The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[stephen]

If this is all accurate then you have an excellent point. Seems Warne was better than I thought he was. I just saw how **** he did in India and equated that as him in Asia.

Nah he was woeful in India but so was Murali. Murali did well against India at home though so it hides it. Warne was poor against India home and away so it stands out more.

 

[honestbharani]

IMO only absurd leaps of logic can conclude that Walcott is better than Gilly but should be below him in the broad all-time XI pecking order.

Nah.. I think I explained it pretty clearly. Walcott did not keep enough for me to pick him as my keeper in the ATG side. But I am not just comparing them as keepers here in this situation. As overall cricketers, I think the impact Walcott will have on the game as batsman + keeper will be greater than the impact Gilly will have on the game as batsman + keeper. Once again, this is not a side I chose. And I brought up the Sanga question as well.

 

[honestbharani]

This is clearly all you justifying your bias. You may not even be aware you're doing it. You can think that Murali was the greatest spinner by a comfortable margin if you want, you can even think that it negates Bradman's advantage. You can think all these things, regardless of how far-fetched they are. Anyone can have an opinion.

But don't be surprised when everyone disagrees with you because your opinion is ****

I don't put Murali in the top 5 tbh, and his controversial action doesn't even come into it. He's stats are skewed by playing >70% of his Tests in Asia and playing a ridiculous amount against genuine minnows (nearly 200 wickets @ average ~15 against Ban and Zim). Unless you can guarantee he's playing all the time in Asia I wouldn't pick him ahead of (from Australia alone) any of Warne, O'Reilly or Grimmett. And that's before even taking into account that he brings nothing to the table with the bat and for most of his career his fielding was quite poor.

 

[honestbharani]

I am not getting into Murali vs Warne here. Anyone can dig up the thread and figure out what my opinion on that is and why it is so. FWIW, I do rate Murali as the greatest spinner of all time and with Grimmett, obviously I can only go by statsguru and some accounts but while he was an excellent spinner of that time, he also had some benefits. Of bowling in a side that had Bradman in it instead of agains it, for instance. At the end of the day, I stand by the comparisons. I don't expect stephen or TJB to suddenly give up their bias of everything Australian cricket (and I am sure they will say it is bias against Australian cricket) so we can leave it here. The sides Milenko put up are there for all to see and forummers can draw their own conclusions on which side they believe is better.


I really do wanna do the ANZAC Vs Africa VS SC Vs Eng/Windies though. Will talk to Jimmy and see if I can sim these games on ICC 2018 on my mobile. Throw up the sides guys.

 

[honestbharani]

How?
"Ben Hilfenhaus is as good as Jimmy Anderson "
"Stop spreading your hatred filled lies"
"something, something, stats in Australia "
" no u"

 

[honestbharani]

I'm genuinely interested to hear you justify this - I recently justified to myself that Grimmett is the best spinner ever - not saying that's right though.

Choosing the best spinner is a tough exercise simply because of how the pitches evolved especially uptil 1950 or 60. And then you have the rise of the SC sides which threw up totally different skillsets that you will need to do well there. With Grimmett, he simply played too few opponents and that is basically the drawback any non-Bradman player of that era has when you are comparing against modern greats. They had to have been as insanely good as Bradman to basically rise above the usual comparison factors.

 

[trundler]

1880-1950

Hobbs
Hutton
Bradman
Hammond
Trumper
Faulkner
Oldfield
Turner
Larwood
Barnes
O'Reilly

1950-2020

Gavaskar
Greenidge
Richards
Tendulkar
Lara
Sobers
Gilchrist
Warne
Marshall
Steyn
McGrath

 

[stephen]

Nah.. I think I explained it pretty clearly. Walcott did not keep enough for me to pick him as my keeper in the ATG side. But I am not just comparing them as keepers here in this situation. As overall cricketers, I think the impact Walcott will have on the game as batsman + keeper will be greater than the impact Gilly will have on the game as batsman + keeper. Once again, this is not a side I chose. And I brought up the Sanga question as well.

But this is the fallacy. You say that Walcott didn't keep enough for you to put him in your ATG side (presumably you have Gilchrist there) and yet you say he was a better player than Gilchrist.

As a batsman he was better than Gilchrist. But as a wicketkeeper-batsman? The stats (basically half his career) say that he was substantially worse when he took the gloves (averaged 27 lower and hit 3 centuries vs 12 without the gloves). No doubt he was a great player, but there's nothing to suggest that he was better than Gilchrist in that role.

