The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[capt_Luffy]

First of all sticky dogs no longer exists, when they played LBWs were much harder to get, as the ball couldn't pitch outside off.
Nothing from back then resembles the game we play today.

Besides yours, how many even include Ranji and Grace in an all England far less an all World team. It's not a viable selection imho.

And re the WI, think that speaks more about Larwood and co than Barnes at 56 tbh. As I've said before, that was a very weak fast bowling era.

The game changed, but nothing resembles is such an overstatement that I even can't..... Anyways, you asked about the pacers they played, I named a bunch of sub 18-19 averaging pacers. Please don't follow it up with the batsmen were bad so the bad bowlers got easy wicket. Batting was tougher back then, it's a fact.

Don't care. If Barry and Procter are in SA ATG team, I don't get any problem with Grace and Ranji for English.

Larwood's peer rating is off the charts and he averages 21 in FC. Batsmen were terrified of him. You yourself can't go around rating Verity ahead of Ashwin and Laker, and simultaneously say that Barnes was good because others were bad. That's dubious.

 

[kyear2]

Graeme Hick anyone??? Or Mark Ramprakash? Or Michael Bevan? Or Sarfaraz Khan?

He played in WSC, ROW matches etc. you may doubt him, I don't. And compared to Grace and Ranji he was much more proven against world class bowlers.

You want to use references?

Lillee has him among the best 3 he's faced. Probably the most respected poster on CW right now who you just referenced says he's one of the best 3 batsmen he's seen, one of the most respected commentators around also calls him one of the best he's seen, and a fixture in his AT XI, similarly Chappelli and others... He also went head to head with arguably the 5th best opener ever and outperformed him.

He played FC across three continents in the 3 toughest competitions, in the toughest conditions. He's not comparable to the names mentioned and no one believes he is.

 

[capt_Luffy]

He played in WSC, ROW matches etc. you may doubt him, I don't. And compared to Grace and Ranji he was much more proven against world class bowlers.

You want to use references?

Lillee has him among the best 3 he's faced. Probably the most respected poster on CW right now who you just referenced says he's one of the best 3 batsmen he's seen, one of the most respected commentators around also calls him one of the best he's seen, and a fixture in his AT XI, similarly Chappelli and others... He also went head to head with arguably the 5th best opener ever and outperformed him.

He played FC across three continents in the 3 toughest competitions, in the toughest conditions. He's not comparable to the names mentioned and no one believes he is.

I don't believe Barry Richards is comparable to those I named, but I also believe Grace to be the second greatest batsman to ever play and very close with Don for the GoAT cricketer status. He never played in nearly conditions close to Grace, who himself played many class bowlers.
Also, by reference, Lillee is the best bowler of all time and Larwood is as good as any pacer. You don't bring in reference when it doesn't suits you. Turner has a better FC record in England than Barry and RoW and WSC is too small a sample size.

 

[Coronis]

He played in WSC, ROW matches etc. you may doubt him, I don't. And compared to Grace and Ranji he was much more proven against world class bowlers.

You want to use references?

Lillee has him among the best 3 he's faced. Probably the most respected poster on CW right now who you just referenced says he's one of the best 3 batsmen he's seen, one of the most respected commentators around also calls him one of the best he's seen, and a fixture in his AT XI, similarly Chappelli and others... He also went head to head with arguably the 5th best opener ever and outperformed him.

He played FC across three continents in the 3 toughest competitions, in the toughest conditions. He's not comparable to the names mentioned and no one believes he is.

If this were the 70’s you’d be frothing over the older players those commentators watched.

 

[CricketFan90s]

In Ashes

RR Lindwall (AUS)

1946-1959

29

51

6728

-

216

2559

114

7/63

22.44

2.28

59.01

3

6

KR Miller (AUS)

1946-1956

29

48

5717

-

225

1949

87

7/60

22.40

2.04

65.71

6

3

DK Lillee (AUS)

1971-1982

24

47

6998

-

302

2858

128

7/89

22.32

2.45

54.67

8

7

GD McGrath (AUS)

1994-2007

30

60

7280

1213.2

331

3286

157

8/38

20.92

2.70

46.36

7

10

AK Davidson (AUS)

1953-1963

25

45

5993

-

221

1996

84

6/64

23.76

1.99

71.34

2

5

@Coronis - Miller is a Boon not a Bane to Australia All Time XI

Miller is a better bowler don’t know why you deviate the topic and speak some thrash. Stats show that he was always a better bowler and on par with all other greats. He doesn’t need to be a 5th bowler and can clearly come as a 3rd bowler in an ATG Team. Just because Cricinfo selected a team with miller as 6th batsmen with 2 spinners doesn’t mean it’s the way you have to include miller in the Australia All Time XI.

