Why Do ATG XI's Have More Pacers Than Specialist Spin Bowlers?

[Burgey]

He is 36 batting and 34 bowling in Aus @3.55 WPM. Away vs one of the strongest teams ever.

I think the only player in modern cricket with a bogey country this good is probably Imran, the other guy you are throwing shade at.

Cod ordinary. Bloke with those numbers is not getting picked in that Aus side.

 

[Bolo.]

Cod ordinary. Bloke with those numbers is not getting picked in that Aus side.

Shane Watson would be real interested to hear that he never got picked in that Aus side. His overall and home numbers are both worse than Pollock was in Aus, and he is the best AR Aus have had since the stoneage, and a much better player than the majority of Aus bowlers getting a game from the era.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Shane Watson would be real interested to hear that he never got picked in that Aus side.

He didn't. He played one dead rubber test in 2005 when Aus had an injrued quick and they wanted to facilitate playing 2 spinners at Sydney and then I'm pretty sure he didn't come in again until most of the best Aussie team had retired and they weren't in that period anymore.

Other than his debut he only played 2 other one-off games. He was never picked in that full-strength Australian side.

 

[Bolo.]

He didn't. He played one dead rubber test in 2005 when Aus had an injrued quick and they wanted to facilitate playing 2 spinners at Sydney and then I'm pretty sure he didn't come in again until most of the best Aussie team had retired and they weren't in that period anymore.

Other than his debut he only played 2 other one-off games. He was never picked in that full-strength Australian side.

He was picked on multiple occasions. He was just dire at the start, so he struggled to hold onto a place. Averaged 20 with the bat and 60 with the ball after his first 3 games. Pollock took 16@22 in his first 3 in Aus. The highest number an Aus quick took was 8 (@32). He isn't getting dropped.

Watson also debuted with the 4 Aus best bowlers from the era, and the preferred attack at the SCC from the era, so the idea he only got into weakened sided is wrong.

 

[TheJediBrah]

He was picked on multiple occasions. He was just dire at the start, so he struggled to hold onto a place. Averaged 20 with the bat and 60 with the ball after his first 3 games. Pollock took 16@22 in his first 3 in Aus. The highest number an Aus quick took was 8 (@32). He isn't getting dropped.

Watson also debuted with the 4 Aus best bowlers from the era, and the preferred attack at the SCC from the era, so the idea he only got into weakened sided is wrong.

Sorry no

Watson played a total of 3 Tests before most of the great Aus team had retired in 2007. They were all one-off Tests. One of them Lee was injured and the other 2 Gillespie was injured.

I don't care about Pollock. You, me and everyone else except Burgey are clearly right about Pollock making the team. Of course he would have. But your argument using Watson is not a good one because, again, he was never anything approaching a regular in the side until most had retired and the team was a lot weaker.

edit: Another fun fact about Watson's first 2 Tests is that they were a result of Fintoff and the 2005 Ashes. It made the Aus selectors obsessed with finding an all-rounder so they threw him in there when he was clearly not good enough. If not for the 05 Ashes he probably wouldn't have been played those games and Clarke, Hodge, Hussey or whoever wasn't playing would have

 

[Fuller Pilch]

, and a much better player than the majority of Aus bowlers getting a game from the era.

No, he wasn't.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Sorry @Burgey but I was referring to Watson, not Pollock.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Langer
Hayden
Ponting
Martyn
Clarke
Hussey
Gilchrist
Warne
Gillespie
Clark
McGrath

Watson doesn't get close to making that team, even at his best which he decidely wasn't pre 2009. Symonds is in before him as all-rounder anyway, a position he did play against South Africa themselves in 05/06, he took a handful of wickets bowling seam up in the Melbourne Test I remember.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

The latter is a garbage point. He took a massive % of top order wickets and bowled to some great players on flat decks for a large part of his career.

