subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Yes, Pollock at number 8.How does S.Pollock improve the top six or give more bowling options? In this exercise either him or Procter bat at eight and are the third quick.
Yes, Pollock at number 8.How does S.Pollock improve the top six or give more bowling options? In this exercise either him or Procter bat at eight and are the third quick.
I'd pick 4 of them. (Apologies to Barrington and Compton.)Nothing wrong in Selecting Hobbs / Hutton / Grace as " Semi Openers " ??
HobbsBoth Root and Hammond are batting out of position there.
Yep, this batting line-up is quite possibly the deepest batting one ever fielded in a test: https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...vs-south-africa-3rd-test-63780/full-scorecardI think like 90's South Africa has so many Allrounders in their team in history that they can boast of having the most flexible all time side on the planet.
If your 6 best batsman are all openers, pick all 6. If they're going to do better at no.6 than whoever you're best middle-order bat is then that's the right selectionHutton lost his wickets 24 times before reaching 10 runs, in such circumstances number 3 becomes a Semi Opener or Reserve Opener.
Nothing wrong in Selecting Hobbs / Hutton / Grace as " Semi Openers " ??
Someone who averages 50 odd as opener is likely to do just as well if not better down the order. Moving up the order is more difficult.If your 6 best batsman are all openers, pick all 6. If they're going to do better at no.6 than whoever you're best middle-order bat is then that's the right selection
a really killer top fourHobbs
Sutcliffe
Hutton
Hammond
Compton
Botham
Knott
Laker
Trueman
Snow
Barnes
Why not Federer or Messi at 3? Same number of innings as Hutton in that position, anyway.Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hutton
Hammond
Compton
Botham
Knott
Laker
Trueman
Snow
Barnes
Hutton's not gonna forget how to bat just because he did not come out in the first over. Batting at 1 vs 3 are not whole different sports.Why not Federer or Messi at 3? Same number of innings as Hutton in that position, anyway.
I agree with you here. A team like the WI had Viv open a few times and ditto Lara, Worrell etc. So we can realistically pick a team that looks like this:never did even once in his entire career!!!!
nope
cheating!!!!
No. The most flexible side is Australia imo. Having too many all rounders in one's team either dilutes the bowling or batting quality. Example:I think like 90's South Africa has so many Allrounders in their team in history that they can boast of having the most flexible all time side on the planet.
What if it’s someone like Root who’s basically been opening for the last few years?why is hobbs batting at 3?
the thing with these ATG XIs is such cheat moves are not allowed. If it is difficult to choose two out of the three great openers, for example, then that is the fun part. you can't choose all three and randomly force fit one of them at no 3
How is it even remotely like that?It is like slotting an atg spinner in a pacer's slot and asking him to bowl pace because he was a successful spinner.
Yes, that was exaggerated. But the point is, opening is quite a specialist position. There is a reason why very few great openers are there at present in this bowling area while quite a few great batsmen are there in the middle order.How is it even remotely like that?
And when you have players in your team in a position which they have never played in their lives, it is quite similar to asking a spinner to bowl pace. Both never happened.How is it even remotely like that?