• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

peterhrt

U19 Vice-Captain
Last 50 years England XI:
You could make a very valid England AT XI without anyone of them (Root and Jimmy just makes mine, could very easily replace them with Compton/Barrington/May and Statham/Larwood/Bedser)
Interesting point. It was around fifty years ago that the build-up to the Centenary Test sparked reminiscence, comparisons and all-time England teams. A rough consensus of those teams looked something like this: Grace*, Hobbs, Hammond, Compton (or Hutton at No.3), Woolley, Ames or Evans, Hirst or Tate, Rhodes, Larwood, Laker, Barnes.

Ranji and Richardson had faded into the past, the former due partly to Indian independence, but there was still nobody who had played for England since 1960. Benaud stated that only one world-class English batsman had emerged since the war: Peter May. He wasn't considered either.

The team reflects a continuing devotion to overall first-class cricket, team balance (left-hand bat, two spinners), and a respect for bowlers with outstanding series in Australia. In 1962 EW Swanton wrote that Grace, Rhodes and Woolley were the greatest all-round cricketers to date. Lord Hawke had described Hirst as the greatest county cricketer. Sunday Times correspondent Robin Marlar included Alfred Mynn in his side.

During the 1980s Botham would take the main all-rounder spot, allowing a wicket-keeping upgrade to Knott (from Ames if not Evans). A greater emphasis on Tests sees Gower replace Woolley as the left-hander, and Hutton replace Grace. West Indian dominance dilutes the Ashes effect. On more uniform pitches fast bowlers are now more important than a balanced attack. Trueman's reputation rises. He took more wickets against West Indies than Australia, and would replace one of the spinners, probably Rhodes.

In 2011-12 England topped the ICC Rankings. The growth of the internet led to more stats-based analysis, with less fashionable names such as Barrington and Underwood making Cricinfo's England XI in 2009. Their readers still preferred Gower and Laker. Pietersen was chosen by both readers and panel after only four years in the side, taking Compton's place.

Mike Atherton recently said the best four England batsmen he has seen are Gooch, Gower, Pietersen and Root. For some time now commercialised English media has been promoting its own product by talking up current players and elevating them to all-time status. A side without decent 21st century representation no longer seems acceptable.

So Root for Gower? Anderson for Larwood? If Gower goes then Stokes arguably also comes in as left-hand bat, fast bowler, all-purpose fielder and popular captain, replacing Trueman and shortening the tail in the process. Possible current consensus all-time team, if there is now such a thing: Hobbs, Hutton, Hammond, Root, Pietersen, Stokes*, Botham, Knott+, Laker, Barnes, Anderson.

Only four men keep their places from fifty years ago: Hobbs, Hammond, Barnes and Laker. Is the current side actually stronger than the old one?
 

capt_Luffy

International Captain
Interesting point. It was around fifty years ago that the build-up to the Centenary Test sparked reminiscence, comparisons and all-time England teams. A rough consensus of those teams looked something like this: Grace*, Hobbs, Hammond, Compton (or Hutton at No.3), Woolley, Ames or Evans, Hirst or Tate, Rhodes, Larwood, Laker, Barnes.

Ranji and Richardson had faded into the past, the former due partly to Indian independence, but there was still nobody who had played for England since 1960. Benaud stated that only one world-class English batsman had emerged since the war: Peter May. He wasn't considered either.

The team reflects a continuing devotion to overall first-class cricket, team balance (left-hand bat, two spinners), and a respect for bowlers with outstanding series in Australia. In 1962 EW Swanton wrote that Grace, Rhodes and Woolley were the greatest all-round cricketers to date. Lord Hawke had described Hirst as the greatest county cricketer. Sunday Times correspondent Robin Marlar included Alfred Mynn in his side.

During the 1980s Botham would take the main all-rounder spot, allowing a wicket-keeping upgrade to Knott (from Ames if not Evans). A greater emphasis on Tests sees Gower replace Woolley as the left-hander, and Hutton replace Grace. West Indian dominance dilutes the Ashes effect. On more uniform pitches fast bowlers are now more important than a balanced attack. Trueman's reputation rises. He took more wickets against West Indies than Australia, and would replace one of the spinners, probably Rhodes.

In 2011-12 England topped the ICC Rankings. The growth of the internet led to more stats-based analysis, with less fashionable names such as Barrington and Underwood making Cricinfo's England XI in 2009. Their readers still preferred Gower and Laker. Pietersen was chosen by both readers and panel after only four years in the side, taking Compton's place.

Mike Atherton recently said the best four England batsmen he has seen are Gooch, Gower, Pietersen and Root. For some time now commercialised English media has been promoting its own product by talking up current players and elevating them to all-time status. A side without decent 21st century representation no longer seems acceptable.

So Root for Gower? Anderson for Larwood? If Gower goes then Stokes arguably also comes in as left-hand bat, fast bowler, all-purpose fielder and popular captain, replacing Trueman and shortening the tail in the process. Possible current consensus all-time team, if there is now such a thing: Hobbs, Hutton, Hammond, Root, Pietersen, Stokes*, Botham, Knott+, Laker, Barnes, Anderson.

Only four men keep their places from fifty years ago: Hobbs, Hammond, Barnes and Laker. Is the current side actually stronger than the old one?
I am sure by current consensus, KP no longer makes most teams. I would rather have Barrington, Compton or May ahead of him very comfortably. Also, not so sure about the Stokes inclusion, always felt he is a little overrated as both a batsman and bowler. Would rather have Frank Woolley as the left handed batsman-allrounder role. I particularly pay attention to both the FC games pre 90s and Tests and consider players eligible once overarm bowling became legal. My English team will be: Grace*, Hobbs, Hutton, Hammond, Root, Ranji, Ames, Trueman, Laker, Barnes and Anderson. Grace and Hammond with decent support from Root makes an allrounder like Botham an ill fit for this team imo.
 

kyear2

International Coach
Interesting point. It was around fifty years ago that the build-up to the Centenary Test sparked reminiscence, comparisons and all-time England teams. A rough consensus of those teams looked something like this: Grace*, Hobbs, Hammond, Compton (or Hutton at No.3), Woolley, Ames or Evans, Hirst or Tate, Rhodes, Larwood, Laker, Barnes.

Ranji and Richardson had faded into the past, the former due partly to Indian independence, but there was still nobody who had played for England since 1960. Benaud stated that only one world-class English batsman had emerged since the war: Peter May. He wasn't considered either.

The team reflects a continuing devotion to overall first-class cricket, team balance (left-hand bat, two spinners), and a respect for bowlers with outstanding series in Australia. In 1962 EW Swanton wrote that Grace, Rhodes and Woolley were the greatest all-round cricketers to date. Lord Hawke had described Hirst as the greatest county cricketer. Sunday Times correspondent Robin Marlar included Alfred Mynn in his side.

During the 1980s Botham would take the main all-rounder spot, allowing a wicket-keeping upgrade to Knott (from Ames if not Evans). A greater emphasis on Tests sees Gower replace Woolley as the left-hander, and Hutton replace Grace. West Indian dominance dilutes the Ashes effect. On more uniform pitches fast bowlers are now more important than a balanced attack. Trueman's reputation rises. He took more wickets against West Indies than Australia, and would replace one of the spinners, probably Rhodes.

In 2011-12 England topped the ICC Rankings. The growth of the internet led to more stats-based analysis, with less fashionable names such as Barrington and Underwood making Cricinfo's England XI in 2009. Their readers still preferred Gower and Laker. Pietersen was chosen by both readers and panel after only four years in the side, taking Compton's place.

Mike Atherton recently said the best four England batsmen he has seen are Gooch, Gower, Pietersen and Root. For some time now commercialised English media has been promoting its own product by talking up current players and elevating them to all-time status. A side without decent 21st century representation no longer seems acceptable.