The former is instructive. I'd not realized there were four innings in a test match before until some brain dead imbecile on here pointed it out to me. The idea that someone who average 38 with the bat in a standard era would still average 30 odd against an all time attack seems questionable in the extreme to me. If Imran gets into an AT side that's fine, but he has to get in on the basis his primary skill set as a bowler is good enough. The idea the runs he'd make in an AT XI contest would make a substantial difference is laughable. His batting was decent-very good for his time at its best. He's not going to make enough runs vs an AT attack if the contest for a spot is between him and another bowler who you think is measurably better as a bowler. If you think the two guys are relatively equal as bowlers and you want to use batting as a tie breaker then I can see your point.

You are really an imbecile if you can't figure out that we were arguing who gets to play for 80s Indian not an ATG team.

 

[Bolo.]

No, he wasn't.

Sure he was. Quality falls off after Mcgrath any Gillespie. A couple of the 90s quicks are debateable with length of career, but he had a better career than them. Definitely better than Lee for my money, and most of the bowlers who played were worse than Lee.

 

[Bolo.]

Langer
Hayden
Ponting
Martyn
Clarke
Hussey
Gilchrist
Warne
Gillespie
Clark
McGrath

Watson doesn't get close to making that team, even at his best which he decidely wasn't pre 2009. Symonds is in before him as all-rounder anyway, a position he did play against South Africa themselves in 05/06, he took a handful of wickets bowling seam up in the Melbourne Test I remember.

Did this team even play a single game together?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Did this team even play a single game together?

The top 8 did. More than a few times, notably the 06/07 Ashes. The only mixing up would be Clark/Gillespie likely not playing a lot together but Brett Lee was generally around instead of one of them anyway. Not to mention again Symonds and a few other bats who would be ahead of Watson in the pecking order like Hodge.

At best Watson is 14th or 15th in a squad and that is only because he was promoted well beyond his station in a desperate attempt to find an all rounder.

There's no scenario where Shane Watson of that time is regularly making, or should regularly make, the Australian Test team

 

[trundler]

Did this team even play a single game together?

Nope. There's no overlap between Clark and Gillespie. Gillespie had been phased out when Clark became a thing. This is the only time Clark and Gillespie played together.

 

[Bolo.]

Nope. There's no overlap between Clark and Gillespie. Gillespie had been phased out when Clark became a thing. This is the only time Clark and Gillespie played together.

I'd much sooner have Watson in than Lee in a 5 man attack. Might even be as good as a 5th bowler, despite being a much worse frontline option.

 

[Burgey]

You are really an imbecile if you can't figure out that we were arguing who gets to play for 80s Indian not an ATG team.

No one cares about an 80s Indian team. Any fast bowler from any other country walks into it. Chris Matthews walks into it ffs

 

[Burgey]

Sorry @Burgey but I was referring to Watson, not Pollock.

I knew that. Watson being thought of as worthy of a spot in that Aus side is classic allrounder for all rounder’s sake thinking. Which tbf is what got him picked in the first place

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Sure he was. Quality falls off after Mcgrath any Gillespie. A couple of the 90s quicks are debateable with length of career, but he had a better career than them. Definitely better than Lee for my money, and most of the bowlers who played were worse than Lee.

Are you saying that Shane Watson was a better bowler than Brett Lee??

 

[Burgey]

Are you saying that Shane Watson was a better bowler than Brett Lee??

I think maybe Bolo might be referring to Pollock and you to Watson here, but I dunno.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Yeah it is very confusing.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'd much sooner have Watson in than Lee in a 5 man attack. Might even be as good as a 5th bowler, despite being a much worse frontline option.

That's almost as dumb as Burgey thinking Pollock wouldn't make the team. You're both wrong about something, 1-all, take the draw.

As an aside, they very rarely played 5 bowlers because they couldn't do it without weakening the team. Watson replacing any of a full strength Aus team of the time weakens the team significantly. It's not a coincidence that Watson only played 3 one-off games when change was forced during that time.