The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[_00_deathscar]

Openers.
England: Hobbs, Hutton

Middle order
Australia: Bradman, Smith, Ponting

All rounder
West Indies: Sobers

Wicket keep / spinner
Australia: Gilchrist, Warne

Fast bowlers
West Indies: Marshall, Ambrose, Garner

West Indies middle order and South Africa pace attack both are very close.

Now what if you had to do the same but with only one country for each?
Openers
Middle order
All-rounder (batting/bowling - your choice)
Wicket keeper
1 spinner (or 2, but cut out a fast bowler or make your all-rounder a bowler who can bowl fast/medium fast etc)
Fast bowler

What's the pick? Assume spinner is probably Sri Lanka. Some of the above probably stays the same, some probably changes.

Openers: England - Hobbs, Hutton
Middle order: Australia - Bradman, Smith, Waugh
Wicket-keeper: ?
All-rounder: Pakistan - Imran
Spinner: Sri Lanka - Murali
Fast bowlers: South Africa - Steyn, Pollock, Donald

Trying to figure out what *the* best combo possibly could be.

 

[smash84]

The thing with the Aus all time XI is that with Bradman and Gilchrist the team gets almost 2 more batsmen compared to the other sides. Which is a ridiculous advantage over any of the other teams.

 

[stephen]

The thing with the Aus all time XI is that with Bradman and Gilchrist the team gets almost 2 more batsmen compared to the other sides. Which is a ridiculous advantage over any of the other teams.

Yeah. They also have a top 2 spinner, four pace bowlers as good as any in history that are fighting for three spots. Their openers are as good as any nation not named England can put out and their 4-6 is super flexible with space for a genuine all rounder or 3 ATG batsmen, including one who already looks to be at least top 5 of all time.

Honestly, assuming a first XI of

Hayden
Simpson
Bradman
Smith
Chappell
Border
Gilchrist
Davidson
Warne
Lillee
McGrath

The second XI will be competitive with most other ATG first XIs (clearly behind WI and England and SA but competitive with the rest):

Trumper
Lawry
Ponting
Harvey
Miller
Waugh
Healy
Lindwall
Cummins
O'Reilly
Grimmett

 

[harsh.ag]

Now what if you had to do the same but with only one country for each?
Openers
Middle order
All-rounder (batting/bowling - your choice)
Wicket keeper
1 spinner (or 2, but cut out a fast bowler or make your all-rounder a bowler who can bowl fast/medium fast etc)
Fast bowler

What's the pick? Assume spinner is probably Sri Lanka. Some of the above probably stays the same, some probably changes.

Openers: England - Hobbs, Hutton
Middle order: Australia - Bradman, Smith, Waugh
Wicket-keeper: ?
All-rounder: Pakistan - Imran
Spinner: Sri Lanka - Murali
Fast bowlers: South Africa - Steyn, Pollock, Donald

Trying to figure out what *the* best combo possibly could be.

Openers: England - Hobbs, Hutton
Middle order: West Indies - Viv, Lara, Sobers
Wicket-keeper: Australia - Gilchrist
All-rounder: South Africa - Kallis
Spinner: Sri Lanka - Murali
Fast bowlers: Pakistan - Imran, Wasim, Waqar

Hobbs
Hutton
Viv
Kallis
Lara
Sobers
Gilchrist +
Imran
Wasim
Waqar
Murali

Bats deep, has Gilly.

 

[stephen]

I don't know if you can sacrifice Bradman for Gilly.

Hobbs
Hutton
Bradman
Smith
Chappell
Sobers
Dhoni
Pollock
Steyn
Donald
Murali

Alternatively, and perhaps more thematically (England - openers, Australia - middle order, South Africa - all rounders, India - effigies, West Indies - pace, Sri Lanka - also being there):

Hobbs
Hutton
Bradman
Smith
Chappell
Kallis
Dhoni
Marshall
Garner
Ambrose
Murali

 

[bagapath]

Same selection logic. Going a little random

Openers: Hayden, Trumper
Middle order: Weekes Worrell Walcott
All-rounder: Botham
Wk & spinner: Sangakkara Murali
Pace: Imran Wasim Waqar

VS

Openers: G. Smith B. Richards
Middle order: Dravid Tendulkar Kohli
All-rounder: Miller
Wk & spinner: Knott Laker
Pace: Hadlee Bond Bolt

 

[ataraxia]

Is Botham needed in an English XI? The 5 players most likely to come above him can all bowl. Sutcliffe/May as 6th batsman works better IMO.

Hobbs
Hutton
Hammond
Barrington
Compton
May

Surely works better than with Botham.

 

[srbhkshk]

Botham wins you games with the ball though, or at least his fat free version does.

 

[Coronis]

I prefer

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hutton
Hammond
Barrington
Compton/Botham

 

[harsh.ag]

Would have Botham only with Flintoff/Stokes in the mix. Otherwise, six batsmen.