 

[Bolo.]

Miller is a better bowler don’t know why you deviate the topic and speak some thrash. Stats show that he was always a better bowler and on par with all other greats. He doesn’t need to be a 5th bowler and can clearly come as a 3rd bowler in an ATG Team. Just because Cricinfo selected a team with miller as 6th batsmen with 2 spinners doesn’t mean it’s the way you have to include miller in the Australia All Time XI.

He a 3 WPM bowler without a track record across conditions that some of the others have. Playing him as one of 4 bowlers is introducing some concerns about bowling out an ATG batting line up consistently. IDK if there is enough firepower there to take out teams like India and WI away.

I think he's one of the top handful of players ever, but he's a poor fit for an AUS ATG side.

 

[Coronis]

Miller is a better bowler don’t know why you deviate the topic and speak some thrash. Stats show that he was always a better bowler and on par with all other greats. He doesn’t need to be a 5th bowler and can clearly come as a 3rd bowler in an ATG Team. Just because Cricinfo selected a team with miller as 6th batsmen with 2 spinners doesn’t mean it’s the way you have to include miller in the Australia All Time XI.

No, he is not a better bowler. He’s not in the same tier as any of the other top Aussies. Idgaf what cricinfo selected? That has nothing to do with my selection.

Anyway love how this discussion has progressed. From West Indies are “unbeatable” to “this is my Australian team that could beat the West Indies” to a debate over Miller’s bowling worth. Didn’t see us ending up here.

 

[CricketFan90s]

He a 3 WPM bowler without a track record across conditions that some of the others have. Playing him as one of 4 bowlers is introducing some concerns about bowling out an ATG batting line up consistently. IDK if there is enough firepower there to take out teams like India and WI away.

I think he's one of the top handful of players ever, but he's a poor fit for an AUS ATG side.

I already shown all the stats regarding how
Miller is a perfect fit as a 3rd bowler. He was in his time 2nd highest wicket taker of Australia.

No, he is not a better bowler. He’s not in the same tier as any of the other top Aussies. Idgaf what cricinfo selected? That has nothing to do with my selection.

Anyway love how this discussion has progressed. From West Indies are “unbeatable” to “this is my Australian team that could beat the West Indies” to a debate over Miller’s bowling worth. Didn’t see us ending up here.

You are saying he in not in the same tier but there is no proof of it. I have provided a lot of statistical evidence. You are just having a rigid opinion like Rabbit has 3 Legs. Check all the debate you did nothing. I provided lot of explanation why he can be a good 3rd bowler. You are just sticking to your point without any evidence.

 

[CricketFan90s]

He a 3 WPM bowler without a track record across conditions that some of the others have. Playing him as one of 4 bowlers is introducing some concerns about bowling out an ATG batting line up consistently. IDK if there is enough firepower there to take out teams like India and WI away.

I think he's one of the top handful of players ever, but he's a poor fit for an AUS ATG side.

An Important point you need to understand is that in the time Keith Miller played Ashes was taken very seriously and other tournaments are not so important. His record against England was very good and doesn’t need to be tested in all conditions. His relationship with Bradman or their views doesn’t matter here. Miller was too talented in his time and some people were envious of him including Bradman. Show a Statistical proof why he doesn’t fit in as 3rd bowler.

 

[Coronis]

I already shown all the stats regarding how
Miller is a perfect fit as a 3rd bowler. He was in his time 2nd highest wicket taker of Australia.

You are saying he in not in the same tier but there is no proof of it. I have provided a lot of statistical evidence. You are just having a rigid opinion like Rabbit has 3 Legs. Check all the debate you did nothing. I provided lot of explanation why he can be a good 3rd bowler. You are just sticking to your point without any evidence.

You’ve provided a lot of numbers. They haven’t proven any of your points, but you’ve provided them, so kudos. As I’ve said before, Miller is what, only the 6th best Australian pacer, and not in the same tier as the other 5. You are unnecessarily weakening the attack for his batting prowess, which is the opposite of what’s been talked about here (in this thread or some other?) recently. Having a clear downgrade as one of your 4 main bowlers is a bigger issue for the team than any extra runs they will provide. You should always be picking the best specialists available, unless they are quite close in their primary skill and have a clear advantage in their secondary skill.

An Important point you need to understand is that in the time Keith Miller played Ashes was taken very seriously and other tournaments are not so important. His record against England was very good and doesn’t need to be tested in all conditions. His relationship with Bradman or their views doesn’t matter here. Miller was too talented in his time and some people were envious of him including Bradman. Show a Statistical proof why he doesn’t fit in as 3rd bowler.

Why are you randomly bringing up Bradman lol. He did bring up a key statistical point re: how many wickets Miller actually took per match and you completely ignored it.

Love that you’re now making excuses for Miller when you’ve previously denigrated and ignored pre-70’s players because cricket “wasn’t the same”.

 

[CricketFan90s]

Lindwall in 113 Innings took 12 Five Wickets 8 Four Wickets and 15 Three Wickets, Miller in 95 Innings took 7 Five Wickets 8 Four Wickets and 10 Three Wickets, Davidson took 14 Five Wickets 6 Four Wickets and 12 Three Wickets. So in 113 Innings Lindwall took 35 Three Wickets, Miller took 25 Three Wickets and Davidson 32 Three Wickets.

 

[CricketFan90s]

You’ve provided a lot of numbers. They haven’t proven any of your points, but you’ve provided them, so kudos. As I’ve said before, Miller is what, only the 6th best Australian pacer, and not in the same tier as the other 5. You are unnecessarily weakening the attack for his batting prowess, which is the opposite of what’s been talked about here (in this thread or some other?) recently. Having a clear downgrade as one of your 4 main bowlers is a bigger issue for the team than any extra runs they will provide. You should always be picking the best specialists available, unless they are quite close in their primary skill and have a clear advantage in their secondary skill.



Why are you randomly bringing up Bradman lol. He did bring up a key statistical point re: how many wickets Miller actually took per match and you completely ignored it.

Love that you’re now making excuses for Miller when you’ve previously denigrated and ignored pre-70’s players because cricket “wasn’t the same”.

Pre 70s was definitely not the same. The Game has grown from 70s but the game did not evolve immediately. Here we are discussing only with an assumption that Old players who were best in their time can also excel in the present. If this assumption is wrong then no discussion in the thread will sound sensible anymore. I made that statement to support Sunil Gavaskar as he was world record run scorer like Jack Hobbs and used that logic why I prefer taking Gavaskar over Hobbs or Hutton. Millers case is different. Untill the emergence of Imran or Procter there was no allrounder in the cricket world who was like Keith Miller and even now if you ask me who will you prefer I will say Imran over Miller as Imran is from 70s with same statistics. I am supporting New players who set standards of old players. If I only supported new players then I could have chosen Ricky Ponting over Don Bradman in my Australia XI.

 

[Prince EWS]

Lindwall in 113 Innings took 12 Five Wickets 8 Four Wickets and 15 Three Wickets, Miller in 95 Innings took 7 Five Wickets 8 Four Wickets and 10 Three Wickets, Davidson took 14 Five Wickets 6 Four Wickets and 12 Three Wickets. So in 113 Innings Lindwall took 35 Three Wickets, Miller took 25 Three Wickets and Davidson 32 Three Wickets.

Ok

 

[Coronis]

Lindwall in 113 Innings took 12 Five Wickets 8 Four Wickets and 15 Three Wickets, Miller in 95 Innings took 7 Five Wickets 8 Four Wickets and 10 Three Wickets, Davidson took 14 Five Wickets 6 Four Wickets and 12 Three Wickets. So in 113 Innings Lindwall took 35 Three Wickets, Miller took 25 Three Wickets and Davidson 32 Three Wickets.

So yes, Miller is clearly poorer. Gj not mentioning Davidson’s innings count as that puts it in starker contrast.