So Root for Gower? Anderson for Larwood? If Gower goes then Stokes arguably also comes in as left-hand bat, fast bowler, all-purpose fielder and popular captain, replacing Trueman and shortening the tail in the process. Possible current consensus all-time team, if there is now such a thing: Hobbs, Hutton, Hammond, Root, Pietersen, Stokes*, Botham, Knott+, Laker, Barnes, Anderson.

Only four men keep their places from fifty years ago: Hobbs, Hammond, Barnes and Laker. Is the current side actually stronger than the old one?
Not 100% sold on KP, but no strong feelings either way for him or Barrington. But imho Trueman has to be a lock. Only ATG fast bowler England has produced.
 

Coronis

International Coach
I am sure by current consensus, KP no longer makes most teams. I would rather have Barrington, Compton or May ahead of him very comfortably. Also, not so sure about the Stokes inclusion, always felt he is a little overrated as both a batsman and bowler. Would rather have Frank Woolley as the left handed batsman-allrounder role. I particularly pay attention to both the FC games pre 90s and Tests and consider players eligible once overarm bowling became legal. My English team will be: Grace*, Hobbs, Hutton, Hammond, Root, Ranji, Ames, Trueman, Laker, Barnes and Anderson. Grace and Hammond with decent support from Root makes an allrounder like Botham an ill fit for this team imo.
Really harsh on Hick and Ramprakash.
 

kyear2

International Coach
325 wkts @ 25, I think only 2nd to Lillee in wkts when he retired, why is he not an ATG?
My definition is much more exclusive apparently.
ATG is the best of the very best, at least in the conversation for an AT selection, excellent home and away during your career, or changed the game in some way. Statistically excellent and impactful, think I may have around 30.max.
 

Qlder

International Debutant
My definition is much more exclusive apparently.
ATG is the best of the very best, at least in the conversation for an AT selection, excellent home and away during your career, or changed the game in some way. Statistically excellent and impactful, think I may have around 30.max.
You were talking about an ATG fast bowler for England. So again, how does Bob Willis not fit that?
 

capt_Luffy

International Captain
Difference between great and ATG

Test standard
Very good
World class
Great
All time great
Imo a very valid case can be made that Trueman got boosted massively post retirement revisionism. In his playing days, he missed around half the matches between his debut and retirement and hardly due to injury. In their time, Statham was rated in par and Bedser rated higher than Trueman. As far as I read, most people back then believed him to be a HTB who gained massively by the 50s pitches and comparatively weak batting line-ups of Australia.
 

kyear2

International Coach
Imo a very valid case can be made that Trueman got boosted massively post retirement revisionism. In his playing days, he missed around half the matches between his debut and retirement and hardly due to injury. In their time, Statham was rated in par and Bedser rated higher than Trueman. As far as I read, most people back then believed him to be a HTB who gained massively by the 50s pitches and comparatively weak batting line-ups of Australia.

And he was to some extent, but the WI pitches were also criminally flat, so balanced out a bit? But he's definely not top tier for me, based on that.
 

CricketFan90s

State Vice-Captain
Imo a very valid case can be made that Trueman got boosted massively post retirement revisionism. In his playing days, he missed around half the matches between his debut and retirement and hardly due to injury. In their time, Statham was rated in par and Bedser rated higher than Trueman. As far as I read, most people back then believed him to be a HTB who gained massively by the 50s pitches and comparatively weak batting line-ups of Australia.
Bedser in 1940s was an average bowler. In 1950s he became a World Class Bowler and dominated the decade more than any other bowler.
 

capt_Luffy

International Captain
And he was to some extent, but the WI pitches were also criminally flat, so balanced out a bit? But he's definely not top tier for me, based on that.
His record in WI is certainly good, but not ATG standard by any means...... Statham was better there
 
Last edited:

Top