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

[TheJediBrah]

I wouldn't be opposed to having guys like Symonds/Rhodes/Ponting/Gibbs(apart from that choke ) in the top 6 just for their fielding tbh but it's a different argument though.

How is it a different argument? ATG team will still have to field won't it?

Also you still need the player to be ATG standard on their primary skills alone for consideration, which Rhodes and Gibbs are probably not quite. Symonds and Ponting though would be close-ish to selection regardless of fielding.

Alternatively maybe you could pick Symonds as 12th man and just have him field the whole time a la Gary Pratt . . .

 

[DriveClub]

When you're selecting an ATG XI you can easily fill in each position with a specialist. No 7 is a bowling all rounders spot imo who can bowl 10 overs and take wickets. The whole purpose of picking these XIs at least for me is to pick XIs which have no obvious weakness. Lack of a 5th bowler is a weakness which most teams shoulder because not all teams have a competent bowling all rounder.

 

[jimmy101]

To be fair most sides will have a bowling all-rounder good enough for what DC is describing. Even Zim & BD have Streak/Shakib.

 

[DriveClub]

To be fair most sides will have a bowling all-rounder good enough for what DC is describing. Even Zim & BD have Streak/Shakib.

Shakib is bd's best batsman in ODIs he's not batting at no 7, I'm thinking in the mould of Cairns, Flintoff, Pollock, Klusener etc

 

[TheJediBrah]

When you're selecting an ATG XI you can easily fill in each position with a specialist. No 7 is a bowling all rounders spot imo who can bowl 10 overs and take wickets. The whole purpose of picking these XIs at least for me is to pick XIs which have no obvious weakness. Lack of a 5th bowler is a weakness which most teams shoulder because not all teams have a competent bowling all rounder.

for me the purpose is to pick the best team

 

[h_hurricane]

Fwiw, I do believe Symonds provides great value as a package(attacking batsman+gun fielder). I will pick him in my second ATG team batting at no.6. He also becomes my worse case go to option as a 6th bowler or a 7th bowler if one of the top bowlers is injured or not able to complete his quote of overs due to any other reason.

 

[DriveClub]

God not circular reasoning again, by picking the best specialist for the position you're picking the best team.

 

[TheJediBrah]

God not circular reasoning again, by picking the best specialist for the position you're picking the best team.

Not necessarily the case at all. That's exactly what we've been discussing.

Fwiw, I do believe Symonds provides great value as a package(attacking batsman+gun fielder). I will pick him in my second ATG team batting at no.6. He also becomes my worse case go to option as a 6th bowler or a 7th bowler if one of the top bowlers is injured or not able to complete his quote of overs due to any other reason.

I don't think anyone is saying that he should be a lock for the ATG ODI XI. People are just considering him, which is perfectly reasonable. What's not reasonable has been how much people are underrating him on here and acting as though it's a laughable suggestion. How much his bowling is being underrated in particular is interesting, and I can only assume that it's from people who never really saw him bowl much.

 

[h_hurricane]

That's absurd. Even just looking at career economy Symonds went at 5.00 an over. Malinga went at 5.35. I'm not saying Symonds would be a great ATG 5th bowler but pretending that he'd go for 100 off 10 every other game is idiotic.

And for what feels like the 50th time, no one is picking Symonds in an ATG team because he's the best 5th bowler

Personally I'd consider picking him ahead of Bevan at 6 and not have to rely on his bowling. I know that would be unpopular but Symonds actually averages about the same as Bevan outside Australia (with a much better SR) and in the field is in a completely different league. And while you wouldn't want to rely on him bowling 10 overs every game his bowling is nowhere near as bad as a lot of you are pretending it is.

Malinga in Symonds' era was having a lot better economy rate than that though iirc. Symonds retired a lot before ODIs became an absolute nightmare for bowlers in general and part timers in particular.
The issue lies in picking him as a 5th bowler as Stephen has done. If you rely on him for that, you end up sharing the quota of overs between him and an equally bad option(Viv) or an even worse option(Tendulkar).
I don't have any issues in using him as a 6th bowling option as mentioned in my previous post.

 

[DriveClub]

Obviously that's not the only way to pick a team, I guess if you're stacking the lineup with 7 batsmen you would need 2 or 3 batsmen who can roll their arm over like viv, sanath, sachin, symonds etc not just rely on Symonds to complete the quota. Obviously this creates a gap in the bowling plan

 

[DriveClub]

Not necessarily the case at all. That's exactly what we've been discussing.



I don't think anyone is saying that he should be a lock for the ATG ODI XI. People are just considering him, which is perfectly reasonable. What's not reasonable has been how much people are underrating him on here and acting as though it's a laughable suggestion. How much his bowling is being underrated in particular is interesting, and I can only assume that it's from people who never really saw him bowl much.

Sanath was a better bowler than Symonds but no one would pick him to bowl 10 overs as the 5th bowler in an all time xi.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Malinga in Symonds' era was having a lot better economy rate than that though iirc. Symonds retired a lot before ODIs became an absolute nightmare for bowlers in general and part timers in particular.
The issue lies in picking him as a 5th bowler as Stephen has done. If you rely on him for that, you end up sharing the quota of overs between him and an equally bad option(Viv) or an even worse option(Tendulkar).
I don't have any issues in using him as a 6th bowling option as mentioned in my previous post.

