The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[ataraxia]

For me, picking Miller means you have 5 legit bowlers, and lets you play 2 proper spinners. If one of those spinners is close to an all rounder, even better balance is struck.

Simpson
Lawry
Bradman
Ponting
Miller
Border
Gilchrist
Benaud/Vettori
Hadlee
Warne
McGrath

I rate Miller as an ATG bowler, and a batsman a bit above Clive Rice-level. I'm very happy with him as a full bowler in an ATG side.

 

[TheJediBrah]

And it would take a lot of mental gymnastics to claim they are.

You just ignore everything that doesn't already fit your bias don't you? Did you even look at the numbers?

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'd like to get Martin Crowe in there somehow, if just to get another kiwi. You wouldn't lose much replacing Lawry or Simpson with him IMO.

I was about to laugh at the suggestion of Vettori in any kind of Test ATG team but looking at Red Hill's XI it's not a crazy call given you also have Warne + 3 ATG quicks. Vettori could average 30 with the bat and perform a good holding role with the ball if necessary.

 

[ataraxia]

Benaud's light-years above Vettori.

 

[honestbharani]

"Walcott > Gilchrist"

...

Yeah as overall players... Also why Miller = Marshall..

 

[honestbharani]

You just ignore everything that doesn't already fit your bias don't you? Did you even look at the numbers?

Talking to yourself, again? I have listed why I think the Windies side is clearly (albeit the gap is close) better overall within the two sides listed. If you wanna argue specifics we can...

 

[TheJediBrah]

Benaud's light-years above Vettori.

Of course, but you've already got too many Aussies, and Vettori offers something at least a bit different. How much bonus does Benaud give you with the ball when you already have Warne who is better and can bowl all day anyway?

Talking to yourself, again? I have listed why I think the Windies side is clearly better overall within the two sides listed. If you wanna argue specifics we can...

Bro just stop with this type of comeback. Can you imagine if everyone argued this way? Cricketweb would be full of nothing but endless "no u" back and forth.

The Aus/NZ side is comfortably superior batting-wise. Bowling wise they are more or less equivalent. Aus/NZ are comfortably better on paper. The reason you gave for the opposite was "Murali negates almost half Bradman's advantage" which is absurd. There's no objective reason to rate him above Grimmett at all.

 

[honestbharani]

If you are doing some kind of representative sides, we should try this way:

Anzac XI (min. 4 kiwis)
Africa XI (min. 4 zim players)
SC XI (Max of 4 players from 1 team - given we have 4)
Windies-England XI (coz they are the ones left out, min 4 English players)

We will miss Ireland and Afghanistan but given these are like ATG sides and they only recently got test status, think it should be ok. In fact, we can even sim a few games if we can get some consensus on the squads and XIs.

 

[ataraxia]

Yeah as overall players... Also why Miller = Marshall..

Gilly is my 3rd pick in drafts.

It isn't Bat + Keep, it's Bat/Keep combined. You have a look at the impact on the team; you're not going to make this your XI:

...
...
...
...
...
...
CL Walcott +
KR Miller
MD Marshall
...
...

Admittedly I'm fairly fine with that side but no one sane is.

 

[stephen]

Ok, so

Greenidge > Simpson
Headley > Lawry
Lara <<< Bradman
Sobers > Smith
Richards > Border
Weekes > Ponting
Walcott > Gilchrist
Miller = Marshall
Hadlee > Holding
Murali > Grimmett
Ambrose = McGrath


I mean, its pretty clear which the stronger side overall is, AFAIC. It really depends on how weight you wanna give Bradman. As great as he is, I think as a side, the Windies side can get on top of the Aussie one (calling them as such coz they both have only one from outside their teams).

This is just a completely nonsense post. Utterly biased.

Rating Weekes higher than Ponting is arguable at best. Remembering that Ponting had an average higher than Weekes' average after over twice as many tests playing in a greater variety of conditions.

And Greenidge over Simpson is highly debatable. Simpson averaged 55 as opener and had a hugely long career owing to his selflessly returning from retirement to help Australian cricket. Miller being the equal of Marshall is just strange. Marshall was clearly the better bowler but Miller the better overall player (if you could pick one guy to play for your club side you'd take Miller over Marshall).

But Walcott over Gilchrist is complete and utter tripe. It's so clearly inaccurate that it's either a troll or you hit the wrong key.

