Australia ATG vs ROW XI - in Australia

[subshakerz]

Also, would anyone be interesting in seeing the Sims done without Bradman? He made nearly 2* more runs then anyone else in the series and made more 100s then the entire ROW xi across the series. Feel like itde be closer with Ponting at 3 and a Neil Harvey as a backup bat.

Yes please. If I had to start this thread again I would have just done the post-war era.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

On the topic of Hayden in the Sims, he made runs on the flat/turning deck and didn't pass 50 on the 2 green/seamers friendly decks. That matches up with the perception of him being great at home/on Turner's away but struggling a bit more in England right?

Also, would anyone be interesting in seeing the Sims done without Bradman? He made nearly 2* more runs then anyone else in the series and made more 100s then the entire ROW xi across the series. Feel like itde be closer with Ponting at 3 and a Neil Harvey as a backup bat.

And Sutcliffe to open with The Master for ROW Xi.

 

[peterhrt]

Based on this, Mushtaq Ahmed's 18 wickets in the mid-nineties is the best performance by a spinner in a series in the country in history perhaps.

Ian Chappell said the best bowling he saw by a visiting spinner in Australia was by Prasanna in 1967-68. 25 wickets in four Tests.

Wisden: "He frequently deceived batsmen in the air. He spun the ball more decisively than an Australian bowler, indeed, on some days he spun it when no home player could spin at all."

Rhodes and Tayfield both took thirty wickets in a series in Australia. So did Bedi but it was against a Packer-weakened side.

 

[Burgey]

On the topic of Hayden in the Sims, he made runs on the flat/turning deck and didn't pass 50 on the 2 green/seamers friendly decks. That matches up with the perception of him being great at home/on Turner's away but struggling a bit more in England right?

Also, would anyone be interesting in seeing the Sims done without Bradman? He made nearly 2* more runs then anyone else in the series and made more 100s then the entire ROW xi across the series. Feel like itde be closer with Ponting at 3 and a Neil Harvey as a backup bat.

Only if we get to take away the ROW’s best player as well…

 

[subshakerz]

Only if we get to take away the ROW’s best player as well…

Take away Sobers. Add Barrington who averaged 70 in Australia. Hammond can be fifth bowler.

Hutton
Hobbs
Viv
Tendulkar
Hammond
Barrington
Knott
Hadlee
Akram
Holding
Ambrose

 

[Burgey]

Then you haven’t got a spinner. It won’t help

 

[subshakerz]

Then you haven’t got a spinner.

Doesn't matter cas any spinner picked isnt going to be a gamechanger. Tendulkar and Hammond can do the stock overs.

 

[peterhrt]

I have no idea who Sutcliffe faced down under but Hutton consistently faced Lindwall and Miller with other decent bowlers like Toshack, Bill Johnston, and Ian Johnson. Therefore, he faced excellent attacks.

He did well in 2 of the 3 series he played down there and was poor in his last in '55 but overall Hutton did more than enough vs challenging Oz attacks to be considered as an opener over Herbert.

Hutton was always rated higher than Sutcliffe in their native Yorkshire, and generally in the rest of England. He certainly looked better - Sutcliffe himself admitted he did not possess the ability of Hobbs, Hammond or Hutton. But there were other reasons.

Sutcliffe played in a high-scoring era of easy pitches (when it didn't rain). The Australian attacks he faced were of variable quality. In the seven matches when he scored his eight Ashes hundreds, 27 centuries were registered by batsmen on both sides.

There was also the old lbw law where the ball had to pitch in line for a positive decision. Anything pitching outside the line of off-stump couldn't be out. Hobbs and Sutcliffe were masters of getting their pads in the way. It was part of the reason they were successful on rain-affected pitches, although their skill on those surfaces shouldn't be underestimated. Sutcliffe also, according to Bradman, had the coolest of temperaments and never gave his wicket away.

When the lbw law changed in 1935, Sutcliffe, on his own admission, was unable to adapt and suffered more than anyone. He was lbw in his first three Test innings after the change and never picked again. He was 40, which wasn't all that old for a batsman in those days. The northern press still thought he should have gone to Australia in 1936-37.

 

[Nintendo]

Then you haven’t got a spinner. It won’t help

Sobers in the Sim only bowls left arm pace for whatever reason so they didn't have a spinner either way.

 

[Nintendo]

Yeah i'll drop sobers to make the exchange fair, kallis can fill his role fine given sober's is listed as a left arm pacer and doesn't bowl spin in the sim.

Is S. Waugh as the replacement for bradman fine or should it be harvey/walters/somoene else?

1.Hobbs
2.Hutton
3.Vrichards
4.Hammond
5.TENDULKAR
6.
7.Knott
8.Akram
9.Holding
10.Ambrose
11.Hadlee
12.Donald
13.Kallis
14.Murali
15.Jadeja
16.Gavaskar
17.Wattling
18.I Khan

Was the 18 man squad last time for the ROW xi bar sobers. Who should replace sobers and is there anyone else you'de rather see in there and who should they swap for. If there's a common consensus i'll change it around.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah i'll drop sobers to make the exchange fair, kallis can fill his role fine given sober's is listed as a left arm pacer and doesn't bowl spin in the sim.

Is S. Waugh as the replacement for bradman fine or should it be harvey/walters/somoene else?

Yes to Waugh.

 

[Xix2565]

Yeah i'll drop sobers to make the exchange fair, kallis can fill his role fine given sober's is listed as a left arm pacer and doesn't bowl spin in the sim.

Is S. Waugh as the replacement for bradman fine or should it be harvey/walters/somoene else?

1.Hobbs
2.Hutton
3.Vrichards
4.Hammond
5.TENDULKAR
6.
7.Knott
8.Akram
9.Holding
10.Ambrose
11.Hadlee
12.Donald
13.Kallis
14.Murali
15.Jadeja
16.Gavaskar
17.Wattling
18.I Khan

Was the 18 man squad last time for the ROW xi bar sobers. Who should replace sobers and is there anyone else you'de rather see in there and who should they swap for. If there's a common consensus i'll change it around.

Jadeja?

 

[Nintendo]

Jadeja?

Who for?

 

[Xix2565]

Oh lol I thought you were asking for who should fill his spot in the XI. Then I got no clue.

 

[subshakerz]

Who for?

Kapil.

 

[Coronis]

Hutton was always rated higher than Sutcliffe in their native Yorkshire, and generally in the rest of England. He certainly looked better - Sutcliffe himself admitted he did not possess the ability of Hobbs, Hammond or Hutton. But there were other reasons.

Sutcliffe played in a high-scoring era of easy pitches (when it didn't rain). The Australian attacks he faced were of variable quality. In the seven matches when he scored his eight Ashes hundreds, 27 centuries were registered by batsmen on both sides.

There was also the old lbw law where the ball had to pitch in line for a positive decision. Anything pitching outside the line of off-stump couldn't be out. Hobbs and Sutcliffe were masters of getting their pads in the way. It was part of the reason they were successful on rain-affected pitches, although their skill on those surfaces shouldn't be underestimated. Sutcliffe also, according to Bradman, had the coolest of temperaments and never gave his wicket away.

When the lbw law changed in 1935, Sutcliffe, on his own admission, was unable to adapt and suffered more than anyone. He was lbw in his first three Test innings after the change and never picked again. He was 40, which wasn't all that old for a batsman in those days. The northern press still thought he should have gone to Australia in 1936-37.

Players can only play with the rules in their times. In those last 3 innings he scored 61, 3 and 38, top scoring in one completed innings and making a quality 50 in another, not really given much of a chance right? Should we downgrade Hobbs’ career because he played prior to that change? Players being rated better because they look prettier has always disgusted me and always will.

Yes, Hutton definitely played against better bowlers than Sutcliffe, but in picking this specific XI, one bloke has 4 more tons in 3 less innings, and averages 13 more with 4 less not outs. Seems pretty clear to me tbh.

 

[Nintendo]

Would anyone have any issue with aubrey faulkner for sobers and kapil for jadeja? Faulkner has already been mentioned here and actually bowls spin which helps the balance, and it means that i'm not replacing a spin bowling all-rounder with a pace bowling-allrounder and ****ing with the squad balance.

 

[subshakerz]

Would anyone have any issue with aubrey faulkner for sobers and kapil for jadeja? Faulkner has already been mentioned here and actually bowls spin which helps the balance, and it means that i'm not replacing a spin bowling all-rounder with a pace bowling-allrounder and ****ing with the squad balance.

Faulkner is fine as long as Miller is playing at the same time in Australia to balance it out.

 

[peterhrt]

Players can only play with the rules in their times. In those last 3 innings he scored 61, 3 and 38, top scoring in one completed innings and making a quality 50 in another, not really given much of a chance right? Should we downgrade Hobbs’ career because he played prior to that change? Players being rated better because they look prettier has always disgusted me and always will.

Yes, Hutton definitely played against better bowlers than Sutcliffe, but in picking this specific XI, one bloke has 4 more tons in 3 less innings, and averages 13 more with 4 less not outs. Seems pretty clear to me tbh.

Sutcliffe himself said: "I have perhaps succumbed to the new lbw rule more than anyone else." During the 1934 English first-class season he was out lbw three times. During 1935 after the law change he was lbw fifteen times. It was a problem for him and the selectors reacted. Nonetheless there is a reasonable argument he should still have made the next tour to Australia.

Hobbs, again in his own judgement, was a better and more attacking player before the war when he didn't use his pads much. The cricket of the 1920s was more attritional, and Hobbs and Sutcliffe did what was needed better than anyone. Hobbs did say that once people started counting his hundreds some of the enjoyment went out of his game.

Sutcliffe wasn't an ugly player - he scored mostly through the off side. But he did not have the natural ability of some others. In those days that contributed more towards how players were regarded than it does ninety years later - due partly to the technique required on uncovered pitches. Stats tended to be used as supporting evidence when comparing players, rather than being the main criteria.

 

[Ashes81]

For either side to go in with only 4 bowlers would be a massive risk for me.

These are 2 exceptional batting teams with the very best batsmen that have ever played the game.

Even the greatest bowlers are going to have many periods in the game where the bat dominates.

The great teams could get away with 4 bowlers because on the whole they were significantly better than the opposition, this wouldn't be the case in this game.

Also what if a bowler gets injured, 3 mainline bowlers wouldn't cut it