The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Victor Ian]

I grew up on the Windies being bad for cricket. I missed the stage where Australia could compete with them. The media was forever moaning about how unfair the way they played was and how it was bad for the viewer. I believed all that and was happy to see bouncer limits applied, as that was the focus or all the crying. But they just went on, because really the way they controlled you wasn't with the bouncers at your head, but the steep ball into the chest. They made you play too tight.
Then they fell away remarkably quickly. Their 'factory of fast bowlers' just disappeared.
Australia then took the lead. They seemed to have a factory of bowlers that never ended. All the papers started to focus on how Australia was bad for the spectators, because we were all *****. Then our cupboard suddenly went bare. You can see where the focus will be if India manages to get into complete dominance mode. They will be bad for spectators because they game the system and throw their weight around with their too powerful board. None of is really true. Every over dominant team will be cried about for something. Then, when tables turn, people will look back and see them in a much better light
Hmmm. OK

 

[smash84]

I fee weeks back I was watching a family 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.

The 2 Ws were initially called a lot of things on reverse swing that was very very far away from them being regarded as artists.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I grew up on the Windies being bad for cricket. I missed the stage where Australia could compete with them. The media was forever moaning about how unfair the way they played was and how it was bad for the viewer. I believed all that and was happy to see bouncer limits applied, as that was the focus or all the crying. But they just went on, because really the way they controlled you wasn't with the bouncers at your head, but the steep ball into the chest. They made you play too tight.
Then they fell away remarkably quickly. Their 'factory of fast bowlers' just disappeared.
Australia then took the lead. They seemed to have a factory of bowlers that never ended. All the papers started to focus on how Australia was bad for the spectators, because we were all ****s. Then our cupboard suddenly went bare. You can see where the focus will be if India manages to get into complete dominance mode. They will be bad for spectators because they game the system and throw their weight around with their too powerful board. None of is really true. Every over dominant team will be cried about for something. Then, when tables turn, people will look back and see them in a much better light
Hmmm. OK

You think that's not true? BCCI have been doing since I started following cricket.

Aus board isn't as powerful but they are doing the same thing too, cancelling non-profitable tours. Definitely bad for cricket.

 

[Victor Ian]

You think that's not true? BCCI have been doing since I started following cricket.

Aus board isn't as powerful but they are doing the same thing too, cancelling non-profitable tours. Definitely bad for cricket.

I guess, what I meant was that what we focus on is not why the team is so far ahead. The reason they are better is because they have the better group of players. All complaints were true, but you could take them away and the teams would still be winning.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

One major gripe against the Windies in their prime was the 12 overs an hour they bowled. The actual gist of the argument comes down to Clive Lloyd's point of view that they still won most games inside the allotted playing time so it didn't matter. The counter argument was lead by Ian Chappell who was of the opinion that bowling so few overs meant that all four quicks remained fresh and there were no tired bowlers late in the day. Christopher Martin-Jenkins and Tony Cosier had the same argument quite a few times on air.
Clive Lloyd also regularly pointed out that grounds were always sold out and it was never the paying spectators who complained about being short changed, just the administrators moaned on their behalf.

 

[Starfighter]

Clive Lloyd also regularly pointed out that grounds were always sold out and it was never the paying spectators who complained about being short changed, just the administrators moaned on their behalf.

Test attendances in Australia in the eighties say otherwise, though that's partly due to the over promotion of the WSC at the expense of the tests by Packer - but it should be noted ODIs with WI were a lot more competitive than tests.

The most attended day at Melbourne in 84/85 drew 27,383. Historic attendances for the three most attended days of West Indies Melbourne tests (total in brackets):

1931: 13,865 (only lasted two days)
1952: 138,811 (168,937 over four days)
1960: 136,233 (150,265 over four days)
1961: 188,316 (274,424 over five days)
1968: 94,610 (113,367 over four days)
1975: 181,027 (222,755 over four days)
1976: 103,140 (121,619 over four days and 12 overs)
1979: 78,433 (89,045 over 3 1/2 days)
1981: 115,640 (131,801 over 4 days and 1 over)
1984: 70,343 (97,227 over five days)
1988: 83,378 (108,408 over five days)
1992: 102,196 (138,604 over five days)
1996: 131,756 (lasted three days)

(Data from Charles Davis)

 

[The Sean]

Test attendances in Australia in the eighties say otherwise, though that's partly due to the over promotion of the WSC at the expense of the tests by Packer - but it should be noted ODIs with WI were a lot more competitive than tests.