The Australian team is clearly ahead of any other because the strengths of other teams over Australia is well and truly cancelled out by the bloke who scored nearly 7000 runs in 50 tests.

 

[TheJediBrah]

If you are doing some kind of representative sides, we should try this way:

Anzac XI (min. 4 kiwis)
Africa XI (min. 4 zim players)
SC XI (Max of 4 players from 1 team - given we have 4)
Windies-England XI (coz they are the ones left out, min 4 English players)

We will miss Ireland and Afghanistan but given these are like ATG sides and they only recently got test status, think it should be ok. In fact, we can even sim a few games if we can get some consensus on the squads and XIs.

Calling it early that Windies/Eng should easily have the best side. They have the weight of history behind them.

Ok, so

Greenidge > Simpson
Headley > Lawry
Lara <<< Bradman
Sobers > Smith
Richards > Border
Weekes > Ponting
Walcott > Gilchrist
Miller = Marshall
Hadlee > Holding
Murali > Grimmett
Ambrose = McGrath

lol can we try this without running it through the "I hate Australia" filter

 

[Gob]

Ok, so

Greenidge > Simpson
Headley > Lawry
Lara <<< Bradman
Sobers > Smith
Richards > Border
Weekes > Ponting
Walcott > Gilchrist
Miller = Marshall
Hadlee > Holding
Murali > Grimmett
Ambrose = McGrath


I mean, its pretty clear which the stronger side overall is, AFAIC. It really depends on how weight you wanna give Bradman. As great as he is, I think as a side, the Windies side can get on top of the Aussie one (calling them as such coz they both have only one from outside their teams).

Yeah no Ponting and Gilchrist were better.

 

[ataraxia]

If you are doing some kind of representative sides, we should try this way:

Anzac XI (min. 4 kiwis)
Africa XI (min. 4 zim players)
SC XI (Max of 4 players from 1 team - given we have 4)
Windies-England XI (coz they are the ones left out, min 4 English players)

We will miss Ireland and Afghanistan but given these are like ATG sides and they only recently got test status, think it should be ok. In fact, we can even sim a few games if we can get some consensus on the squads and XIs.

ANZAC to start (for an example, at least):

1. AR Morris /
2. GM Turner /
3. DG Bradman* /
4. SPD Smith / pt
5. KS Williamson / pt
6. MD Crowe / pt
7. AC Gilchrist / +
8. KR Miller o /
9. RJ Hadlee o /
10. SK Warne o
11. GD McGrath o

 

[Flem274*]

you could make this more interesting for sides that get paired up with aus/wi/early england and go for a 6-5 split between teams (or try slide some players from outside the top 8 in there for 5-5-1).

ashes + ireland side

hobbs
hutton
bradman
hammond
smith
miller
botham
o'brien (wk)
warne
trueman
mcgrath

 

[stephen]

If you are doing some kind of representative sides, we should try this way:

Anzac XI (min. 4 kiwis)
Africa XI (min. 4 zim players)
SC XI (Max of 4 players from 1 team - given we have 4)
Windies-England XI (coz they are the ones left out, min 4 English players)

We will miss Ireland and Afghanistan but given these are like ATG sides and they only recently got test status, think it should be ok. In fact, we can even sim a few games if we can get some consensus on the squads and XIs.

The Anzac XI with the minimum of 4 kiwis is a massive nerf you the Aus side. But here goes:

Bert Sutcliffe
Bob Simpson
Don Bradman
Kane Williamson
Greg Chappell
Allan Border
Adam Gilchrist
Richard Hadlee
Shane Warne
Shane Bond
Glenn McGrath

 

[stephen]

Eng-WI

Hobbs
Hutton
Barrington
Lara
Richards
Sobers
Knott
Marshall
Garner
Ambrose
Laker

I'd still back the Anzac side to win just because of Bradman. But it'd be a lot closer than a plain Windies side.

 

[Flem274*]

this would be an interesting dressing room

gavaskar
greenidge
viv (c)
sachin
kohli
sobers
dhoni (wk)
kumble
marshall
garner
ambrose

 

[honestbharani]

Bro just stop with this type of comeback. Can you imagine if everyone argued this way? Cricketweb would be full of nothing but endless "no u" back and forth.

