The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Coronis]

You thought I only did it for West Indian players?

Idk guess its just particularly noticeable in a West Indian XI.

 

[kyear2]

What I find fascinating is that after all these years I still don't have a definitive XI.

Some areas is an abundance of options, some, a distinct lack of. But about 20 players with about 20 players with a legit claims, and only about 5 have their positions locked in.

 

[ataraxia]

Since this came up in another thread.

Greenidge
Gayle
Headley
Lara
Richards
Sobers
Walcott+
Marshall
Garner
Ambrose
Gibbs

Chanders unlucky to miss out (both of them)

Team also clearly has way too high a strike rate, apart from Headley the anchor.

Only ones I really had to think much about were the keeper and second opener. I’m not convinced though that the Windies have had an exceptional keeper that would keep Walcott out, and I don’t recall ever reading that he was poor.

It ended up being between Gayle and Fredericks for me as the second opener - unconvential probably. I really wanted someone with a decent away record. Apart from Viv, all the other bats are massive HTB. Gayle actually has a pretty decent away record (better than home) although he did play in a bat friendly era.

Worrell to open imo

 

[kyear2]

Worrell to open imo

That would make it better

 

[Red]

Worrell
Greenidge
Richards
Lara
Lloyd
Sobers
Dujon
Marshall
Garner
Ambrose
Gibbs

 

[kyear2]

Worrell
Greenidge
Richards
Lara
Lloyd
Sobers
Dujon
Marshall
Garner
Ambrose
Gibbs

I like it. Headley is indisputably greater than Lloyd, but Lloyd is very likely better.

Also raises an interesting point, there's been quite a few middle order batsmen who converted to being an opener in order to make a team.
Of course that depends on how much one views openers as a specialist batting position. But if we were building a team to take on the Titanians, would we restrict ourselves by just looking at openers at the top, especially since they and spinners have proven to be the most sparsely populated at the highest levels.

 

[Coronis]

Just curious why people are wanting Worrell to open? He barely opened in tests (did he have a stint in FC?) I don’t necessarily see him as that far ahead as a batsman of the other opening options for the West Indies.

 

[ataraxia]

I like it. Headley is indisputably greater than Lloyd, but Lloyd is very likely better.

What does this mean?

 

[Coronis]

What does this mean?

Its a way to downgrade older players while pretending not to downgrade older players.

 

[kyear2]

What does this mean?

I made a similar post with regards to Hobbs and Hutton.
Greatest speaks to their hierarchy in the (history of) game, their accomplishments and pioneering impact.
As with Hutton, I believe Lloyd faced better and more varied bowlers, attacks and conditions. Would also be more likely to be successful in modern conditions.

I always compare it (as I am prone to), to the NFL where Brady is the undisputed GOAT, but was he the best, not in my and many other's opinions. Rogers, Peyton and Mahommes were arguably more talented and even better statistically, but Brady has the accompaniments, ie the rings.

 

[kyear2]

Its a way to downgrade older players while pretending not to downgrade older players.

Thanks for the translation, but I can answer for myself.

 

[ataraxia]

I always compare it (as I am prone to), to the NFL where Brady is the undisputed GOAT, but was he the best, not in my and many other's opinions. Rogers, Peyton and Mahommes were arguably more talented and even better statistically, but Brady has the accompaniments, ie the rings.

American "winningest" sportsperson discourse is awful IMO and best avoided. No, Dan Christian is not good. It's also not particularly relevant with regard to era differences.

I made a similar post with regards to Hobbs and Hutton.
Greatest speaks to their hierarchy in the (history of) game, their accomplishments and pioneering impact.
As with Hutton, I believe Lloyd faced better and more varied bowlers, attacks and conditions. Would also be more likely to be successful in modern conditions.

So are you basically saying that the more modern a player is, the better they are? (Obviously true, but is that how you rate players?)

 

[Coronis]

So are you basically saying that the more modern a player is, the better they are? (Obviously true, but is that how you rate players?)

Nah once it got to the 70’s they’re all the same.

 

[kyear2]

American "winningest" sportsperson discourse is awful IMO and best avoided. No, Dan Christian is not good. It's also not particularly relevant with regard to era differences.

So are you basically saying that the more modern a player is, the better they are? (Obviously true, but is that how you rate players?)

As I've repeatedly said, everything post war is fine for me, there was greater competition, more viable nations, more travel. Hutton and forward is more than viable for me.

 

[kyear2]

Nah once it got to the 70’s they’re all the same.

Yes, heaven forbid everyone doesn't see everything the same way you do.
But I guess your way of just trying to be a dick is the best way to deal with it.

 

[shortpitched713]

Made a couple of XIs to compare "conventional" vs nontraditional teambuilding:

First is very close to a CW All Time XI, with best possible bowlers, conservative openers, etc.

01. Sunil Gavaskar
02. Geoffrey Boycott
03. Ricky Ponting
04. Sachin Tendulkar
05. Garfield Sobers
06. Steve Waugh
07. Adam Gilchrist +
08. Wasim Akram
09. Malcolm Marshall
10. Shane Warne
11. Glenn McGrath

However, I think it gets it's butt kicked ( and at first trial is confirmed by sims ), by this team containing a bevy of all-rounders:

01. Gordon Greenidge
02. Graeme Smith
03. Brian Lara
04. Greg Chappell
05. Viv Richards
06. Andy Flower +
07. Ian Botham
08. Imran Khan
09. Richard Hadlee
10. Curtly Ambrose
11. Muttiah Muralitharan

Which of these XIs do you think would actually perform better?

 

[shortpitched713]

Both are clearly inferior to "My Dudes" XI though

01. Virender Sehwag
02. Matthew Hayden
03. Steve Smith
04. Jacques Kallis
05. Javed Miandad
06. Joe Root
07. Kumar Sangakkara +
08. Shaun Pollock
09. Ravichandran Ashwin
10. Dale Steyn
11. Allan Donald

12th Man: Vernon Philander

 

[Coronis]

Yes, heaven forbid everyone doesn't see everything the same way you do.
But I guess your way of just trying to be a dick is the best way to deal with it.

I am truly sorry for posting an opinion you have espoused.

 

[ataraxia]

As I've repeatedly said, everything post war is fine for me, there was greater competition, more viable nations, more travel. Hutton and forward is more than viable for me.

Is this saying that cricket was qualitatively pretty similar from the '40s onwards or not?

 

[kyear2]

Is this saying that cricket was qualitatively pretty similar from the '40s onwards or not?

It makes it easier for me to rate players, especially batsmen.

Hutton faced Lindwall and Miller
Sobers faced Trueman and Davidson, Fazal

They played in more countries than just Australia and England (meaning the best players, not cricket in general).

It's not perfect, but surely better and closer than the 20's and early 30's in my opinion to when the switch was fully flipped.