The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[stephen]

Not only are Martian pitches dusty but due to the thin atmosphere you won't get any swing or drift.

Basically Jadeja is the GOAT bowler for Martian conditions.

I'm always astounded when I look over the Australian openers and think about just how many are in contention for the top sides, or at least would make the Zimbabwe or Bangladesh AT XI.

Hayden
Trumper
Simpson
Lawry
Langer
Warner
Ponsford
Morris
Barnes
Taylor
Slater
Rogers
Jaques

The list of really good openers is enormous and even if none of them are amongst the top 4, they could easily occupy nearly half the top 30 openers in history.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

A finger spinner would find it hard to grip the ball on Mars since temps are cold af.

 

[ataraxia]

Hayden
Trumper
Simpson
Lawry
Langer
Warner
Ponsford
Morris
Barnes
Taylor
Slater
Rogers
Jaques

+

Brown
Fingleton
McDonald
Bardsley
Collins

and pt openers:

Boon
Jackson
Redpath
Khawaja

 

[jimmy101]

Can't see how any of them could dislodge the iron-clad pairing of Masakadza/Sibanda tbh.

 

[TheJediBrah]

or at least would make the Zimbabwe or Bangladesh AT XI.

Not sure that's as impressive a feat as it sounds

 

[stephen]

Ok well you count probably extend that to NZ/Pak as well. Obviously England, South Africa, India and the West Indies have their own openers who are on a par but Australia seem to have a century long factory line of quality openers.

 

[ataraxia]

Ok well you count probably extend that to NZ/Pak as well. Obviously England, South Africa, India and the West Indies have their own openers who are on a par but Australia seem to have a century long factory line of quality openers.

I think extending it to Sri Lanka is reasonable, but Hanif, Saeed, Turner, and Dempster/Sutcliffe are very good players who are superior to the likes of Taylor, Slater, Jaques, Rogers, Collins, Fingleton, and McDonald as well as being about the same level as some others.

 

[stephen]

I think extending it to Sri Lanka is reasonable, but Hanif, Saeed, Turner, and Dempster/Sutcliffe are very good players who are superior to the likes of Taylor, Slater, Jaques, Rogers, Collins, Fingleton, and McDonald as well as being about the same level as some others.

They would be in the conversation though, which is the point.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think extending it to Sri Lanka is reasonable, but Hanif, Saeed, Turner, and Dempster/Sutcliffe are very good players who are superior to the likes of Taylor, Slater, Jaques, Rogers, Collins, Fingleton, and McDonald as well as being about the same level as some others.

I don't think they are necessarily superior tbh

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I don't think they are necessarily superior tbh

I do. Those 5 from Pakistan and NZ would've all made world XIs during their careers. Would any of those Aussies?

 

[TheJediBrah]

I do. Those 5 from Pakistan and NZ would've all made world XIs during their careers. Would any of those Aussies?

That's a very specific criteria but even then, maybe. Saeed Anwar alone wasn't objectively better than Taylor and Slater whose careers coincided with him.

Besides, stephen's right. At this point it's comparing the best 1 or 2 from some countries against the 15th best from another. They don't have to be definiteively better for it to be notable.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Jaques and Rogers are 2 that stand out to me, very hard to rate. If they had been representing NZ or even England maybe (though Strauss was pretty good) who knows what sort of career they could have ended up with. Both were 45+ average quality players.

I thought at the time that around that 2004-2007-ish period Jaques was better than Langer, but Langer just didn't give up that spot

 

[OverratedSanity]

Taylor and Slater were excellent. Taylor especially I'd say had an overall better career than Anwar.

 

[Gob]

The Steven Smith question

What is Steven Smith Until Michael Clarke's latest adventure into the gossip pages it was <I>the</i> question in Australian cricket

www.espncricinfo.com

Found this interesting piece from about ten years ago

What do you reckon fellas? Would he ever be a test standard bowler?

 

[Gob]

Taylor and Slater were excellent. Taylor especially I'd say had an overall better career than Anwar.

I heard only sachin has more test 90s than Slats

 

[Gob]

Ok well you count probably extend that to NZ/Pak as well. Obviously England, South Africa, India and the West Indies have their own openers who are on a par but Australia seem to have a century long factory line of quality openers.

It's weird cos I felt producing great openers is the least special trade in Aust cricket. Yes they have produced many good ones but compared to say England

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hutton
Grace
Boycott
Cowdrey
Gooch
Cook

They seem to fall behind considerably.

 

[stephen]

It's weird cos I felt producing great openers is the least special trade in Aust cricket. Yes they have produced many good ones but compared to say England

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hutton
Grace
Boycott
Cowdrey
Gooch
Cook

They seem to fall behind considerably.

I think the very best openers have come from England but Australia has pumped out way more high quality openers over the years. Quantity vs quality I guess. Honestly Australia has had enough world class openers for a dozen sides. And there's still huge arguments over who the very best of them were.

 

[stephen]

The Steven Smith question

What is Steven Smith Until Michael Clarke's latest adventure into the gossip pages it was <I>the</i> question in Australian cricket

www.espncricinfo.com

Found this interesting piece from about ten years ago

What do you reckon fellas? Would he ever be a test standard bowler?

Looks like O'Keefe had nothing to worry about with Smith's batting while the ball is moving.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I heard only sachin has more test 90s than Slats

OK well this depends on what you consider to be a 90.

If you meant a 90+ score, Sachin Lara Waugh all have more
https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...0;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

But if you meant a 90-99 score, then slater is number 1

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...0;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

Someone should make a thread pointing out how inconsistent and confusing this is.

 

[TheJediBrah]

OK well this depends on what you consider to be a 90.

If you meant a 90+ score, Sachin Lara Waugh all have more
https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...0;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

But if you meant a 90-99 score, then slater is number 1

Not sure why you think he would have meant the former, but props for doing the digging. There would be dozens of batsmen with more 90+ scores than Slater, not just those 3. I think you limited your first search to just the 1990s by accident haha

I think the very best openers have come from England but Australia has pumped out way more high quality openers over the years. Quantity vs quality I guess. Honestly Australia has had enough world class openers for a dozen sides. And there's still huge arguments over who the very best of them were.

Wonder if Australia being an easier place to open the batting than England has anything to do with it. I don't know if that's been the case historically but it definitely has in the last 20-30 years at least. My theory, if that's the case, is that the best batsmen in England would be more inclined to bat in the middle order to get the most out of their abilities whereas those from Australia were more likely to become openers because there's less risk of getting a good ball early you can do nothing about. For example a Hayden or Warner type character coming up in England might have more success batting in the middle order and end up as number 4 or 5 batsmen rather than openers.

This theory doesn't hold up at all if the "being an opener in England is harder" assumption isn't accurate