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

[stephen]

Aus XI based on runs scored (1-7) and wickets taken (8-11):

Gilchrist+
M Waugh
Ponting
Clarke
S Waugh
Bevan
Border
Johnson
Warne
Lee
McGrath

WI:

Gayle
Haynes
Richards
Lara
Richardson
Chanderpaul
Ramdin+
Hooper
Bravo
Ambrose
Walsh

SA (batting lineup was hard with so many openers qualifying) (Kallis qualifies under both rule sets):

Smith
de Kock+
Kallis
Amla
De Villiers
Gibbs
Kirsten
Pollock
Steyn
Ntini
Donald

SL (wasn't sure if I should make Sanga keep, in which case Ranatunga comes into the side) (Jaya qualifies under both rule sets):

Jayasuriya
Dilshan
Jayawardene
Sangakkara
De Silva
Atapattu
Tillakaratne+
Vaas
Malinga
Kulasekara
Muralitharan

India

Tendulkar
Sharma
Kohli
Dravid
Ganguly
Dhoni+
Azharuddin (hate including him)
Kumble
Srinath
Agarkar
Khan

NZ (Cairns qualifies under both rule sets):

Guptill
Astle
Williamson
Taylor
Fleming
McCullum+
Cairns
Harris
Vettori
Mills
Southee

England:

Trescothick
Stewart+
Root
Pieterson
Morgan
Bell
Collingwood
Flintoff
Broad
Gough
Anderson

 

[stephen]

And Pakistan (Afridi qualifies for both):

Afridi
Anwar
Yousef
Miandad
Shoaib Malik
Inzamam-ul-Haq
Moin Khan+
Akram
Younis
Mushtaq
Razzaq

 

[ankitj]

@ Viv Richards not being statistically worthy of ATG XI. Here is an analysis that is purely based on statistics and Richards is head and shoulders above the rest: https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/22375790/best-odi-batsmen-eras. Slightly old but I don't think anyone has yet surpassed Richards.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Hoggy was a step down from Warne with the ball.

First of all I don't think that's true in ODIs

Secondly how come we can pick Symonds based on his superior batting/fielding but we can't do the same for Hogg

 

[h_hurricane]

First of all I don't think that's true in ODIs

Secondly how come we can pick Symonds based on his superior batting/fielding but we can't do the same for Hogg

Because a 5th bowler's role is inconsequential. You can pick Pollock, Symonds or Kohli to do this job and expect the same output. No.7 batsman is pivotal though. Symonds could be a game changer here even if he comes to bat after 48.4 overs on an average.

 

[honestbharani]

@stephen.. you shud try the runs by position idea for top 6 and wickets by position for 7-11 and see how the ATG sides for each country shapes up then. I will give it a whirl for India later in the afternoon.

 

[Migara]

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.

Both arguments has no merit. Warne and Murali both had a single good WC final and a single shocking one. Murali had another average one against India (I don't even want to think what would have happened if Warne was in his place against India).

There is no point in keeping faith on #9 to score that additional 5 runs when your top order has failed. It makes sense to have a bowler who is much better at picking up wickets and keeping it tight bowling at oppositions top order.

 

[Migara]

Loved Hoggy, but this is some obvious trolling.

Hogg was bloody good.

 

[Migara]

Adjusted for the era would do it.

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.

 

[Prince EWS]

Because a 5th bowler's role is inconsequential. You can pick Pollock, Symonds or Kohli to do this job and expect the same output. No.7 batsman is pivotal though. Symonds could be a game changer here even if he comes to bat after 48.4 overs on an average.

I started typing up a reply to this but I think ankit will make a better fist of it so I'm not going to poison his argument.

No pressure ankit.

 

[honestbharani]

PEWS? Isn't your kind of bot good at picking up ironical and satirical posts?

 

[Prince EWS]

PEWS? Isn't your kind of bot good at picking up ironical and satirical posts?

Usually yes, but only by hyper-analysing every member's posting history. I don't know much about Hurricane 2.0

 

[h_hurricane]

To set it straight, I would go with a bowling all rounder at 7 in ATG ODIs XI every time over a batsman who bowls pies. Hereafter, I would pay attention to highlight a sarcastic post with a specific emoji so that it is clear

 

[ankitj]

haha, yeah that's satirical from hurricane. I had a response involving McGrath, Imran, Murali and Warne. Is that what you had in mind PEWS?

