Wagner
Boult

 

[ataraxia]

This is not a bad side at all given those available, however it demonstrates the lack of properly great openers, keepers and bowlers tin he last 10 years.

The latter is kind of odd as I think there are more strong bowling units around now, but there’s been a lack of stand out Individual greats apart from Steyn

Seriously hb is saying a side with Symonds is terrible and you're saying a side with Jaddu is not bad. I like to side against Aus oh so much but I'm finding it very hard now.

 

[ataraxia]

Second XI

Azhar
Amla
Younis
Williamson
Root
Matthews
Watling +
Herath
Rabada
Wagner
Boult

Mine:

Azhar
Amla
Williamson
Younis
Root
Watling +
Stokes
Ashwin
Johnson
Shami
Boult/Morkel

I may have forgotten someone.