-
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
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
And finally to CMJ - Christopher Martin-Jenkins - who like Frindall is very sadly no longer with us. His selection was:
Jack Hobbs
Sunil Gavaskar
Don Bradman
Brian Lara
Garry Sobers
Mike Procter
Imran Khan
Wilfred Rhodes
Godfrey Evans
Bill O'Reilly
Sydney Barnes
It is interesting to compare this selection with the rankings in CMJ's Top 100 book which was published ten years later. In that book, he ranks Hutton above Gavaskar and Richards above Lara. Warne, Tendulkar and Gilchrist are all also in his top 10 by then, which would change his selections too.
Jack Hobbs
Sunil Gavaskar
Don Bradman
Brian Lara
Garry Sobers
Mike Procter
Imran Khan
Wilfred Rhodes
Godfrey Evans
Bill O'Reilly
Sydney Barnes
It is interesting to compare this selection with the rankings in CMJ's Top 100 book which was published ten years later. In that book, he ranks Hutton above Gavaskar and Richards above Lara. Warne, Tendulkar and Gilchrist are all also in his top 10 by then, which would change his selections too.
srbhkshk
International Captain
With respect to this, I have always felt that people closer to the game don't differentiate much between great players, over here on cw it'd be rather controversial to claim Wasim / Holding over McGrath/Marshall etc. in tests - but such opinions reside plenty among former players and such. Not sure if that is a spite on the forum folks or them.
The way we microanalyse and pretend there is some intractable gulf between players like Holding and Marshall is kinda bullshit tbh, even if we are more correct in our assesments.
Anyway, its interesting to do it, and I am certainly going to keep doing it, despite recognising that it is pedantry of the highest order.
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
A question which has arisen in my mind as I've looked through some of these older books and lists - was Malcolm Marshall a little un(der)-appreciated in some circles before his death?
The Nick Brownlee Top 100 book I've been discussing here for the past couple of days notes in its introduction that it was inspired by John Woodcock's Top 100 that he did for The Times in 1997. In that list, Woodcock ranked Marshall only at number 69 - also behind Michael Holding (who admittedly wasn't as far ahead in Woodcock's list as it was in Brownlee's book). I've noted that Brownlee ranks Marshall even lower at 75, as well as the fact that none of the eminent cricket writers and broadcasters consulted for the book considered Marshall worth a spot either in their All Time XIs or even in the TMS post-1957 side.
And yet, I remember reading - I think it was either in The Cricketer or Wisden - a tribute to Marshall immediately after his death which finished with a line something like "in the all time XI of greatest cricketers, no one would take the new ball ahead of him." Similar tributes after his death - and indeed ever since - have near-universally rated him the greatest of all fast bowlers, and at worst one of the top two or three. ESPN's Legends of Cricket list in 2001 ranked him at number 16, and the second highest pure quick after Lillee. CMJ himself went one better in his own Top 100 where he placed Marshall at number 11 - and the top ranked fast bowler - despite not picking him in his All Time team ten years earlier. Just about any other ranking I can remember seeing during the past twenty years has been aligned with this way of thinking, with possibly the only significant dissenting opinion being that of Richie Benaud, who in 2004 picked a shortlist of six fast bowlers for his own all time XI but controversially didn't include Marshall (or any other West Indian quick) among them.
Anyway, that's a bit of a ramble from me, I suppose - just something I'd been pondering and thought I'd share.
You're welcome.
The Nick Brownlee Top 100 book I've been discussing here for the past couple of days notes in its introduction that it was inspired by John Woodcock's Top 100 that he did for The Times in 1997. In that list, Woodcock ranked Marshall only at number 69 - also behind Michael Holding (who admittedly wasn't as far ahead in Woodcock's list as it was in Brownlee's book). I've noted that Brownlee ranks Marshall even lower at 75, as well as the fact that none of the eminent cricket writers and broadcasters consulted for the book considered Marshall worth a spot either in their All Time XIs or even in the TMS post-1957 side.
