The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Qlder]

Pretty sure its just kyear’s own shortlist. Doubt Benaud (or anyone) was picking Smith that high in 2015.

Benaud picked his XI in 2004 so definitely no Smith. Plus he was panned for picking 3 Aus WK and no WI pace bowlers from the 80's

 

[The Sean]

Yeah it's not just Smith or the other 21st century additions - by my reckoning there are about a dozen changes from Benaud's shortlist, including quite a few of the 20th century players too.

 

[Qlder]

From what I can find this seems to be Benaud's short list which is 33 players to make 3 teams

Openers:
Victor Trumper
Gordon Greenidge
Len Hutton
Arthur Morris
Jack Hobbs
Sunil Gavaskar

Number 3:
Don Bradman
Wally Hammond
George Headley

Middle order:
Graeme Pollock
Brian Lara
Frank Worrell
Greg Chappell
Viv Richards
Sachin Tendulkar

All-rounders:
Keith Miller
Garry Sobers
Imran Khan
Ian Botham
Richard Hadlee
Kapil Dev

Wicket-keeper:
Rod Marsh
Ian Healy
Adam Gilchrist

Spin bowler:
Bill O'Reilly
Abdul Qadir
Shane Warne

Fast bowlers:
Ray Lindwall
Fred Trueman
Glenn McGrath
Harold Larwood
Dennis Lillee
Sydney Barnes

 

[kyear2]

Hi mate, where did you see this? Because that's a significantly updated shortlist from the one he originally produced.

Sorry, was phrased poorly, meant to say I'm using his template to create a short list of my own.

So should have said "updated" short list

Cheers

 

[Qlder]

Strangest thing I found about the Benaud XI is that he had Imran batting 6 with Sobers and Gilchrist batting 7 & 8

 

[Coronis]

For me my Benaud format list would probably be something like (players in each group listed in chronological order):

Openers
Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hutton
Simpson
Boycott
Gavaskar

#3
Bradman
Headley
Sangakkara

Middle Order
Hammond
Barrington
Chappell
Tendulkar
Lara
Smith

Allrounders
Miller
Sobers
Imran
Botham
Kapil
Kallis

Wicketkeepers
Ames
Knott
Gilchrist

Spin Bowlers
O’Reilly
Warne
Muralitharan

Fast Bowlers
Barnes
Hadlee
Marshall
Ambrose
McGrath
Steyn


Some notes:

I personally don’t construct my XI’s this way, e.g 1 allrounder in my top 2 XI’s, possibly 0 after that, so my own top 3 XI’s will usually contain another batsman.

Barnes I’m counting here as a fast bowler cos Richie did, plus Imran is my 6th best pace bowler but he’s in the allrounder category - after him its quite hard for me to choose.

Viv would be the next player on the middle order list and yes he would make one of my top 3 XI’s.

 

[kyear2]

Simpson and Greenidge are both a bit out of place there, and there aren't openers who should clearly replace them.

Border/Trueman/S pollock (and a few others) are all probably better calls in other categories if going for this exact number of players.

The last two openers picks are tossups, Greenidge got one nod because he was one of Benaud's original selections and he is a bit under rated. Simpson had a pretty good record as an opener averaging over 50 in that role.

Border can have an argument vs Pollock if you're looking at longevity over a little touch of brilliance. Pollock was seen as only behind Sobers in his day, but Border (or Ponting) is probably next in line.

With regards to Trueman and Pollock, and especially Pollock, I don't see that much of an argument for either over the guys I chose. Trueman might have a case over Lillee, but his detractions are basically the same as Lille's without the heroics of the latter. Toss up I guess.

 

[kyear2]

For me my Benaud format list would probably be something like (players in each group listed in chronological order):

Openers
Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hutton
Simpson
Boycott
Gavaskar

#3
Bradman
Headley
Sangakkara

Middle Order
Hammond
Barrington
Chappell
Tendulkar
Lara
Smith

Allrounders
Miller
Sobers
Imran
Botham
Kapil
Kallis

Wicketkeepers
Ames
Knott
Gilchrist

Spin Bowlers
O’Reilly
Warne
Muralitharan

Fast Bowlers
Barnes
Hadlee
Marshall
Ambrose
McGrath
Steyn


Some notes:

I personally don’t construct my XI’s this way, e.g 1 allrounder in my top 2 XI’s, possibly 0 after that, so my own top 3 XI’s will usually contain another batsman.

