The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[kyear2]

Ok guys you finally got me. I actually don’t rate Viv cos I didn’t like Benaud putting him ahead of Lara/Chappell etc. in his DVD which helped me get more introduced to cricket on a wider historical level.

Well I never saw much of Viv live at his absolute peak either,and to this day I believe the best batsman I've seen is Lara, but I've read and studied the game enough to have an educated guess who and what to believe.

I think it’s worth considering a bowling attack if selecting an XI. Even if you don’t think Wasim is outright top 3, his ability to do things with an older ball that others can’t in a real match scenario would be really vital. With him also being a left handed and good enough bat, he’s a must pick for me.

McGrath, Marshall and Wasim, with Warne, is my choice always. Covers all bases, and Wasim, Marshall and Warne were all handy lower order batters who usually batted #8 for their test teams

The reason I go with Steyn is that I believe he can do what Wasim can do, well everything but the leftie part of course, but better. The fact that he could do all those things but wasn't as successful is probably more of a bad than a good thing. Steyn could also perform magic with the old ball and we have Sobers for the leftie thing.

Plus I just don't think he was top 3, I don't think he was as good as the top 5

 

[kyear2]

I think it’s worth considering a bowling attack if selecting an XI. Even if you don’t think Wasim is outright top 3, his ability to do things with an older ball that others can’t in a real match scenario would be really vital. With him also being a left handed and good enough bat, he’s a must pick for me.

McGrath, Marshall and Wasim, with Warne, is my choice always. Covers all bases, and Wasim, Marshall and Warne were all handy lower order batters who usually batted #8 for their test teams

For the record I do believe we take into account different skill sets and balance with these selections in an effort to have the absolute best team.

 

[kyear2]

It all depends of course, on how much you think his different skillset adds, and whether or not it makes up for any perceived difference in quality.

This also is a factor in batting lineups to a lesser degree (especially openers).

Say for example Hobbs didn’t exist and Smith was close to the others of the big 4 but still just behind. I’d likely take Smith with one of them if the gap wasn’t so big since the other 3 were slower defensive batsmen and Smith is a faster attacking batsman.

Try to add so much variety, depth and different elements to this team.

Mixture of attack and defence, players from various eras and countries that would have encountered different conditions, bat deep, well rounded attack with variety, good cordon, bowling depth. But will all the players in the history of the game, it's all there. We just have to choose the right combination

 

[kyear2]

Test batting averages for eleven years following the conscious switch to bowler-friendly pitches after August 1950. Period ends August 1961 after when most pitches were something like normal. Matches in West Indies excluded as conditions there remained near-perfect for batting. Qualification 1500 runs.

53 - O'Neill
49 - Hutton
47 - Kanhai
45 - May
43 - Sobers
41 - Compton
40 - Harvey, Peter Richardson
39 - Graveney, Hanif Mohammad, McGlew
38 - Cowdrey
37 - Bert Sutcliffe, Umrigar
36 - McDonald, Manjrekar
33 - Endean
30 - Roy, Waite
29 - McLean
26 - Bailey

Australia made an odd decision not to schedule any home series for four years between 1954-55 and`1958-59. Combined with three successive Ashes series defeats, interest in the game there declined. Around 1957 it was claimed that the most popular current Australian sportsmen included no cricketers. Instead they were the likes of Lew Hoad, Ken Rosewall and Ted Whitten.

Been quite intrigued by your posts since I returned and you have a unique and interesting perspective of the game. Do you have a personal all time 11 or philosophy in that regard? Would really be interested in seeing it

 

[peterhrt]

Been quite intrigued by your posts since I returned and you have a unique and interesting perspective of the game. Do you have a personal all time 11 or philosophy in that regard? Would really be interested in seeing it

All-time eleven would take account of both Test and first-class cricket. Further back in time they move closer together, until there comes a point where first-class is ahead. There is also the question of South Africa's isolation.

Hobbs, Barry Richards, Bradman*, Tendulkar, Viv Richards, Sobers, Gilchrist+, Hadlee, Marshall, Barnes, O'Reilly.

Grace is close but the two Richards and Tendulkar are the batsmen I have seen who impressed me most. Sobers was also great to watch when he got going, but perhaps a little more vulnerable early on when he didn't always move his feet. Put a lot of effort into his shots. Lara and Graeme Pollock in the same high class, able to make good bowling look rubbish.

Among spinners O'Reilly has a near faultless record in both Test and first-class cricket. Personal view that Marshall is the best bowler witnessed.

For a Test-only team Gavaskar would open with Hobbs.

Barry Richards would have been the only batsman to score a hundred before lunch on the first day of a Test against Australia but for deliberate timewasting by fielding captain Lawry. Ian Chappell recalled being part of a conversation in the slip cordon along the lines that Richards was now the world's best batsman. Unfortunately for the Australians, Graeme Pollock overheard, took a fresh guard, and went on to score 274.

Having watched old players in one's youth doesn't always lead to objective judgement. Few who saw Pollock at his best would be persuaded that he wasn't a class above Graeme Smith. But Smith won more matches against the odds for South Africa. For a batsman with his gifts, Pollock was also out of form more often than he should have been.

Others on the forum watched cricket in the 1940s and 1950s, and their opinion will carry more weight than mine.

 

[kyear2]

All-time eleven would take account of both Test and first-class cricket. Further back in time they move closer together, until there comes a point where first-class is ahead. There is also the question of South Africa's isolation.

Hobbs, Barry Richards, Bradman*, Tendulkar, Viv Richards, Sobers, Gilchrist+, Hadlee, Marshall, Barnes, O'Reilly.