The most attended day at Melbourne in 84/85 drew 27,383. Historic attendances for West Indies Melbourne tests:

1931: 13 865
1952: 138,811
1960: 136,233
1961: 188,316
1968: 94,610
1975: 181,027
1976: 103,140
1979: 78,433
1981: 115,640
1984: 70,343
1988: 83,378
1992: 102,196
1996: 131,756

(Data from Charles Davis)

I'm surprised that the 1961 Test is "only" 188k as they got essentially half of that on a single day. I suppose an explanation could be that the other four playing days of that Test were all weekdays.

 

[Starfighter]

I'm surprised that the 1961 Test is "only" 188k as they got essentially half of that on a single day. I suppose an explanation could be that the other four playing days of that Test were all weekdays.

I forgot one detail - I made this dataset only using the three most attended days in order to account of the variation in match length, so it's only the attendees for Friday, Saturday and Monday. I thought it was a better measure than total or average daily attendance, it's a bit unfair comparing a six day timeless match to a three day one on a sporting pitch.

Friday: 46,225
Saturday: 90,800
Monday: 51,391
Tuesday: 44,822
Wednesday: 41,186
Total: 274,424

An absolute classic of a match too.

The only bigger attendances in that set are the two tests in '36/'37 and in 1947, with 232,663, 192,863 and 209,159 respectively on the three busiest days, and totals of 350,534, 236,136 (an uncompetitive match that lasted two balls into the fifth day. They got 12,000 in for those two balls) and 343,675 respectively. 2013 got 271,865 as well.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Test attendances in Australia in the eighties say otherwise, though that's partly due to the over promotion of the WSC at the expense of the tests by Packer - but it should be noted ODIs with WI were a lot more competitive than tests.

The most attended day at Melbourne in 84/85 drew 27,383. Historic attendances for the three most attended days of West Indies Melbourne tests:

1931: 13 865
1952: 138,811
1960: 136,233
1961: 188,316
1968: 94,610
1975: 181,027
1976: 103,140
1979: 78,433
1981: 115,640
1984: 70,343
1988: 83,378
1992: 102,196
1996: 131,756

(Data from Charles Davis)

Could just be the home team wasn't that good and drew less of a crowd because of that

 

[AndrewB]

Test attendances in Australia in the eighties say otherwise, though that's partly due to the over promotion of the WSC at the expense of the tests by Packer - but it should be noted ODIs with WI were a lot more competitive than tests.

They weren't in 1984-5: West Indies beat Australia 7-1 in ODIs (and 3-1 in Tests), and most of the wins were with 5+ overs and wickets to spare. (They also beat Sri Lanka 5-0, and Australia beat SL 4-1, and most of those matches weren't close either).

But you're right about the attendances: the Tests had 340,000 in 23 days ("well below that expected"), the B&H WSC had 460,000 in 18 days.

 

[Starfighter]

Could just be the home team wasn't that good and drew less of a crowd because of that

Yes but it doesn't point to the eighties West Indies drawing massive crowds like I've seen claimed on occasion. I might compare attendances at grounds in England, because I think that the idea might be truest there, partly due to a large WI diaspora at the time.

Here's the full contextual Melbourne test attendances in the era (busiest three days in brackets). While on the better end, there's nothing that points them out as being exceptionally popular. By far the best attended was 81/82, which was the first test of the series, a very exciting match that featured a lot of star players and was probably before the sheer scale of WI's dominance hit home. Compare that to 84/85 against a weaker Aussie team who've just been thrashed three successive times.

1979/80: WI: 89,045 (78,433, 3.5 days)
1979/80: Eng: 101,193 (81,850, 5 days)
1980/81: NZ: 82,745 (65,359, 5 days w/ two sessions lost by rain)
1981/82: Pak: 33,734 (27,217, 4 days 1 session)
1981/82: WI: 131,801 (115,640 over 4 days and 1 over)
1982/83: Eng: 214,882 (159,526, 4 days 1 session)
1983/84: Pak: 111,611 (88,546, 5 days)
1984/85: WI: 97,227 (70,343, 5 days, some rain?)
1985/86: Ind: 81,715 (63,005, 4 days 2 sessions, one session rain)
1986/87: Eng: 107,818 (lasted only three days)
1987/88: NZ: 127,184 (89,487, 5 days)
1988/89: WI: 108,408 (83,378, 4 days 2 sessions)
1989/90: Pak: 66,965 (52,848, 5 days)
1990: Eng: 129,531 (95,284, 5 days)

I think a strong home team is the primary factor, though the opposition needs to be at least decent and known - not too many would turn up to watch even the early 00's Australia team thrash Zimbabwe. Pakistan managed to draw 169,492 in 76/77 (first three days 134,889, attendance fell away in a one sided match). That wouldn't have happened without 'Lillian Thomson' and the Chappells and Walters and thrashing well known teams the prior seasons.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Over rates were especially bad with Lloyd's side

 

[sunilz]

I have no problem with slow over rate if match finishes inside 5 days. However if match ends in draw, then Team should be penalised.

