-
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
- Thread starter Red
- Start date
_00_deathscar
International Regular
The test side looks fine, fairly competitive, but the ODI side looks off.
Think you could probably have Sachin (150+ wickets in just over 200 innings) in there as an allrounder if Waugh/Kallis (better bowlers maybe, certainly Kallis, but far worse ODI batsmen) which would at least improve the batting considerably. Dread to see an ODI side with both Kallis AND Waugh.
bagapath
International Captain
batting average under 30... so leaving him out
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Nah if you let Sachin in then you open a whole new can of worms about who is an "all-rounder"
personally I think S Waugh is already pushing it
Grant of Andy? Not sure either could be called all-rounders
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Flower kept in over 50 tests. Even if he wasn't good at it, that was his role and it's a fun loophole to shove in an ATG batsman.
Its the fact that bits and pieces players are included, rather than the guys who were stronger at one discipline. Might be because it is easier to class a guy like waugh as an AR compared to say Viv, but in reality Viv bowled more than Waugh, and it is stength as a bat that excludes him.
Team needs its strongest missing bats (Viv, Klusenar, Symonds). Doesnt matter that (other than the odd Klusenar over) they arent going to be bowling- plenty of the current team wont be anyway.
Attack is missing Pollock, but is otherwise solid.
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Watson
Gilchrist
Shakib
Viv
Symonds
Imran
Flintoff
Klusener
Kapil
Pollock
Hogg
Bit weird to have 2 slow starters at 6/7 (Imran and Flintoff) in the middle other but leaving out either is blasphemy. Plenty of fire power. Now that we're cheating a bit Akram is a borderline call too.
Gilchrist
Shakib
Viv
Symonds
Imran
Flintoff
Klusener
Kapil
Pollock
Hogg
Bit weird to have 2 slow starters at 6/7 (Imran and Flintoff) in the middle other but leaving out either is blasphemy. Plenty of fire power. Now that we're cheating a bit Akram is a borderline call too.
Akram def not an ODI AR. Hogg feels like you are cheating as well- more into bowler who can bat a bit territory than bowling AR.
Shakib otherwise the weak link in an otherwise strong side. Not due to quality, but because he is too bits and pieces in this type of team.
I reckon there is a better case to be made for AB being an AR than Gilchrist cos he bowled (some filth) and fielded... Im not sure a keeper should be allowed in.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
The point of an all-rounder is that they are good at it
h_hurricane
International Vice-Captain
A crude way of looking at things, but I would say some one with a positive value for the metric batting average *strike rate - bowling average * economy rate is a good non wicket keeping ODI all rounder. There should be a minimum cut off for 100 wickets and 1000 runs or something similar to that.
Coronis
International Coach
Tbh would take Sobers last few years (1256 @ 52.33 and 42 @ 31.50) over many of the other blokes careers.
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
No that's a judgement on quality not role.
mr_mister
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
On that note, who's the biggest no-rounder of all? Basically someone who was meant to definitely have an important role in their side with bat and ball - someone who was meant to be a genuine all-rounder(not just bits and pieces) but was pretty crappy at both disciplines
Ben Hollioake?
Mitch Marsh?
Chris Harris in tests?
Dwayne Bravo?
Ben Hollioake?
Mitch Marsh?
Chris Harris in tests?
Dwayne Bravo?
Daemon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
How is this dude still 35, thought he retired 10 years ago
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
Hooper is a weird one. Pretty valuable to the WIs set up, his offies were nothing special but they were tidy enough to compliment the 4 paceman attack, and he was a far better batsman than his batting avg suggests.
Teja.
Global Moderator
Having a batting average of 36 was very much test class for the era Hooper played in. Add in 114 wickets and being a great slip fielder and Hooper was a very solid all round package as a cricketer.
I'd take that over a middle order batsman who averaged early 40s with the bat but didn't have quite as much going for him as Hooper.
I'd take that over a middle order batsman who averaged early 40s with the bat but didn't have quite as much going for him as Hooper.
Last edited: