The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[kyear2]

Kallis shouldn't be in at ATG team. He's not that useful at 6 compared to a more aggressive batsman, his bowling is virtually a non entity at this level and you should be picking Sobers so it's irrelevant anyway.

Most he's going to do is draw you games that you should have won. Better off having a Keith Miller or Imran Khan if you need him as a bowling option, or just a better specialist batsman if you already have Sobers + 4 bowlers

The goal, was to not have Sobers bowl and play him as a batsman and Kallis would be the batting all rounder.
Additionally he could be the steadying force between the stroke makers above and below him.
Miller for me doesn't belong in a AT XI, he needed short bursts with the new ball to be effective, which he wouldn't get a sniff at here and he weakens the batting line up. Plus, remember that here the 5th bowlers role is to assist with the rotation and give the main guys a blow.

 

[trundler]

Fit Stokes is the perfect 5th bowler

 

[kyear2]

I reckon in this format you could play Wally Hammond. You get another all-time level batsman, he and Sobers can share fifth bowling duties on the basis that both will be used minimally anyway, and the pace attack will love it because with Hammond at first slip and Sobers at second they'll know that none of their edges are getting dropped.

I proposed this before reading this and could work, but the problem is that all of Kallis's flaws are amplified in Hammond. He wasn't a fast scorer and similar to Lara he wasn't particularly fond of the fast, short stuff.

But the real question should be, who's better Kallis or Hammond.

Batting
Catching
Bowling

 

[Coronis]

I proposed this before reading this and could work, but the problem is that all of Kallis's flaws are amplified in Hammond. He wasn't a fast scorer and similar to Lara he wasn't particularly fond of the fast, short stuff.

But the real question should be, who's better Kallis or Hammond.

Batting
Catching
Bowling

Batting - Hammond
Catching - Wash (impossible to compare them)
Bowling - Kallis

The difference between their bowling is larger than the difference between their batting, but contextually, if I’m selecting either as a member of my top 6, the focus is much more heavily on the batting. (i know thats not quite what you’re asking)

 

[kyear2]

Batting - Hammond
Catching - Wash (impossible to compare them)
Bowling - Kallis

The difference between their bowling is larger than the difference between their batting, but contextually, if I’m selecting either as a member of my top 6, the focus is much more heavily on the batting. (i know thats not quite what you’re asking)

No, in this context the focus should be primarily on the batting.
Who would fit better into this lineup, who would have the greater impact.

Batting, I would agree anecdotally Hammond is rated higher, but I don't think by that much and I wouldn't have Hammond at 4 with his discomfort vs the faster stuff and how slowly both of them batted.

Catching, equal. Hammond has the rep, but Kallis was equally superb and moved really well for a man his size.

Bowling, I agree probably Kallis, but again closer than most believe. Both were reluctant contributors but could crank it up if motivated.

Many dislike Kallis for his reluctance to pick up the pace, though probably not at Chanderpaul level, but was Sir Wally much different?

 

[trundler]

Summing up strength in individual disciplines leads to Jason Holder being a greater cricketer than Glenn McGrath.

 

[Coronis]

No, in this context the focus should be primarily on the batting.
Who would fit better into this lineup, who would have the greater impact.

Batting, I would agree anecdotally Hammond is rated higher, but I don't think by that much and I wouldn't have Hammond at 4 with his discomfort vs the faster stuff and how slowly both of them batted.

Catching, equal. Hammond has the rep, but Kallis was equally superb and moved really well for a man his size.

Bowling, I agree probably Kallis, but again closer than most believe. Both were reluctant contributors but could crank it up if motivated.

Many dislike Kallis for his reluctance to pick up the pace, though probably not at Chanderpaul level, but was Sir Wally much different?

I will say this was a different era - timeless tests and all. If we’re going to go down that rabbit hole - should we be criticising Hutton, Border, Gavaskar, Dravid, Sutcliffe, Barrington, Compton, Headley et. all

(I know some of these players are already criticised for this - and some conveniently aren’t, seems more like extra ammo for someone to use against a player they already dislike)

 

[kyear2]

Summing up strength in individual disciplines leads to Jason Holder being a greater cricketer than Glenn McGrath.

No, because again, it has to be weighted where the primary role counts for significantly so much more

 

[kyear2]

I will say this was a different era - timeless tests and all. If we’re going to go down that rabbit hole - should we be criticising Hutton, Border, Gavaskar, Dravid, Sutcliffe, Barrington, Compton, Headley et. all

(I know some of these players are already criticised for this - and some conveniently aren’t, seems more like extra ammo for someone to use against a player they already dislike)

To be fair, I believe it's used against all of them.

 

[Coronis]

To be fair, I believe it's used against all of them.

I’ll be honest, apart from myself bringing it up against the rest, I’ve only seen it mentioned for Sutcliffe/Barrington - very occasionally Dravid and Border.

 

[trundler]

No, because again, it has to be weighted where the primary role counts for significantly so much more

This leads to Shaun Pollock being a greater all rounder than Keith Miller which isn't right either.

 

[shortpitched713]

Batting all-rounders are a myth. If you're not one of the Frontline bowlers, your all-roundedness matters a lot less in my eyes.

That's why Imran Khan is the greatest all-rounder, imo and not Sobers.

(Not the same thing as greater cricketer, also).

 

[peterhrt]

Many dislike Kallis for his reluctance to pick up the pace, though probably not at Chanderpaul level, but was Sir Wally much different?

During his first-class career Hammond was estimated to score at 43 runs per hour, the same as Hobbs. Both scored quickly in their youth and slowed down with age. Bradman's rate of 47 is not that much higher.

Hutton scored at 35 runs per hour and Sutcliffe 34. Sutcliffe largely escaped criticism but not Hutton. There was a certain amount of hypocrisy involved. Nobody minded Hutton batting slowly against Australia but at other times it was different. Compton was one critic:

His class was way, way above all but a tiny few in any era, but to me it was all the more puzzling that he remained suspicious and defensive and allowed all types of bowlers to dictate to him on good wickets, when he should have been the boss...As the years went by and I watched him plod against inferior attacks, I could not fathom why.

During the 1950s there was an anti-professional captain agenda in England and also West Indies. The implication was that professional captains like Hutton encouraged dull cricket.

 

[Bolo.]

This leads to Shaun Pollock being a greater all rounder than Keith Miller which isn't right either.

Do you have a consistent suggestion if you are rejecting both primary discipline and sum of disciplines?

 

[Qlder]

Batting all-rounders are a myth. If you're not one of the Frontline bowlers, your all-roundedness matters a lot less in my eyes.

That's why Imran Khan is the greatest all-rounder, imo and not Sobers.

(Not the same thing as greater cricketer, also).

How come you forget Botham was a frontline bowler and batted 6, same as Miller, frontline bowler and batted 4

Imran was a bowling allrounder most of his career, only batted higher when not bowling due injury

 

[kyear2]

How come you forget Botham was a frontline bowler and batted 6, same as Miller, frontline bowler and batted 4

Imran was a bowling allrounder most of his career, only batted higher when not bowling due injury

And Sobers opened the bowling on occasion, was definitely the 3rd or 4th option more often than not and after bowled the most overs in the innings. But yeah, not a front line bowler

 

[shortpitched713]

How come you forget Botham was a frontline bowler and batted 6, same as Miller, frontline bowler and batted 4

Imran was a bowling allrounder most of his career, only batted higher when not bowling due injury

Haven't forgotten them. Need to look into Miller more though, as I've focused looking at footage of more modern players.

Botham didn't do the frontline bowler job nearly as well as Imran, and though he was better with the bat, not by enough to make a claim for greatest ever all-rounder, imo.

Then again, I have Pollock and Hadlee over Botham too as allrounders. Because, honestly they're providing so much more with the ball that Botham can't rival, while being able to chip in significantly with the bat, (although a few runs short obviously of Botham). But ultimately the bowling value ends up being much more important, imo.

 

[Qlder]

People seem to look at final stats to write off Ian Botham (and even suggesting Imran was a better batsman lol)

Botham had 21 tests to get the 1000 runs and 100 wkt double and 42 tests for the 2000 run and 200 wkt double

Can anyone name someone that did the double faster and in fact not many bowlers who got 200 wkts faster than Botham (did it in 41 tests)

 

[Prince EWS]

People seem to look at final stats to write off Ian Botham (and even suggesting Imran was a better batsman lol)

Botham had 21 tests to get the 1000 runs and 100 wkt double and 42 tests for the 2000 run and 200 wkt double

Can anyone name someone that did the double faster and in fact not many bowlers who got 200 wkts faster than Botham?

Botham was gun for a very short period, and those I know who watched him in that period reckon he was the jammiest **** ever even then.

I'd definitely rather have Imran or Kapil for ten years for Botham for ten years. If I only got one of them for a single game I'd also be way too worried I got a version of Botham that wasn't even Test standard to risk it.

He's a fraud, just like Lillee and Thomson.

 

[Qlder]

Can anyone name someone that did the double faster and in fact not many bowlers who got 200 wkts faster than Botham (did it in 41 tests)

Fun Fact only 3 pace bowlers in history have 200 wkts faster than Botham. Lillee 38 tests, Younis 38 tests and Steyn 39 tests. Malcom Marshall and Allan Donald did it in 42 tests while McGrath took 45 Tests