Barnes I’m counting here as a fast bowler cos Richie did, plus Imran is my 6th best pace bowler but he’s in the allrounder category - after him its quite hard for me to choose.

Viv would be the next player on the middle order list and yes he would make one of my top 3 XI’s.

Know you're not a fan, but Barrington over Viv, or even Pollock or Ponting, Border, is just a bit of a reach to me.

As I've said in the past, the fact that we can't definitively say what he bowled kind of invalidates him from lists like this, but I know I'm out voted in that regard.

Finally, Boycott really looks out of place in my mind, but that's very much a judgement call.

I know it's test cricket, but just not a fan of the Barrington's, Sutcliffe's, Boycott's etc.. of the game.

 

[kyear2]

Interesting conversation just now between Atherton and (I believe) Taylor just before the Marsh dismissal.

They were discussing the Root catch yesterday and slip catching in general. They mentioned how catches like that can swing matches and the importance of slip fielding in general.
When they recollected that the great Clive Lloyd had sent in an email commenting on the spacing of Aussie cordon, they also referenced the great cordon the WI had during our hey day, and how it added (or leant) quality to the bowling attack.
Taylor then stated that how he believed that slip fielding is now underrated in the modern game.

Cricket is multi dimensional, and while batting and bowling will always be paramount, there's also captaincy, the much touted ideology of batting deep, having a decent 5th bowler to give rest or allow for rotation to the main attack and similarly having an at least very good cordon to fully capitalize on your bowling attack. It's all complementary.

Of course I grew up watching and being informed by the West Indies and then the Aussies dominating world cricket, and their cordons playing a greater roll in their success than batting or bowling all rounders, but also understand that between more even matched teams all rounders play a greater role, as I'm reminded by Root's big wicket as I'm typing. I'll also await to see what support the tail can offer to Smith as the match continues.

Just thought I'd mention

 

[Coronis]

Know you're not a fan, but Barrington over Viv, or even Pollock or Ponting, Border, is just a bit of a reach to me.

As I've said in the past, the fact that we can't definitively say what he bowled kind of invalidates him from lists like this, but I know I'm out voted in that regard.

Finally, Boycott really looks out of place in my mind, but that's very much a judgement call.

I know it's test cricket, but just not a fan of the Barrington's, Sutcliffe's, Boycott's etc.. of the game.

Boycott is consistently rated as one of the best openers outside of the big four - how exactly is he out of place? I know Barrington is controversial but Boycott? Really?

Sutcliffe SR 37
Barrington SR 41
Boycott SR 35

But you have no problems with including

Hutton SR 38
Hammond SR 45
Headley SR 44
Simpson SR 44
Gavaskar SR 45

Do you have problems with Dravid (42) or Border (41) or Compton (41)?

For comparison Kallis has been criticised here for being slow, his SR is 46.

Batting (relatively) slowly and scoring quality runs isn’t a bad thing, and can be equally or more beneficial to a team depending on the match situation.

 

[The Sean]

Hammond and Compton having SRs in the low-mid 40s never fails to amaze me.

Was it Charles Davis who did the study to calculate these?

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Boycott is consistently rated as one of the best openers outside of the big four - how exactly is he out of place? I know Barrington is controversial but Boycott? Really?

Sutcliffe SR 37
Barrington SR 41
Boycott SR 35

But you have no problems with including

Hutton SR 38
Hammond SR 45
Headley SR 44
Simpson SR 44
Gavaskar SR 45

Do you have problems with Dravid (42) or Border (41) or Compton (41)?

For comparison Kallis has been criticised here for being slow, his SR is 46.

Batting (relatively) slowly and scoring quality runs isn’t a bad thing, and can be equally or more beneficial to a team depending on the match situation.

Kallis also batted in a far easier era so comparing his SR to someone who batted in 70s is misleading.

 

[kyear2]

Boycott is consistently rated as one of the best openers outside of the big four - how exactly is he out of place? I know Barrington is controversial but Boycott? Really?

Sutcliffe SR 37
Barrington SR 41
Boycott SR 35

But you have no problems with including

Hutton SR 38
Hammond SR 45
Headley SR 44
Simpson SR 44
Gavaskar SR 45

Do you have problems with Dravid (42) or Border (41) or Compton (41)?

For comparison Kallis has been criticised here for being slow, his SR is 46.

Batting (relatively) slowly and scoring quality runs isn’t a bad thing, and can be equally or more beneficial to a team depending on the match situation.

I'm sure I acknowledged that Boycott was tossup after my initial statement, but for the record, 35 really is abysmal.

