The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread (white ball edition)

[TheJediBrah]

It's definitely fair not to have Symonds in the ATG side, but it's definitely fair to pick him as well. He didn't play much good cricket at no. 7 during his career but there's no reason to think a peak Symonds wouldn't do that job with the bat as good as anyone. His fielding speaks for itself, and his bowling is not ATG standard it is serviceable enough for the team to be stronger with him in it than other options like Imran, Flintoff or even Klusener at 7, IMO. Especially if 3 of your 4 specialist bowlers are seamers already. If you're going with 2 specialist spinners though then you want your all-rounder to be a proper quick though, of course.

edit: @Migara, there's no way Kallis would be an option unless he's batting in the top 3, and he's not doing that. Shakib is a bit more of a realistic choice but again if he's batting 7 then I think Symonds does that job significantly better (in addition to signficantly better fielding) that his inferiority as a bowler is made up for.

 

[sunilz]

I know it's sunilz but just thought I'd point out that this is a really stupid thing to say. Of course he averaged poorly at no. 6/7, he played there early in his career when he was no where near as good as he was for most of it. When he became good he batted almost exclusively at no. 5. Extrapolating that to assume that he would bat significantly worse at 6/7 than he would at 5 is not accurate.

Can we use the same logic for having Sangakkara in AT Test XI instead of Gilchrist. He was definitely a superior test batsman to Gilchrist and was very good keeper too.
He left keeping because he was a top order test batsman and to manage his work load.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Can we use the same logic for having Sangakkara in AT Test XI instead of Gilchrist. He was definitely a superior test batsman to Gilchrist and was very good keeper too.
He left keeping because he was a top order test batsman and to manage his work load.

Not really because it's fair to assume that Sangakkara's workload as keeper held back his batting, and that when he didn't have to worry about it anymore is when his batting improved. It could have been a coincidence but it's mroe likely that, if saddled with the gloves, his batting output would drop from where he peaked.

If you could take peak Sangakkara the batsman and peak Sangakkara the keeper together in the same player then it's definitely fair

 

[stephen]

Can we use the same logic for having Sangakkara in AT Test XI instead of Gilchrist. He was definitely a superior test batsman to Gilchrist and was very good keeper too.
He left keeping because he was a top order test batsman and to manage his work load.

No not really. History is littered with keepers who gave up the gloves and became way better batsmen or to play longer as batsmen. Sanga is one. ABDV is another. Walcott is one from further back. Wade is probably the most recent example.

But a guy getting a run as a newbie batting 6/7 and then getting promoted to 5 and sitting there for the rest of his career so all the stats say he was rubbish at 6/7 and great at 5 doesn't mean he would be bad if he dropped down to 6/7 in his pomp.

I'd back Kohli to be a better number 7 than any bloke currently playing. But he bats 3 or 4.

 

[mr_mister]

Kallis, Kapil, Imran, Klusener and Shakib.

If you are looking to fit the definition then Kallis / Shakib

Actually someone suggesting Kluseners bowling wasn't good enough is what triggered me to make my post

 

[stephen]

In modern ODI cricket with two new balls, I'm struggling to think of any bowler other than Plunkett who takes significant numbers of wickets between overs 10 and 30. With the way the modern game is played, bowlers are trying to restrict in those overs and batsmen are trying to accumulate. Neither side is trying to attack.

Teams are these days more often than not are only running three bowlers who are any good and averages are ballooning out for third and fourth bowlers.

Even back in the distant past between overs 20 and 40 it was very hard for the bowling side to attack as the ball got old and before it started reversing. I do think, therefore, that the fifth bowler is necessary but isn't crucial to a team's chances. Bowling them out in the middle overs when the batsmen don't want to attack has always been the way to go.

That's why I think the difference between using Kapil or Flintoff as a fifth bowler or Symonds as a fifth bowler isn't going to make a huge difference to team totals. In all likelihood the bowler is going to go for somewhere between 0/45 and 0/55 from their ten overs.

 

[stephen]

Actually someone suggesting Kluseners bowling wasn't good enough is what triggered me to make my post

Yeah it's preposterous. Klusener would have been picked as a bowler for South Africa regardless of his batting during his career. He often opened in ODI cricket.

 

[h_hurricane]

I think the difference between using Kapil or Flintoff as a fifth bowler or Symonds as a fifth bowler isn't going to make a huge difference to team totals.

Lol. So you think Kapil, Flintoff and Symonds are in the same category as bowlers. One could assume them to be in the same category as batsmen then, if modern cricketers just need to throw the bat around and hack the ball out of the ground.

 

[stephen]

Lol. So you think Kapil, Flintoff and Symonds are in the same category as bowlers. One could assume them to be in the same category as batsmen then, if modern cricketers just need to throw the bat around and hack the ball out of the ground.

No not at all. But as the fifth bowler they will be bowling at the worst times to bowl for taking wickets.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Lol. So you think Kapil, Flintoff and Symonds are in the same category as bowlers. One could assume them to be in the same category as batsmen then, if modern cricketers just need to throw the bat around and hack the ball out of the ground.

