What is your ranking of all Country's ATG XIs?

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah I too didn't know that. I remember something like Warner was famous for being picked before playing a first class match. Or was that only for limited overs?

Warner made his T20I and ODI debuts before he'd played a first class match

 

[ataraxia]

Intellectually robust discussion here

 

[Raz0r6ack]

I don’t think Jacques Kallis would be as good at no 6 as he would be at no 4. Down the order you need a less conventional, more innovative, less technical, more pragmatic, fighting, tail loving run stealer. No 6 is more suitable for S Waugh or Border. Yeah Kallis can bat anywhere; so can Border. But that’s not how we play this.

Hutton didn’t bat at 3 because he was not born to pad up and wait for the first wicket to fall. That was not what he was created for. He was created to be the one who walks out with his partner and then past the umpire all alone to the batting end and takes guard to face the first ball. He was an administrator/ statesman/ legend. All that came later. Before all of that he was an opening batsman. That can’t change.

I'm pretty sure Hutton suffered injuries during WW2 where one of his arms became shorter then the other and he had to change his whole technique.

To say he was born to do play in one specific type of way when he had to make such a significant change to his game is very ignorant.

I don't see how Hutton would be much different to Dravid who batted at 3 for most of his career.

 

[Jarquis]

What are the odds bagapath’s ATXI has three opening bowlers?

 

[subshakerz]

Am sure I can choose an Aussie team that looks like

DG Bradman
S Smith
RT Ponting
GC Chappell
AR Border
SR Waugh
AC Gilchrist +

And this side will score 400+ Runs 8 out of 10 times

But I won’t select such a team….

What if its a real match situation and you actually had all these players available. Would you bench guys like Ponting and Chappell in place of established but lesser openers? Probably not.

But I agree for the sake of this exercise its important to keep to established roles with some flexibility to move a place or two up and down the order.

The problem in England's case is that Hutton, Hobbs and Sutcliffe are England's best bats ever yet outside of Hammond and you would end up dropping one to accomodate the middle order.

 

[Burgey]

Intellectually robust discussion here

We're talking about made up teams of players from all different eras across 130 odd years which will never play against each other. I'd say we were in fantasy land well before the discussion took this turn.

 

[TheJediBrah]

We're talking about made up teams of players from all different eras across 130 odd years which will never play against each other. I'd say we were in fantasy land well before the discussion took this turn.

Technology advances though

 

[bagapath]

Gavaskar played 11 innings outside opening and averaged 74.. Just saying.

Some Might consider this as a proof for superiority and versatility ?

one innings of 236* at no 4, which started in the first over of the innings at 0/2 is what has bolstered it

 

[bagapath]

What if its a real match situation and you actually had all these players available.

It is not uncommon for middle order giants to sit on the bench as teams go for specialists to open the innings. Or for additional openers to sit out to keep the middle order intact.

Would you bench guys like Ponting and Chappell in place of established but lesser openers? Probably not.

If that is the argument you want to make then West Indies will end up with Worrell and Richards opening the batting and Headley Lara Weekes Sobers in the middle order. That doesn't work for me.

So definitely I won't mix openers with middle order bats.

 

[bagapath]

What are the odds bagapath’s ATXI has three opening bowlers?

Many opening bowlers, including Marshall - Holding - S Pollock for example, also bowled first change. my third pacers would be someone who bowled first change often - or for extended periods at the beginning and end of their careers.

Getting Dennis Lillee Richard Hadlee to bowl at no 3 would be as stupid as imagining Hutton batting at 3, I agree.

Will have Holding/ Garner - Botham - Akhtar - S Pollock - Miller as the third pacer in my teams.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

one innings of 236* at no 4, which started in the first over of the innings at 0/2 is what has bolstered it

See, He was Reserve Opener there.

 

[bagapath]

See, He was Reserve Opener there.

sure; please bat gavaskar at 4 in your team

 

[TheJediBrah]

It is not uncommon for middle order giants to sit on the bench as teams go for specialists to open the innings. Or for additional openers to sit out to keep the middle order intact.

It's also not uncommon for openers to play as middle-order bats and vice-versa because they are better than the specialists available so this isn't really a convincing argument

btw I thought of another couple in recent Australian history. 2009-2011 our Test openers were Watson and Katich, both long-term middle-order bats who were picked to open because our middle order was Ponting/Clarke/Hussey and they were both better than any specialist openers in domestic cricket. And they were a very successful pairing.

If you look back through you'd be surprised how often batting position ends up being a matter of circumstance rather than someone being only suited to bat in a particular position

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

sure; please bat gavaskar at 4 in your team

Or Hobbs at 3?

 

[Burgey]

It's also not uncommon for openers to play as middle-order bats and vice-versa because they are better than the specialists available so this isn't really a convincing argument

btw I thought of another couple in recent Australian history. 2009-2011 our Test openers were Watson and Katich, both long-term middle-order bats who were picked to open because our middle order was Ponting/Clarke/Hussey and they were both better than any specialist openers in domestic cricket. And they were a very successful pairing.

If you look back through you'd be surprised how often batting position ends up being a matter of circumstance rather than someone being only suited to bat in a particular position

Yeah but they opened because the alternatives at that time were trash. If you want to promote someone like Ponting to open, that's fine but in the context of an ATG side you're doing it to fit him into a side by leaving out another batsman of similar stature who actually played in the position you're going to put Ponting in.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah but they opened because the alternatives at that time were trash. If you want to promote someone like Ponting to open, that's fine but in the context of an ATG side you're doing it to fit him into a side by leaving out another batsman of similar stature who actually played in the position you're going to put Ponting in.

It's all relative, and I feel like you've kind of missed the point. If you're talking about a batsman of "similar stature" then the situation would never arise.

We're talking about playing batsmen that are clearly superior out of position because the alternatives in that position are inferior.

 

[Line and Length]

It's also not uncommon for openers to play as middle-order bats and vice-versa because they are better than the specialists available so this isn't really a convincing argument

btw I thought of another couple in recent Australian history. 2009-2011 our Test openers were Watson and Katich, both long-term middle-order bats who were picked to open because our middle order was Ponting/Clarke/Hussey and they were both better than any specialist openers in domestic cricket. And they were a very successful pairing.

If you look back through you'd be surprised how often batting position ends up being a matter of circumstance rather than someone being only suited to bat in a particular position

But the point is, both Watson and Katich actually opened. The point @bagapath is making is that it isn't valid to select players in positions that they never played in. To do so is to make assumptions that they might succeed when batting out of position.

 

[srbhkshk]

But the point is, both Watson and Katich actually opened. The point @bagapath is making is that it isn't valid to select players in positions that they never played in. To do so is to make assumptions that they might succeed when batting out of position.

I think his point is well understood, but for someone of the caliber of Hutton it would seem to me that they were more than good enough to do well in whatever position they batted in.

Just thinking in numbers - exactly what's going to happen if Hutton bats at 3 instead of 1 or 2 - it's not like he doesn't know how to bat in the 15th over of the innings and suddenly ends up being a Chris Martin, maayybe we assume that the unfamiliarity still takes some gloss out of his batting - but how much is that really gonna take away from his run scoring - (2%? , 5%?) Still seems better than Joe Root. His average would still be higher than root even if the number was 10%. I just don't really see him being 15-20% worse - which would be required for him to end up firmly behind Root.

Even within this discussion - it's generally accepted that opening is harder than the other positions - so maybe that dip would be higher if we got the middle order batsman to open or an opener might not know how to bat very well with the tail and so moving him to say #6 might be a tad too much, but batting at #3 instead of opening just doesn't seem like it's either much tougher or much of a change to me. Also, FTR I will also claim that moving from #3/#4 to opening isn't that much of a change either although it's perhaps more troublesome compared to the reverse.

 

[TheJediBrah]

But the point is, both Watson and Katich actually opened. The point @bagapath is making is that it isn't valid to select players in positions that they never played in. To do so is to make assumptions that they might succeed when batting out of position.

I just used them as examples to show that a batsman's overall success is rarely significantly affected by batting position and that the best batsmen will generally be better at batting there regardless of position.

And you're absolutely right that you would be making assumptions, but the assumption that Hutton or Hobbs would be good at batting no. 3 is probably a very safe assumption

 

[honestbharani]

My usual theory on this is that it is easier for a test opener to slide down the order and bat at other positions, than it is for a guy in the MO or lower to go up and open the innings.