• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

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

Red

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
ankitj said:
Where do such notions come from seriously!
Click to expand...
It's not that complicated. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Averages for a fifth bowler are somewhat inconsequential because the average is how many runs you concede between each wicket. A fifth bowler might have plenty of days where he goes for 0/50 or 0/60 but he will have done the job his team needed bowling thru the middle overs. It's pretty simple to understand.
 
ankitj

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
Red Hill said:
It's not that complicated. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Averages for a fifth bowler are somewhat inconsequential because the average is how many runs you concede between each wicket. A fifth bowler might have plenty of days where he goes for 0/50 or 0/60 but he will have done the job his team needed bowling thru the middle overs. It's pretty simple to understand.
Click to expand...
It's dumb is all I would say. I can accept it if you say averages in general don't matter to the same extent as in tests because economy rates are critical too. But that'd be true for all bowlers. 5th bowler plus 6th, 7th etc. still bowl 10 overs combined and exactly the same sort of things that matter for top 4 bowlers matter for them too.
 
ankitj

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
Also, whatever job you describe will be better done by a Flintoff than a Symonds. That's pretty simple too.
 
Migara

Migara

International Coach
stephen said:
Saqlain or Warne often get picked over Murali. But the three quicks are often picked together. To be honest though there are cases for a number of other quicks. Hadlee, Lillee, Holding, Roberts, Starc, Donald, Pollock, and even Johnson have compelling cases.
Click to expand...
Saqlain, yes, because they have very similar stats. However in ODIs. Murali is way ahead of Warne. He averages <35 against all teams under all conditions, where as Warne averages 50+ against India, who were not even a top side during 3/4 of his career. Cannot imagine he can contain a ATG 2nd XI.
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
ankitj said:
Also, whatever job you describe will be better done by a Flintoff than a Symonds. That's pretty simple too.
Click to expand...
If we're talking about bowling, then yeah, but that's not really relevant because no one who's picking Symonds over Flintoff is doing it for his bowling

Migara said:
Cannot imagine he can contain a ATG 2nd XI.
Click to expand...
True. At his biggest he was probably not much bigger than 115-120kg. You could barely fit 2 other players in him.
 
Last edited:
h_hurricane

h_hurricane

International Vice-Captain
Red Hill said:
Averages for a fifth bowler are somewhat inconsequential because the average is how many runs you concede between each wicket. A fifth bowler might have plenty of days where he goes for 0/50 or 0/60 but he will have done the job his team needed bowling thru the middle overs. It's pretty simple to understand.
Click to expand...
If economy rate is all that matters in ODIs (which isn't an unreasonable way of looking at it), I would go with the below bowling line up. Garner, Ambrose, Hadlee, Pollock, Murali.

As Ankit mentioned, this thought process should be applicable to all the bowlers and not just 5th bowler in isolation. If you can contain the opposition to 180 for 7, nothing like it.
 
stephen

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Migara said:
Saqlain, yes, because they have very similar stats. However in ODIs. Murali is way ahead of Warne. He averages <35 against all teams under all conditions, where as Warne averages 50+ against India, who were not even a top side during 3/4 of his career. Cannot imagine he can contain a ATG 2nd XI.
Click to expand...
Murali was not immune to getting spanked for world record terrible figures either. Those who value world cup finals performances or those who want stronger tails (given Garner and McGrath were both very ordinary with the bat) would favour Warne. Those who want the statistically best bowler might favour Saqlain.

If people simply picked the best players purely on statistics, nobody would pick Viv any more.
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I wouldn't even pick Warne in my ATG Aus ODI XI, Brad Hogg was just as good in an easier time for batsman, and he was a gun fielder and much better lower-order bat as well
 
h_hurricane

h_hurricane

International Vice-Captain
stephen said:
If people simply picked the best players purely on statistics, nobody would pick Viv any more.
Click to expand...
Viv is still statistically the best ODI player ever. His record is unreal for the era he played. It isn't particularly close to anyone else.
 
stephen

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
smalishah84 said:
:blink:
Click to expand...
A first XI based on runs scored, batting average or strike rate, or even a combination of average and strike rate would see a bunch of modern players in the top 6. Tendulkar would probably not make it either.

Records | One-Day Internationals | Batting records | Highest career batting average | ESPNcricinfo.com
Records | One-Day Internationals | Batting records | Most runs in career | ESPNcricinfo.com
Records | One-Day Internationals | Batting records | Highest career strike rate | ESPNcricinfo.com

Of course, it would be stupid not to pick Viv, which was the point I was making.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top