 

[Bolo.]

The last two openers picks are tossups, Greenidge got one nod because he was one of Benaud's original selections and he is a bit under rated. Simpson had a pretty good record as an opener averaging over 50 in that role.

Border can have an argument vs Pollock if you're looking at longevity over a little touch of brilliance. Pollock was seen as only behind Sobers in his day, but Border (or Ponting) is probably next in line.

With regards to Trueman and Pollock, and especially Pollock, I don't see that much of an argument for either over the guys I chose. Trueman might have a case over Lillee, but his detractions are basically the same as Lille's without the heroics of the latter. Toss up I guess.

Much of a muchness between the best players you have excluded and the worst you have picked in the same categories. Not the point I was making though- I'm commenting on how Greenidge and Simpson are weak links compared to players you are leaving out from other categories. Nobody that is inarguably better though if you want to keep the 6 opener balance going though.

 

[kyear2]

Much of a muchness between the best players you have excluded and the worst you have picked in the same categories. Not the point I was making though- I'm commenting on how Greenidge and Simpson are weak links compared to players you are leaving out from other categories. Nobody that is inarguably better though if you want to keep the 6 opener balance going though.

Outside of openers, which is a complete toss up after the four and open to any myriad of players for the final two spots, I've gone with mostly consensus picks, not my opinions per say. Not sure if any of the players are that disputable tbh. Donald, Pollock maybe?

 

[peterhrt]

Hammond and Compton having SRs in the low-mid 40s never fails to amaze me.

Was it Charles Davis who did the study to calculate these?

With Hammond part of the explanation is the timeless Ashes Tests in Australia 1928-37. Pitches were rock hard, easy-paced and didn't deteriorate unless there was a rare thunderstorm. Virtually everybody scored slowly and was encouraged to do so. Hammond's average of 75 in these matches was higher than Bradman's (72) and they played in the same three series. Hammond's centuries were scored at a rate of 30 runs per hour, Bradman's at 34.

When Woolley scored over 3300 runs in 1928 and was left out of the winter's tour to Australia there was outrage, similar to when Gower was omitted from a tour to India. The selectors in 1928 were more honest with their reasoning. Woolley took too many risks for timeless matches. They wanted batsmen to occupy the crease and wait for the runs to come. Slow scoring was rewarded, something to bear in mind when assessing batsmen by strike-rates. Bodyline was partly a response to these batsmen-friendly conditions.

Compton's peak as an attacking batsman lasted until 1949 when his knee injury became chronic. After that his footwork was impaired and his scoring slowed. Most batsmen's scoring was curtailed during the 1950s when pitches were deliberately made more bowler-friendly apart from in the Caribbean. Alec Bedser didn't become a different bowler in 1950-51. It was when pitches started to help him.

 

[peterhrt]

Cynics claimed that Bradman, who had just retired, was a strong supporter of more sporting pitches because he wanted to protect his own records.

The move certainly put an end to the consistent high-scoring of Morris and Harvey, as well as Compton. At the end of August 1950 Morris had a Test career average of 67, Compton 59 and Harvey 106.

Weekes was averaging 74 and Worrell 104.

 

[Coronis]

Cynics claimed that Bradman, who had just retired, was a strong supporter of more sporting pitches because he wanted to protect his own records.

The move certainly put an end to the consistent high-scoring of Morris and Harvey, as well as Compton. At the end of August 1950 Morris had a Test career average of 67, Compton 59 and Harvey 106.

Copium was real back then too.

 

[number11]

England XI I enjoyed watching.

Atherton
Gooch
Gower
Hussain *
KP
Stewart +
Botham
Flintoff
Cork
Fraser
Swann


Some folks will never know the joy of a back to the walls England draw.

Honest triers with the ball [to an extent, all listed had ok careers - obvs Beefy is an ATG], dogged batsmen who would grind it out.

 

[Red]

Following Benaud’s three teams thing, but selecting the best batting all rounder (somewhere in the top 6), and the best bowling all rounder at # 7 or 8) in each XI (with an emphasis on their primary skill as the main selection factor

Hutton
Hobbs
Bradman
Tendulkar
Richards
Sobers
Gilchrist
Wasim
Warne
Marshall
McGrath

Gavaskar
Sutcliffe
Sangakkara
Hammond
Lara
Kallis
Knott
Hadlee
Lillee
Ambrose
Murali

Boycott
G Smith
Ponting
G Chappell
Smith
Miller
Imran
Healy
Steyn
Waqar
O’Reilly