 

[Shady Slim]

I grew up on the Windies being bad for cricket. I missed the stage where Australia could compete with them. The media was forever moaning about how unfair the way they played was and how it was bad for the viewer. I believed all that and was happy to see bouncer limits applied, as that was the focus or all the crying. But they just went on, because really the way they controlled you wasn't with the bouncers at your head, but the steep ball into the chest. They made you play too tight.
Then they fell away remarkably quickly. Their 'factory of fast bowlers' just disappeared.
Australia then took the lead. They seemed to have a factory of bowlers that never ended. All the papers started to focus on how Australia was bad for the spectators, because we were all ****s. Then our cupboard suddenly went bare. You can see where the focus will be if India manages to get into complete dominance mode. They will be bad for spectators because they game the system and throw their weight around with their too powerful board. None of is really true. Every over dominant team will be cried about for something. Then, when tables turn, people will look back and see them in a much better light
Hmmm. OK

i suppose from my point of view i always felt the lehmann era australian teams were just proper dickheads, vs in the aughts when they were still probably dickheads (though only to the extent all pro sportspeople get with white line fever), though they let the playing do the talking just as much as they did with their mouth. a team that can put their money where their mouth is, should to my mind get more leeway when it comes to this sort of thing.

lehmann australia was, conversely, also not the sort of dominant team you're talking about, because they couldn't buy a win away from home in countries that don't rhyme with Nouth Zfrica and Sew Aeland. as far as today's india goes aside from kohli (who one could argue is the sort of dickhead who is capable of backing his performances up so he's allowed to be so) i really don't see anyone inherently dislikeable. rohit?

 

[Prince EWS]

as far as today's india goes aside from kohli (who one could argue is the sort of dickhead who is capable of backing his performances up so he's allowed to be so) i really don't see anyone inherently dislikeable. rohit?

Rohit is usually pretty reserved, but when he does open his mouth it's always absolutely ridiculous. I kind of enjoy it, especially in combination with what he's like as a cricketer, but I can definitely see why people would find him dislikeable.

Ashwin can be a massive **** too. I also enjoy this, but again I can see why people wouldn't.

 

[Spark]

Yeah I actually don't mind the way Ashwin conducts himself at all, but there's no doubt that he, uh, is willing to explore the absolute boundaries of the written laws of the game in a way that, if everyone or even a significant fraction of international players started doing it like he does, would probably wreck the sport. Sport just isn't rigorous or robust enough to stand up to that level of rules-lawyering en masse and still be an enjoyable experience.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah I actually don't mind the way Ashwin conducts himself at all, but there's no doubt that he, uh, is willing to explore the absolute boundaries of the written laws of the game in a way that, if everyone or even a significant fraction of international players started doing it like he does, would probably wreck the sport. Sport just isn't rigorous or robust enough to stand up to that level of rules-lawyering en masse and still be an enjoyable experience.

Yeah that's a good way to put it. I enjoy Ashwin's Ashwinning, but if everyone did that it'd break the game.

 

[Shady Slim]

ashwin's fine i like him, like spark noted it's good where there's the odd player who comes along and does that, but it would be real tiresome if everyone did.

i think i just don't like rohit because he's always struck me as lazy, but i don't know if that's just subconscious fatshaming

 

[Spark]

Yeah that's a good way to put it. I enjoy Ashwin's Ashwinning, but if everyone did that it'd break the game.

You always need one or two players like that if only to remind everyone that the written rules actually matter at some level and force a level of consistency, plus it's by far the best way to draw attention to places where the rules are objectively ridiculous or inconsistent and get them fixed. But sport is just way, way, way too complicated, nuanced and inconsistent in a hard "game" sense (and, lbrh, doesn't actually matter enough) to not be super reliant on these sorts of unspoken, unwritten and wooly conventions that everyone agrees to be bound by in order to not make it a miserable mess dominated by rule sharks. That would be utterly hideous.

 

[Prince EWS]

ashwin's fine i like him, like spark noted it's good where there's the odd player who comes along and does that, but it would be real tiresome if everyone did.

i think i just don't like rohit because he's always struck me as lazy, but i don't know if that's just subconscious fatshaming

Rohit's exchange with Steyn revealed a lot IMO, but I like that Rohit statements are so rare. It's a real event when he finally opens his trap and says something invariably memeworthy. I don't think he's not a ****; I just enjoy it.

I don't enjoy Kohli's incessant arrogance or cliched midwit macho takes on why they won or lost a game or series. He's like a narrative-obsessed cricket jounro but without the intelligence or vocabulary. Gun bat though, obvs.