That's the argument though isn't it. Is the loss you get from having him as a bowler instead of Flintoff/Klusener/whoever more than the gain you get from his batting & fielding? I like the analysis that at no. 7 he's unlikely to bat as much but it's still not definitive for mine. And again I think a few of you are under the impression that he was a lot worse a bowler than he actually was.

Sanath was a better bowler than Symonds but no one would pick him to bowl 10 overs as the 5th bowler in an all time xi.

That's a no from me

 

[OverratedSanity]

He picked up 300+ wickets with those darts didn't he? He's more capable easily of that role than Symonds even though you'd probably not want either to bowl a full 10.

 

[DriveClub]

That's the argument though isn't it. Is the loss you get from having him as a bowler instead of Flintoff/Klusener/whoever more than the gain you get from his batting & fielding? I like the analysis that at no. 7 he's unlikely to bat as much but it's still not definitive for mine. And again I think a few of you are under the impression that he was a lot worse a bowler than he actually was.



That's a no from me

Better economy, average and wickets per match. Remember sanath even used to be a dedicated death bowler in 90s and 2000s, he actually started out as a bowling all rounder batting at no 6/7. There's no way Symonds is a better bowler than Sanath even if I for arguments sake accept they're equal in terms of bowling ability(which I don't agree) still I wouldn't pick Sanath as a 5th bowler for any team.

 

[jimmy101]

323 ODI wickets from Sanath is pretty impressive. Wasn't ever regarded as a true all-rounder either.

 

[harsh.ag]

I like how Symonds has to run someone out every game to justify his place in the side

 

[TheJediBrah]

He picked up 300+ wickets with those darts didn't he? He's more capable easily of that role than Symonds even though you'd probably not want either to bowl a full 10.

Better economy, average and wickets per match. Remember sanath even used to be a dedicated death bowler in 90s and 2000s, he actually started out as a bowling all rounder batting at no 6/7. There's no way Symonds is a better bowler than Sanath even if I for arguments sake accept they're equal in terms of bowling ability(which I don't agree) still I wouldn't pick Sanath as a 5th bowler for any team.

323 ODI wickets from Sanath is pretty impressive. Wasn't ever regarded as a true all-rounder either.

bloke played nearly two thirds of his games in the subcontinent, perfectly suited to his style of bowling. Also on average in a slightly bowler-friendlier era than most of Symonds which would balance out any difference in economy alone. Their average is nearly identical, Symonds actually has a better strike rate (which is a better indicator of anything than wickets per match). The only somewhat significant difference statistically is economy which is still pretty slight and I'd put down to where they played a lot of their games more than anything.

I can understand people rating Sanath higher because he bowled a bit more, had a longer career and most importantly his bowling was more suited to his team's needs (as aforementioned, playing so much cricket in Asia). But there's really no reason to think he'd be better in any capacity than Symonds as a bowler, except possibly for the job of specifically bowling in Asia, due to his experience and suitability in those conditions.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I like how Symonds has to run someone out every game to justify his place in the side

If you don't understand the discussion, which you clearly don't, I wouldn't bother attempting to contribute tbh

 

[DriveClub]

bloke played nearly two thirds of his games in the subcontinent, perfectly suited to his style of bowling. Also on average in a slightly bowler-friendlier era than most of Symonds which would balance out any difference in economy alone. Their average is nearly identical, Symonds actually has a better strike rate (which is a better indicator of anything than wickets per match). The only somewhat significant difference statistically is economy which is still pretty slight and I'd put down to where they played a lot of their games more than anything.

I can understand people rating Sanath higher because he bowled a bit more, had a longer career and most importantly his bowling was more suited to his team's needs (as aforementioned, playing so much cricket in Asia). But there's really no reason to think he'd be better in any capacity than Symonds as a bowler, except possibly for the job of specifically bowling in Asia, due to his experience and suitability in those conditions.

And now the goal post changes. Even if all these points are taken into account it still doesn't make Symonds an objectively better bowler than Sanath. By the same logic Symonds barely spun the ball and his straight up seamers would be cannon fodder in the sub continent. There's no point to make here. Only thing I can concede(which I don't agree) is Symonds and Sanath are equal in bowling as I posted earlier. Which is still is not a 5th bowling option.

 

[h_hurricane]

Is the loss you get from having him as a bowler instead of Flintoff/Klusener/whoever more than the gain you get from his batting & fielding? I like the analysis that at no. 7 he's unlikely to bat as much but it's still not definitive for mine.

Imagine a top 6 of Tendulkar,Gilchrist,Richards,Kohli, Bevan and Devilliers. These are the balls faced on an average by Top 5 before getting dismissed (52+38+52+64+73=277). Assuming equal rotation of strike, Devilliers would have faced 47 balls around the time Bevan gets out, but this takes the number of overs to 54 even before a no.7 gets a chance to bat. You could add a buffer of 7-8 overs to account for superior opposition bowling and batting collapses in an ATG team, but it is highly probable that a no.7 would only be batting in the last 5 overs.

The above scenario doesn't change much if you replace Glichrist + Bevan with Sharma and Dhoni.

Would Symonds at no.7 do a better job than Flintoff or Dev or Klusener in the last 5 overs ? Chances are negligible.

Would these bowling all rounders do a better job than Symonds with the ball match after match ? Absolutely.