Another tick in Gilchrist's favour is that he had a better overseas average (45 at home, 50 away) than Walcott, who averaged 70 at home vs 40 away. So even his statistical dominance with the bat over Gilchrist (ignoring the keeping factor) isn't absolute.

Now I'm not trying to discredit Walcott here, he was an awesome player. However, there are reasons lots of people don't have him in the West Indies first XI. If he's not in the WIndies first XI, how on earth can he be better than Gilchrist, who tends to be one of the first draft picks in every draft and is tends to be rated by pundits in their AT XI.

But then again, you've changed the goal posts haven't you? You're now saying that you think Walcott would have more impact than Gilchrist. But what does that even mean? And why does it differ from picking them for their career. You might as well put Mitchell Johnson in the Australian XI because he would have more impact than any other bowler in history (based on that Ashes series and the follow up South Africa series). It's either you take a substantial amount of a player's career into account when rating them or you might as well not even bother with these types of XIs because they become meaningless.

 

[honestbharani]

But this is the fallacy. You say that Walcott didn't keep enough for you to put him in your ATG side (presumably you have Gilchrist there) and yet you say he was a better player than Gilchrist.

As a batsman he was better than Gilchrist. But as a wicketkeeper-batsman? The stats (basically half his career) say that he was substantially worse when he took the gloves (averaged 27 lower and hit 3 centuries vs 12 without the gloves). No doubt he was a great player, but there's nothing to suggest that he was better than Gilchrist in that role.

Another tick in Gilchrist's favour is that he had a better overseas average (45 at home, 50 away) than Walcott, who averaged 70 at home vs 40 away. So even his statistical dominance with the bat over Gilchrist (ignoring the keeping factor) isn't absolute.

Now I'm not trying to discredit Walcott here, he was an awesome player. However, there are reasons lots of people don't have him in the West Indies first XI. If he's not in the WIndies first XI, how on earth can he be better than Gilchrist, who tends to be one of the first draft picks in every draft and is tends to be rated by pundits in their AT XI.

But then again, you've changed the goal posts haven't you? You're now saying that you think Walcott would have more impact than Gilchrist. But what does that even mean? And why does it differ from picking them for their career. You might as well put Mitchell Johnson in the Australian XI because he would have more impact than any other bowler in history (based on that Ashes series and the follow up South Africa series). It's either you take a substantial amount of a player's career into account when rating them or you might as well not even bother with these types of XIs because they become meaningless.

It means Walcott will score more runs than Gilchrist and even if he drops an extra catch he can make up for it by the runs he does score additionally when compared to Gilchrist. I realize you are having a hard time as I am making it sound more complex than it is. Walcott kept only early in his career and then later on, he played as a batsman. And from every account, before his back injury, he was an excellent keeper and was kept in the side for his keeping even his batting was not great initially. As he established himself more as a batsman, he unfortunately had the injury and had to give up the gloves. But he was an excellent slip fielder even after that and again, by all accounts, if he was fit, would have still been a very good wicket keeper.

I won't pick Walcott to keep even for my Windies XI, forget a world XI. But Milenko has. And when I am comparing the two, I am thinking of who will have the bigger impact on the game as a whole, coz we are not talking about a statistical exercise here, but an actual cricket match. If you wanna assume Walcott would have averaged only 40 had he kept, then what you are saying will make sense. I don't. Its the Sangakkara argument. Just because they gave up as they started getting into their batting prime, does not mean they would not have had those runs had they been keeping. That is at least my take on it and why I rated Walcott over Gilly in this comparison. If you are on the other side of the argument, I understand. Its not a given here but for my argument, the evidence is always AB De Villiers. He gave up keeping, became an ATG batsman and took back to keeping and was still an absolute gun of a batsman. To a lesser extent, it was also proved by Dravid in ODIs.

Unlike a couple of my other comparisons here, I am not gonna harp on this comparison. I know its a controversial take but it is what I genuinely feel. But I realize why others may not feel this way and that's fine.