 

[Prince EWS]

To set it straight, I would go with a bowling all rounder at 7 in ATG ODIs XI every time over a batsman who bowls pies. Hereafter, I would pay attention to highlight a sarcastic post with a specific emoji so that it is clear

Noooooo!

People doing what I did and misinterpreting stuff, then making fools out of themselves, is one of the best things about CW.

Your sarcastic viewpoint was just becoming so much of an actual thing that I mistook it for a real opinion.

 

[honestbharani]

Usually yes, but only by hyper-analysing every member's posting history. I don't know much about Hurricane 2.0

That's it!!! You don't get to go toe to toe..................................with the super hero!!!!!!!!

 

[Bolo.]

Because a 5th bowler's role is inconsequential. You can pick Pollock, Symonds or Kohli to do this job and expect the same output. No.7 batsman is pivotal though. Symonds could be a game changer here even if he comes to bat after 48.4 overs on an average.

This doesnt make sense. Symonds is somewhere between a part timer and a 5th bowler and on average a number 6 bat. He still bowled more balls than he faced.

Jaya was a genuine 5th bowler who bowled more than he faced despite opening.

Klusener was a number 7 bat who was a but more than a 5th bowler and bowled nearly twice as much as he faced.

A number 7 bat can absolutely swing a game in a few overs at the crease. But they can only swing close games. 5th bowlers swing games a lot less obviously, both due to the fact that they are doing it so much slower and less obviously, as well as the fact that you are giving them lattitude to fail simply because you expect little of them.

Edit- saw your sarcasm disclaimer after posting. My post stands for others who underestimate the importance of the 5th

 

[stephen]

Most bowlers, even part timers would bowl more than they face. After all, there are a lot more batsmen than bowlers.

The fifth bowler is not inconsequential but they are the least important bowler.

They're more likely to be needed to play an impactful batting innings than an impactful bowling innings. Keeping it relatively tight is generally more than enough for a 5th bowler.

I'm not sure I can recall a single historical ODI side that has gone with a 5 frontline bowler scenario consistently. Usually it's 4 bowlers + 2 bits and pieces players.

 

[stephen]

Both arguments has no merit. Warne and Murali both had a single good WC final and a single shocking one. Murali had another average one against India (I don't even want to think what would have happened if Warne was in his place against India).

There is no point in keeping faith on #9 to score that additional 5 runs when your top order has failed. It makes sense to have a bowler who is much better at picking up wickets and keeping it tight bowling at oppositions top order.

Warne's world cup exploits in 99 we're incredible. He was coming back from injury and in the worst form of his life in all formats. Then he single handedly dragged his side back from the brink with a man of the match performance in the semi final before destroying Pakistan in the final.

It's that big game mentality that people might value in an all time side.

Certainly what Murali did in 1996 was great, but it wasn't really comparable to the 99 cup finals for Warne.

 

[h_hurricane]

Most bowlers, even part timers would bowl more than they face. After all, there are a lot more batsmen than bowlers.

The fifth bowler is not inconsequential but they are the least important bowler.

I would go as far to say the fifth bowler is the most important one. You are not likely to get wrong on your top bowler. You know exactly who it is and will pick him every single time.

A pie bowling 5th bowler could get thrashed for 10-0-130-0 on a flat pitch. Replace him with 2 pie bowlers and you get 5-0-60-0 and 5-0-70-0.

They're more likely to be needed to play an impactful batting innings than an impactful bowling innings. Keeping it relatively tight is generally more than enough for a 5th bowler.

I'm not sure I can recall a single historical ODI side that has gone with a 5 frontline bowler scenario consistently. Usually it's 4 bowlers + 2 bits and pieces players.

This is only because actual ATG sides like Aus and WI never played against another ATG side. They almost never needed a good 5th bowler. Australia still picked Watson when they had him though. You would actually see a non ATG side (sides containing Dev, Pollock, Flintoff, Klusener etc) pick them. They needed every bit of the multiple dimensions these players brought.