And yet, I remember reading - I think it was either in The Cricketer or Wisden - a tribute to Marshall immediately after his death which finished with a line something like "in the all time XI of greatest cricketers, no one would take the new ball ahead of him." Similar tributes after his death - and indeed ever since - have near-universally rated him the greatest of all fast bowlers, and at worst one of the top two or three. ESPN's Legends of Cricket list in 2001 ranked him at number 16, and the second highest pure quick after Lillee. CMJ himself went one better in his own Top 100 where he placed Marshall at number 11 - and the top ranked fast bowler - despite not picking him in his All Time team ten years earlier. Just about any other ranking I can remember seeing during the past twenty years has been aligned with this way of thinking, with possibly the only significant dissenting opinion being that of Richie Benaud, who in 2004 picked a shortlist of six fast bowlers for his own all time XI but controversially didn't include Marshall (or any other West Indian quick) among them.
Anyway, that's a bit of a ramble from me, I suppose - just something I'd been pondering and thought I'd share.
You're welcome.
sunilz
International Regular
Do players even check statsguru of different cricketers before ratings them ?
IMO an opposition player will rate that player highly about whom they discuss maximum time in team meetings even if that player average slightly less.
For eg. Australian bowlers may rate Kohli more instead of Pujara even though Pujara does more damage to them ?
IMO an opposition player will rate that player highly about whom they discuss maximum time in team meetings even if that player average slightly less.
For eg. Australian bowlers may rate Kohli more instead of Pujara even though Pujara does more damage to them ?
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I often see Richard's First Class average invoked in these discussions. Yeah 54.74 is an impressive average but Boycott averaged 56.83 while 'only' averaging 47.72 in tests so it's hardly a slam dunk.
It's in this article.
Just checking who had actually taken the new ball ahead of him (it happened reasonably often - in 55 Test innings he bowled first or second change) and was surprised to find that Milton Small did at Lord's in 1984.
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
That's the article yes, with some additional material thrown in at the end from other sources. The article I read was in print though - I wish I could remember which cricket magazine it was though!
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
lmao if this isn't just Cricket Chat in a nutshell
Where else can you see a 35 year old software engineer who can't walk up a flight of stairs without losing breath* tell a cricket superstar how to rate players
*generalisation, not aimed at anyone in particular and Sunilz's point is definitely valid. Just found the comment funny.
Yeah, such lists really give a decent insight into how they saw cricket regardless of how objective people may or may not try to be.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Before his death, the only time I had ever heard Marshall being rated as highly as he is now was by Greg Matthews of all people, and that was at an ANZAC Day lunch for the 36th Battalion at Five Dock RSL when I asked him who he reckoned the best bowlers he'd both played against and of all time were.
It's an interesting question as to whether thoughts would have turned to him as much were he still alive. I suspect they would. Others from his era are discussed in the GOAT discussion as well.
kyear2
International Coach
I few weeks back I was watching a fairly old documentary on YouTube about Viv. And while everyone loved Viv and his "swagger etc" most around the world were not fans of the West Indies quicks. I had actually forgotten how borderline disliked they were.
Benaud in his ATG series didn't include any if them in his top 6 selections and that didn't even include Imran or Hadlee who I believe he had grouped in his all rounder selections.. Though it must be said that he did throughout the interview and reveal acknowledge that it wasn't necessarily the best team, but the one that he would want to represent him. As evidenced by his spinner, fast bowler and wicket keeper shortlists.
Many though that what we did was almost unfair, borderline cheating, unsporting and against the spirit of the game, though no one thought that when Lillee and Thompson were doing their thing, but hypocrisy is a thing.
I've seen books where it almost described us as brutish, but The 2 Ws were artists and Warne a magician who changed the game.
But to also respond to some of the other comments. There's no doubt that Maco was the best of the WI quicks of the late '70's and the 80's. And it had nothing to do with stat guru or spreadsheets. By '84 he was faster and more consistent and reliable than Holding, had more five wicket hauls and a greater impact than Garner and Ambrose never had his versatility or toolkit.
I'll go as far as to say that when he did retire, not only was the best quick from the Caribbean, but the best the world produced.
His impact, he was the one who propelled us to one of the 3 greatest teams of all time.
His resume and all round record everywhere, he dominated in India when some didn't think it was possible.
And the unmatched toolkit that he possessed. As the quote says, "he had all of the tools, and knew when and how to use them"
But don't just read or look at numbers, YouTube is a treasure trove.