That's not what he said

If you can say "Symonds didn't bat at 7 so he wouldn't be good in that position" then you can say "Kapil didn't play as 5th bowler so he wouldn't be good in that position"

If anything I think the latter is a more fair assumption to make (though not necessarily correct)

 

[h_hurricane]

No not at all. But as the fifth bowler they will be bowling at the worst times to bowl for taking wickets.

They will be batting at a time when they just have to throw around the bat also right ? That diminishes the returns of playing a full time batsman at that slot.

On a more serious note, ODI cricket is not this simple imo. As a bowler, even the 5th one, you need to be versatile. Back up the opening bowlers with tight lines when pitch does not have anything for you, or pick wickets when the circumstances are conducive. Dev and Flintoff are better in this.

As a batsman, you need to anchor the innings if there is a collapse or hit some lusty blows at the end if the stage is set. Symonds is better if you need both these.

I don't consider Symonds inferior to Dev or Flintoff, not one bit. However, you are far more likely to depend on a 5th bowler more than a no.7 batsman. 5th bowler has to bowl same number of overs as top 4. No.7 batsman only needs to bat part of the innings left over by top 6. Symonds' weaker skill is likely to get far more exposed than Kapil's for instance.

 

[h_hurricane]

That's not what he said

If you can say "Symonds didn't bat at 7 so he wouldn't be good in that position" then you can say "Kapil didn't play as 5th bowler so he wouldn't be good in that position"

If anything I think the latter is a more fair assumption to make (though not necessarily correct)

I didn't say anything like this though. What I said was, Symonds' rightful position is no. 5 or 6. If he bats at no.7, his output is going to be less, not all that better than a bowling all rounder in that position, to the extent to nullify the advantage the bowling all rounder brings in his bowling.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I didn't say anything like this though. What I said was, Symonds' rightful position is no. 5 or 6. If he bats at no.7, his output is going to be less, not all that better than a bowling all rounder in that position, to the extent to nullify the advantage the bowling all rounder brings in his bowling.

I didn't say that's what you said, I'm saying that's what stephen said (or meant)

 

[ankitj]

Actually someone suggesting Kluseners bowling wasn't good enough is what triggered me to make my post

That was me. I am fine with Klusener as 5th bowler, just that I would hesitate to do that. His economy and average OK but I would say he too will release the pressure in ATG XI. Here are bowling average and economy for some of the contenders:

Flintoff	24.38	4.39
Pollock	24.50	3.67
Imran	26.61	3.89
Kapil	27.45	3.71
Klusener	29.95	4.70
Shakib	30.21	4.48
Kallis	31.79	4.84
Watson	31.79	4.95
Symonds	37.25	5.00

Flintoff and Imran both averaged >30 with the bat and will fit the bill for mine.

 

[ankitj]

Well you also have Viv who can contribute a few overs as well.

If 2 bowlers averaging >35 share 10 overs quota, they won't collectively average 24. That still means 10 overs of pressure releasing pies. That's not an approach I like in regular ODIs too (not hypothetical ATG ODIs). PEWS influenced my view on it: you should know when you pick your XI who will be the 5 bowlers you will rely on as plan A; 6th bowling option should only be a plan B. You can't fudge 10 overs quota by spreading over 2-3 bowlers, none of whom you have confidence to bowl 10 overs.

 

[Flem274*]

symonds was a glorified part timer settle down fam

good troll of indian fans tho. best nicks behind ever.

 

[mr_mister]

That was me. I am fine with Klusener as 5th bowler, just that I would hesitate to do that. His economy and average OK but I would say he too will release the pressure in ATG XI. Here are bowling numbers for some of the contenders:

Flintoff	24.38	4.39
Pollock	24.50	3.67
Imran	26.61	3.89
Kapil	27.45	3.71
Klusener	29.95	4.70
Shakib	30.21	4.48
Kallis	31.79	4.84
Watson	31.79	4.95
Symonds	37.25	5.00

Flintoff and Imran both averaged >30 with the bat and will fit the bill for mine.

My point was you seem to be saying a bowling allrounder is objectively more useful than a batting allrounder in an ODI ATG XI, assuming the other 9 players are basically playing as specialists plus the keeper

Do you stand by that?

 

[Flem274*]

im taking any of flintoff, imran, zulu and twatto as an allrounder before bloody symonds, a batsman who bowls a bit. twatto an absolute underrated gun tbh.

 

[ankitj]

My point was you seem to be saying a bowling allrounder is objectively more useful than a batting allrounder in an ODI ATG XI, assuming the other 9 players are basically playing as specialists plus the keeper

Do you stand by that?

I didn't think like that but I guess I stand by it, I will pick a bowling all-rounder rather than a batting one. You will need the 5th bowler to bowl as many overs as your top dog, but you may not need him to bat similar number of balls as one of the top 6.

 

[ankitj]

im taking any of flintoff, imran, zulu and twatto as an allrounder before bloody symonds, a batsman who bowls a bit. twatto an absolute underrated gun tbh.

Yeah, I typically picked Watson in my ATG XI mainly because he can be picked as an opener. More recently I have started tilting towards Imran and Flintoff.