The Aus/NZ side is comfortably superior batting-wise. Bowling wise they are more or less equivalent. Aus/NZ are comfortably better on paper. The reason you gave for the opposite was "Murali negates almost half Bradman's advantage" which is absurd. There's no objective reason to rate him above Grimmett at all.

The same objective reasons that anyone would state to say Border = Richards, I assume? And I was not arguing, I simply asked coz you did not bring up any aspect of disagreement, just an overall "lol, u r wrong coz I dont agree with u" type post.

And yeah, I do agree it was more strongly worded than what I meant but I still think Murali is the greatest ever spinner by a comfortable margin and therefore, inspite of Grimmett's greatness, that is one of the easiest calls of this comparison.

Gilly is my 3rd pick in drafts.

It isn't Bat + Keep, it's Bat/Keep combined. You have a look at the impact on the team; you're not going to make this your XI:

...
...
...
...
...
...
CL Walcott +
KR Miller
MD Marshall
...
...

Admittedly I'm fairly fine with that side but no one sane is.

See, by all accounts Walcott was a very good keeper. Obviously we do not have the kind of footage we have of even the 90s players (or even 80s for that matter) but most people seem to agree he was a very good keeper and was still one of the greatest batsmen in the world. With all due respect to Gilly, that is a hard combo to be ahead of. If you are selecting an all time side, I would probably pick Gilly coz Walcott did not keep enough, but if you list them in sides against each other and want to do a player v player comparison, I would still give the nod to Walcott as I m simply think he was a better cricketer overall than Gilchrist.

This is just a completely nonsense post. Utterly biased.

Rating Weekes higher than Ponting is arguable at best. Remembering that Ponting had an average higher than Weekes' average after over twice as many tests playing in a greater variety of conditions.

And Greenidge over Simpson is highly debatable. Simpson averaged 55 as opener and had a hugely long career owing to his selflessly returning from retirement to help Australian cricket. Miller being the equal of Marshall is just strange. Marshall was clearly the better bowler but Miller the better overall player (if you could pick one guy to play for your club side you'd take Miller over Marshall).

But Walcott over Gilchrist is complete and utter tripe. It's so clearly inaccurate that it's either a troll or you hit the wrong key.

The Australian team is clearly ahead of any other because the strengths of other teams over Australia is well and truly cancelled out by the bloke who scored nearly 7000 runs in 50 tests.

Lol.. Weekes was one of the greatest batsmen of his time and was regarded as the best of his era by many. Ponting was 3rd in his own era. If you want to weigh the Bradman factor so high that it cancels out every other players' strengths and weaknesses, be my guest. I agree that ultimately in this comparison it will be the weightage an individual gives to Bradman that will swing the vote. I am fine with that. Just that for me, it is not as big as it seems to be for you and I stand by every other rating. I already explained the Walcott point and the Miller point. Its about impact on the game and I think overall, how I rated them is how they will impact a game against each other. I don't have to resort to calling any post that disagrees with mine as biased or trolling like you have done about my post. I rank them this way and I think I have enough reason to. If you feel the Don factor is bigger than all these others, sure. That is one way to look at it too. For me, I go by the overall side and how I would feel if they lined up against each other.

Calling it early that Windies/Eng should easily have the best side. They have the weight of history behind them.



lol can we try this without running it through the "I hate Australia" filter

Lol, can we try responding without the "I don't agree with it, so its wrong" filter?

Yeah no Ponting and Gilchrist were better.

Nah.. to me Ponting was clearly a level below Lara and Sachin and I believe Weekes is in that level amongst ATG batsmen. And I already explained Walcott over Gilly.

 

[ataraxia]

WI/Eng:

JB Hobbs
H Sutcliffe
L Hutton
WG Grace
WR Hammond/GA Headley
GS Sobers
CL Walcott +
MD Marshall
H Verity
FS Trueman
CEL Ambrose

My rating of the English top five is far too high. Maybe Sutcliffe out but that opening partnership is phenomenally good together.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Eng-WI

Hobbs
Hutton
Barrington
Lara
Richards
Sobers
Knott
Marshall
Garner
Ambrose
Laker

I'd still back the Anzac side to win just because of Bradman. But it'd be a lot closer than a plain Windies side.

It's funny but makes sense on paper. I think it's because once you get to the stage of all-time best teams split this way every player, batter or bowler, is pretty similar in terms of what they bring to the table.

The only outlier is Bradman (and maybe Gilchrist?). Every other player you can pretty much match by an opposition player.