Benaud in his ATG series didn't include any if them in his top 6 selections and that didn't even include Imran or Hadlee who I believe he had grouped in his all rounder selections.. Though it must be said that he did throughout the interview and reveal acknowledge that it wasn't necessarily the best team, but the one that he would want to represent him. As evidenced by his spinner, fast bowler and wicket keeper shortlists.
Many though that what we did was almost unfair, borderline cheating, unsporting and against the spirit of the game, though no one thought that when Lillee and Thompson were doing their thing, but hypocrisy is a thing.
I've seen books where it almost described us as brutish, but The 2 Ws were artists and Warne a magician who changed the game.
But to also respond to some of the other comments. There's no doubt that Maco was the best of the WI quicks of the late '70's and the 80's. And it had nothing to do with stat guru or spreadsheets. By '84 he was faster and more consistent and reliable than Holding, had more five wicket hauls and a greater impact than Garner and Ambrose never had his versatility or toolkit.
I'll go as far as to say that when he did retire, not only was the best quick from the Caribbean, but the best the world produced.
His impact, he was the one who propelled us to one of the 3 greatest teams of all time.
His resume and all round record everywhere, he dominated in India when some didn't think it was possible.
And the unmatched toolkit that he possessed. As the quote says, "he had all of the tools, and knew when and how to use them"
But don't just read or look at numbers, YouTube is a treasure trove.
Last edited:
sunilz
International Regular
First time , I heard about Malcolm Marshall was in an ODI match between England and Pakistan when Shoaib Akhtar was bowling very well and commentators were saying this is how Marshall used to bowl and was very difficult to face(98/99)
However when Shami(Bowling average 50) was compared to Marshall by Imran Khan , I thought may be Marshall wasn't that good(Early 00). ?
However when Shami(Bowling average 50) was compared to Marshall by Imran Khan , I thought may be Marshall wasn't that good(Early 00). ?
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
he was
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
I feel there is an element of what the other guy does for you with respect to bowlers within the same team, that we sometimes miss when we do a purely stats based exercise. Granted, we only have those numbers given none of us would have seen all of them play every test or whatever, but still, it is worth keeping in mind that ex-players may rate players based on that as well. For example, I feel Warne is often under-rated in the part he played in McGrath's success, because pure numbers tell you Warne seemed to do better with McGrath but McGrath actually has better numbers without Warne. But I feel that is not as straight forward as it seems, having watched a lot of both of their tests and also the tests where one played without the other. I often felt Warne created more pressure or a sense of helplessness, as in "whats the point of blocking out McGrath, it just means we will have to try to score of Warney" with many batsmen. Of course, I am not gonna beat down that this opinion is some fact and that others are wrong if they do not agree, but it is what I feel having watched their games. You gotta allow that there is no real one right way to rate these players, I guess.
Flem274*
123/5
I can understand the contemporary disdain for the West Indian quicks after watching some ball by ball. They truly mastered the art of looking aggrieved and moving as slowly as possible. They would have been so obnoxious to watch your team play against, especially because they were so good. When people behave like that you want them to get their comeuppance, but they usually won.
Over time people have chilled on them a little and rewritten history a lot since the West Indian fall. A modern example would be Ponting. He was the villain of the 2000s. He often behaved like a total dickhead, but post retirement has heavily reformed his public image.
There was once a time where Michael Vaughan was the plucky yet intelligent underdog leading a good but probably outmatched side against the chief villain of world cricket and his team of champions. How times have changed....
Over time people have chilled on them a little and rewritten history a lot since the West Indian fall. A modern example would be Ponting. He was the villain of the 2000s. He often behaved like a total dickhead, but post retirement has heavily reformed his public image.
There was once a time where Michael Vaughan was the plucky yet intelligent underdog leading a good but probably outmatched side against the chief villain of world cricket and his team of champions. How times have changed....
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
In all seriousness, there is some definite romanticism around the eighties WI side now that I don't see in contemporary writings (albeit an outsized number I've read are English or Australian). Just because they didn't say as much as the Australians doesn't mean they weren't also nasty. The suddenness and completeness of their collapse into badness seems to be a contributing factor.