Edit: Actually, scratch that. Even with six batsmen, would have Botham in the XI. He is probably England's greatest ever third pacer. Plus his batting.

 

[Coronis]

Would have Botham only with Flintoff/Stokes in the mix. Otherwise, six batsmen.

Edit: Actually, scratch that. Even with six batsmen, would have Botham in the XI. He is probably England's greatest ever third pacer. Plus his batting.

So your bowling attack would look like..?

 

[Red]

Hutton
Hobbs
Hammond
May
Compton
Ames +
Botham
Larwood
Barnes
Trueman
Laker

 

[harsh.ag]

So your bowling attack would look like..?

Either

Botham (4)
Flintoff (5)
Barnes (3)
Trueman (1)
Anderson (2)

or

Hammond (5)
Botham (4)
Barnes (3)
Trueman (1)
Anderson (2)

Barnes to act as the spinner.

Prefer the former one myself for reasons of balance and depth, given England's lack of all-conditions great bowlers.

 

[ataraxia]

Hutton
Hobbs
Hammond
May
Compton
Ames +
Botham
Larwood
Barnes
Trueman
Laker

I love picking Ames but I feel Knott inches ahead. I don't know much about the former's keeping however, just know that it sufficed in a day and age where that was a high threshold.

Either

Botham (4)
Flintoff (5)
Barnes (3)
Trueman (1)
Anderson (2)

or

Hammond (5)
Botham (4)
Barnes (3)
Trueman (1)
Anderson (2)

Barnes to act as the spinner.

Prefer the former one myself for reasons of balance and depth, given England's lack of all-conditions great bowlers.

Verity, Laker, Underwood, and Rhodes are all better bowlers than Anderson/Botham/Flintoff IMO.

 

[Coronis]

Hutton
Hobbs
Hammond
May
Compton
Ames +
Botham
Larwood
Barnes
Trueman
Laker

May I ask as to why May and Compton make it above Barrington?

 

[jimmy101]

Barrington is great & all, but I feel that he gets a bit overrated here by some of the stats-mad CW users. May & Compton always seemed to get more plaudits from people who were around at the time to see them play & are good choices over big Ken, in my opinion anyway. Barrington definitely deserves to be in the discussion though, but I am failing to see why the selection of Barrington became an automatic choice for most posters around these parts.

 

[Coronis]

Barrington is great & all, but I feel that he gets a bit overrated here by some of the stats-mad CW users. May & Compton always seemed to get more plaudits from people who were around at the time to see them play & are good choices over big Ken, in my opinion anyway. Barrington definitely deserves to be in the discussion though, but I am failing to see why the selection of Barrington became an automatic choice for most posters around these parts.

Many people who watched them both play said Archie Jackson was better than Don Bradman. Many people rated Wasim over Ambrose and McGrath. Not that experts opinions are worthless but I think both stats and their opinions need to be taken into account. Before we bring up slow play or anything both Compton and May had SR’s that were almost the same as Barrington’s. With him being objectively superior in every other measure (by some distance mind you), I’m drawing my own conclusion that due to his “unattractive” playing style he was unfairly rated lower at the time than those other two batsmen.

 

[mr_mister]

The Jackson one is so silly. Played enough FC stuff that it was obvious he wasn't gonna average 100 like Don or anywhere close to it

 

[harsh.ag]

Kohli - Smith is a better analogy. Happening in real time.

 

[jimmy101]

Many people who watched them both play said Archie Jackson was better than Don Bradman. Many people rated Wasim over Ambrose and McGrath. Not that experts opinions are worthless but I think both stats and their opinions need to be taken into account. Before we bring up slow play or anything both Compton and May had SR’s that were almost the same as Barrington’s. With him being objectively superior in every other measure (by some distance mind you), I’m drawing my own conclusion that due to his “unattractive” playing style he was unfairly rated lower at the time than those other two batsmen.

I see what you're saying, but I kind of feels like you're deliberately refusing to believe the testimonies of past players because it flys in the face of statistical analysis. An unattractive batting style has nothing to do with it. Barrington was a wonderful player, but having a player which averages less than 40 in FC cricket in his home conditions (wasn't aware of that until I read it in DoG's thread) is a bit of a joke. If Adam Voges is anything to go by, it's possible for an average-ish player in FC to achieve great things in international cricket if they hit a purple patch at the right time. Clearly Barrington is better than Voges, but this whole revisionist history surrounding Barrington as the forgotten ATG is just fuelled by stats & nothing else. If you open any cricket book published before 1980 there will always be much more attention paid to Compton/May than Kenny & there is a good reason for this.

You say that Barrington was objectively superior than those guys in every measure by some distance, but was he really? What measures are you referring to? If you take Test batting averages out of the conversation, there's literally nothing to prove that he was objectively better.

Definitely respect your opinion though, it kind of pains me to rag on Barrington, but he simply doesn't get the same praise as his contemporaries from the people who were alive at the time.