 

[ataraxia]

It means Walcott will score more runs than Gilchrist and even if he drops an extra catch he can make up for it by the runs he does score additionally when compared to Gilchrist. I realize you are having a hard time as I am making it sound more complex than it is. Walcott kept only early in his career and then later on, he played as a batsman. And from every account, before his back injury, he was an excellent keeper and was kept in the side for his keeping even his batting was not great initially. As he established himself more as a batsman, he unfortunately had the injury and had to give up the gloves. But he was an excellent slip fielder even after that and again, by all accounts, if he was fit, would have still been a very good wicket keeper.

I won't pick Walcott to keep even for my Windies XI, forget a world XI. But Milenko has. And when I am comparing the two, I am thinking of who will have the bigger impact on the game as a whole, coz we are not talking about a statistical exercise here, but an actual cricket match. If you wanna assume Walcott would have averaged only 40 had he kept, then what you are saying will make sense. I don't. Its the Sangakkara argument. Just because they gave up as they started getting into their batting prime, does not mean they would not have had those runs had they been keeping. That is at least my take on it and why I rated Walcott over Gilly in this comparison. If you are on the other side of the argument, I understand. Its not a given here but for my argument, the evidence is always AB De Villiers. He gave up keeping, became an ATG batsman and took back to keeping and was still an absolute gun of a batsman. To a lesser extent, it was also proved by Dravid in ODIs.

Unlike a couple of my other comparisons here, I am not gonna harp on this comparison. I know its a controversial take but it is what I genuinely feel. But I realize why others may not feel this way and that's fine.

So... Walcott offers more to the game as a wicketkeeper than Dujon/whoever and Gilchrist but is a worse pick than both of them? You're not making much sense.

 

[stephen]

Walcott kept for 15 tests and played 44 overall. That's over 1/3 of his career. It's not just a few tests at the start of his career. When he kept he scored one century every 5 tests. When he didn't keep he scored one century two tests out of three.

His keeping obviously affected his batting, as it had done for virtually every player in history. Keeping is an intensive skill which affects concentration and increases the mental drain of a player throughout a match.

Oh and if that extra dropped catch is Bradman first ball, well there's the game.

 

[trundler]

You have 140 years of test cricket to choose from. Why pick a makeshift keeper?

 

[Bolo.]

Out of interest I added up all the career averages (obviously averages alone isn't the definitive determinant of which is better, but it's about as close as you can get to one)

Aus/NZ: Batting = 492.16 total
Top 4 bowlers: 91.11 total
WI/SL: Batting = 438.43 total
Top 4 bowlers: 88.33 total

This (admittedly limited) metric would indicate that the bowling is pretty similar, maybe give WI/SL the edge due to having Sobers, a better 5th bowler. But they are also more limited in terms of conditions you would think, largely with the Murali factor.

Aus/NZ comfortably ahead with batting, mainly due to (as stephen points out) the Bradman factor it would seem. Take Bradman out and the teams would look pretty equal on paper.

It would take a bit of mental gymnastics to claim that Aus/NZ aren't significantly stronger tbh

I figured Aus/NZ were significantly stronger until I read your post, but if the batting difference is 'only' 52, its probably reasonably close. Aus/NZ are basically a bowler short, with Miller not being a full time bowler and not having a genuine 5th, as compared to front line ATG plus Sobers, who actually bowled a whole lot more than Miller. Im not so sure we can claim either side has a significant advantage here, because the sides are so differently balanced.

Dropping a bat for a bowler would give Aus/NZ a clear, but slight advantage.

These national threads would be more interesting if treated like drafts and we banned Bradman imo. Aus is very comparable to other top countries without him, and he skews things too much.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It's 2020 and you ****s are still trying to respond to HB with logic and reason. You'd get a less biased viewpoint discussing judaism with 1940s Nazi party leadership than asking him to engage in anything in relation to Australian cricket.

I figured Aus/NZ were significantly stronger until I read your post, but if the batting difference is 'only' 52, its probably reasonably close. Aus/NZ are basically a bowler short, with Miller not being a full time bowler and not having a genuine 5th, as compared to front line ATG plus Sobers, who actually bowled a whole lot more than Miller. Im not so sure we can claim either side has a significant advantage here, because the sides are so differently balanced.

Dropping a bat for a bowler would give Aus/NZ a clear, but slight advantage.

These national threads would be more interesting if treated like drafts and we banned Bradman imo. Aus is very comparable to other top countries without him, and he skews things too much.

in the context of a team of 11 players a difference of 52 is pretty huge. It's more than a 10% lead. Agree about the Bradman thing. As stephen alluded to earlier it tends to put a fork in any genuine comparison. Would definitely be a more interesting discussion if you banned Bradman.