Grace is close but the two Richards and Tendulkar are the batsmen I have seen who impressed me most. Sobers was also great to watch when he got going, but perhaps a little more vulnerable early on when he didn't always move his feet. Put a lot of effort into his shots. Lara and Graeme Pollock in the same high class, able to make good bowling look rubbish.

Among spinners O'Reilly has a near faultless record in both Test and first-class cricket. Personal view that Marshall is the best bowler witnessed.

For a Test-only team Gavaskar would open with Hobbs.

Barry Richards would have been the only batsman to score a hundred before lunch on the first day of a Test against Australia but for deliberate timewasting by fielding captain Lawry. Ian Chappell recalled being part of a conversation in the slip cordon along the lines that Richards was now the world's best batsman. Unfortunately for the Australians, Graeme Pollock overheard, took a fresh guard, and went on to score 274.

Having watched old players in one's youth doesn't always lead to objective judgement. Few who saw Pollock at his best would be persuaded that he wasn't a class above Graeme Smith. But Smith won more matches against the odds for South Africa. For a batsman with his gifts, Pollock was also out of form more often than he should have been.

Others on the forum watched cricket in the 1940s and 1950s, and their opinion will carry more weight than mine.

Don't see how, you're a treasure my friend. Look forward to possibly picking your brain in the future, if that's ok. The players you've seen, wow.

 

[bagapath]

in the past 17 years i have been part of this forum, i have always objected to barry richards' selection in these dream XIs. for the first time i find the selection justifiable and the supporting argument as elegant as his batting. welcome to the forum

 

[Coronis]

in the past 17 years i have been part of this forum, i have always objected to barry richards' selection in these dream XIs. for the first time i find the selection justifiable and the supporting argument as elegant as his batting. welcome to the forum

I personally have no objection to him being selected in a dream XI including first class.

Its where someone specifies “Test XI” or “Test Players” and includes him where I have a problem.

I’d include Procter in my XI, but never in my Test XI.

 

[kyear2]

My primary reservation is much more with Barnes than Richards. An all time XI needs a magician with the older ball, a Steyn or a Wasim to complement Maco and the metronome (McGrath/ Hadlee). Plus, while we assume Barnes was a medium pacer, we really have no definitive proof and some contradictory reports.

 

[bagapath]

Bradman, Tendulkar, Viv Richards, Sobers, Gilchrist+

This seems to be the preferred line-up from 3-7 in most selections; not just on this forum, but even in teams selected by pros and ex-players as well.

Now that it looks like forgone conclusion that Steve Smith will finish with an average closer to Sangakkara and Barrington than Headley and G Pollock, I wonder if there will be any compelling argument from anyone, at least in the near future, to replace any of those middle order giants.

 

[Zinzan]

Bradman, Tendulkar, Viv Richards, Sobers, Gilchrist+

This seems to be the preferred line-up from 3-7 in most selections; not just on this forum, but even in teams selected by pros and ex-players as well.

Now that it looks like forgone conclusion that Steve Smith will finish with an average closer to Sangakkara and Barrington than Headley and G Pollock, I wonder if there will be any compelling argument from anyone, at least in the near future, to replace any of those middle order giants.

Agree now it's looking inevitable that Smith is coming back to the pack average wise (as I always thought he would and always reminded people Ponting was averaging 59.99 after 114 tests IIRC), for me it's back to a situation that there's no clear number 2 after Bradman, it really comes down to an individual choice whether that's a Hammond, Tendulkar, Sobers, Sanga, Lara, Smith to name a few.

 

[bagapath]

Once the avg has come below 60 the records pf many of the modern greats seem to look similar at the point where Steve has reached now.





Steve Smith

102

181

22

9320

239

58.61

32

39

Sachin Tendulkar

102

163

16

8499

217

57.81

30

34

10

Ricky Ponting

102

170

23

8547

257

58.14

14486

59.00

30

33

Jacques Kallis

102

172

28

8033

189*

55.78

18755

42.83

24

40

Kumar Sangakkara

102

171

12

8972

287

56.42

16388

54.74

26

37

Rahul Dravid

102

172

21

8810

270

58.34

20864

42.22

23

43

 

[honestbharani]

The best after Bradman tier, for me -

Sobers
Lara
Sachin
Smith
Viv

 

[kyear2]

The best after Bradman tier, for me -

Sobers
Lara
Sachin
Smith
Viv

Fully agree.

Then the next

Hammond
Pollock
Headley
Ponting
Chappell

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Fully agree.

Then the next

Hammond
Pollock
Headley
Ponting
Chappell

All wrong.

Hobbs, Hutton, Sutcliffe, Gavaskar are better than them all.

 

[honestbharani]

All wrong.

Hobbs, Hutton, Sutcliffe, Gavaskar are better than them all.

Nah openers suck. Unless their name is Sehwag, Smith, Warner or Crawley.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Nah openers suck. Unless their name is Sehwag, Smith, Warner or Crawley.

Apart from Smith all of them suck.

 

[trundler]

Smith being promoted to a level above Hayden and Sehwag because he had tougher home conditions when he averages sub 40 without Zimbos in those tough conditions is bizarre. He was a flawed but destructive opener with a marginally longer career and marginally worse average with the home/away disparity flipped because his home conditions were the toughest. Don't see how that makes him so much better when it amounted to pretty much the same output in the same era.

 

[honestbharani]

Don't see how that makes him so much better when it amounted to pretty much the same output in the same era.

I liked his batting more and he kept retiring English captains he faced.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Smith being promoted to a level above Hayden and Sehwag because he had tougher home conditions when he averages sub 40 without Zimbos in those tough conditions is bizarre. He was a flawed but destructive opener with a marginally longer career and marginally worse average with the home/away disparity flipped because his home conditions were the toughest. Don't see how that makes him so much better when it amounted to pretty much the same output in the same era.

Better 4th innings average