Pre 70s was definitely not the same. The Game has grown from 70s but the game did not evolve immediately. Here we are discussing only with an assumption that Old players who were best in their time can also excel in the present. If this assumption is wrong then no discussion in the thread will sound sensible anymore. I made that statement to support Sunil Gavaskar as he was world record run scorer like Jack Hobbs and used that logic why I prefer taking Gavaskar over Hobbs or Hutton. Millers case is different. Untill the emergence of Imran or Procter there was no allrounder in the cricket world who was like Keith Miller and even now if you ask me who will you prefer I will say Imran over Miller as Imran is from 70s with same statistics. I am supporting New players who set standards of old players. If I only supported new players then I could have chosen Ricky Ponting over Don Bradman in my Australia XI.

Yeah but you didn’t put Headley in your Windies XI specifically because of this. Consistency is nice is all.

And leading runscorer of their time - or at the time, really means nothing compared to overall quality. Bradman was never the worlds leading runscorer for example.

 

[CricketFan90s]

So yes, Miller is clearly poorer. Gj not mentioning Davidson’s innings count as that puts it in starker contrast.




Yeah but you didn’t put Headley in your Windies XI specifically because of this. Consistency is nice is all.

And leading runscorer of their time - or at the time, really means nothing compared to overall quality. Bradman was never the worlds leading runscorer for example.

Headley was averaging 60 and I said Lloyd as a Captain Averaged 51 with the Bat. There are few players who do extremely well once you make them a captain and Lloyd is one of them. Same goes with Graham Gooch. So Clive Lloyd’s batting record as a captain is great and his decisions on the field adding to that will make him more valuable to the team compared to George Headley. In West Indies XI we already have 2 great players Richards and Lara who can do that job of playing at No 3 and No 4.

 

[Prince EWS]

So yes, Miller is clearly poorer. Gj not mentioning Davidson’s innings count as that puts it in starker contrast.




Yeah but you didn’t put Headley in your Windies XI specifically because of this. Consistency is nice is all.

And leading runscorer of their time - or at the time, really means nothing compared to overall quality. Bradman was never the worlds leading runscorer for example.

Please don't make him more consistently wrong. It's bad enough as it is.

 

[CricketFan90s]

Please don't make him more consistently wrong. It's bad enough as it is.

I am not arguing whether Miller is better than Lindwall or Davidson. My argument is about Miller can he be a good fit as a No 3 Bowler. No 1 and No 2 bowlers are McGrath and Lillee. I am just pointing out how he can be a good 3rd bowler. Australia also has Shane Warne. So it should not be a problem to include him instead of Lindwall or Davidson.

 

[Coronis]

Headley was averaging 60 and I said Lloyd as a Captain Averaged 51 with the Bat. There are few players who do extremely well once you make them a captain and Lloyd is one of them. Same goes with Graham Gooch. So Clive Lloyd’s batting record as a captain is great and his decisions on the field adding to that will make him more valuable to the team compared to George Headley. In West Indies XI we already have 2 great players Richards and Lara who can do that job of playing at No 3 and No 4.

You do realise that is mostly based on their actual batting form, and since most players are made captain when older and hold it til the latter stages of their career and most decline in the latter stages of their career (Lloyd and Gooch being notable exceptions) these facts aren’t really related.

 

[Coronis]

I am not arguing whether Miller is better than Lindwall or Davidson. My argument is about Miller can he be a good fit as a No 3 Bowler. No 1 and No 2 bowlers are McGrath and Lillee. I am just pointing out how he can be a good 3rd bowler. Australia also has Shane Warne. So it should not be a problem to include him instead of Lindwall or Davidson.

Ideally, you want the best attack possible. This means your 3 best pacers and your best spinner. Miller is not part of this group. Furthermore, in Australian XI, batting him at 8 and having him as the third pacer makes no sense (the only reason to do so would be batting) when the Australian batting is already clearly ahead of everyone else.

 

[CricketFan90s]

You do realise that is mostly based on their actual batting form, and since most players are made captain when older and hold it til the latter stages of their career and most decline in the latter stages of their career (Lloyd and Gooch being notable exceptions) these facts aren’t really related.

Several factors play a role in someone’s batting form or decline. They did a great job while they are captain and you cannot ignore the role of captaincy on an individual. There are many captains whose batting declined after they were made captain that’s not the case with Lloyd and Gooch.