 

[stephen]

52 is an extra ATG batsman. It's an extra player. It's ridiculous.

 

[ataraxia]

I figured Aus/NZ were significantly stronger until I read your post, but if the batting difference is 'only' 52, its probably reasonably close. Aus/NZ are basically a bowler short, with Miller not being a full time bowler and not having a genuine 5th, as compared to front line ATG plus Sobers, who actually bowled a whole lot more than Miller. Im not so sure we can claim either side has a significant advantage here, because the sides are so differently balanced.

Dropping a bat for a bowler would give Aus/NZ a clear, but slight advantage.

These national threads would be more interesting if treated like drafts and we banned Bradman imo. Aus is very comparable to other top countries without him, and he skews things too much.

Blasphemy against Miller. He bowled 6 more overs a match than Sobers, and Sobers bowled more because he played for a worse side. Miller averaged 22.4 against England.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The only real advantage Milenko's WI/SL side had over his Aus/NZ side was a better 5th bowler in Sobers, but if you really wanted to you could replace an Aus/NZ bat with another genuine ATG bowler (eg. Warne, Lillee, Davidson, Bond) and then Aus/NZ would have a much better 5th bowler than WI/SL and still have slightly stronger batting.

 

[honestbharani]

So... Walcott offers more to the game as a wicketkeeper than Dujon/whoever and Gilchrist but is a worse pick than both of them? You're not making much sense.

NO mate, it is very clear. I never said the bolded part, you are just making it up. I would not pick a guy who only kept for 3 or 4 years of his career as the keeper of any of my ATG sides. But you have. If you are doing a player V player comparison, it boils down to whether you think Walcott was a poor keeper and no one has ever said that about him. As a matter of fact, his keeping kept him in the side even when he was having a poor run as a batsman. So if you are doing a direct player match up, to me Walcott as a greater batsman and a good keeper beats Gilchrist as a very good batsman and a great keeper. End of. Its not like Walcott is gonna drop sitters. And I brought the AB example to show what I meant clearly.

Walcott kept for 15 tests and played 44 overall. That's over 1/3 of his career. It's not just a few tests at the start of his career. When he kept he scored one century every 5 tests. When he didn't keep he scored one century two tests out of three.

His keeping obviously affected his batting, as it had done for virtually every player in history. Keeping is an intensive skill which affects concentration and increases the mental drain of a player throughout a match.

Oh and if that extra dropped catch is Bradman first ball, well there's the game.

Yeah, if that catch is of Bradman. What if its of McGrath? See, its all conjecture and that is why I said I don't insist my way is right. But I feel what I feel and I have explained why. End of story. And keeping can affect the batsman positively too. Many guys who are not as productive with the bat when they are not keeping as well. Its a mindset thing and as I said, to me, the closest parallel is AB and his success as a batsman/keeper makes me feel it would have been the same with the great W.

It's 2020 and you ****s are still trying to respond to HB with logic and reason. You'd get a less biased viewpoint discussing judaism with 1940s Nazi party leadership than asking him to engage in anything in relation to Australian cricket.

Well, at least those " ****s " aren't expecting sense in your posts on cricket, so there's that. I mean, its not hard to post your disagreement without going after the poster personally, yet you can never do that.

 

[Daemon]

NO mate, it is very clear. I never said the bolded part, you are just making it up. I would not pick a guy who only kept for 3 or 4 years of his career as the keeper of any of my ATG sides. But you have. If you are doing a player V player comparison, it boils down to whether you think Walcott was a poor keeper and no one has ever said that about him. As a matter of fact, his keeping kept him in the side even when he was having a poor run as a batsman. So if you are doing a direct player match up, to me Walcott as a greater batsman and a good keeper beats Gilchrist as a very good batsman and a great keeper. End of. Its not like Walcott is gonna drop sitters. And I brought the AB example to show what I meant clearly.

Not sure I follow

So who keeps in your World XI?

 

[Spark]

I think there's a point re: keeping at which "good enough" is good enough, even in an ATG team, and the returns you get from picking a "better" keeper diminish extremely rapidly, so you should look at other things instead (non-technical aspects of keeping, batting, on-field leadership etc etc)