The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[CricketFan90s]

Okay, I would just like to say based on your point on 1910s batsmen averaging 60s....There is no such player. Pre WWI era was horrible for batsmen, by horrible I mean really horrible. Legends like Trumper averages sub 40. In such circumstances, only one player averages close to 60, Sir Jack Hobbs, and he very well makes most World AT teams and has a very strong case, to be the best batsman after Sir Don.

I didn’t undermine Jack Hobbs. He was the Best Batsmen of that Generation. My argument was that 80s Fast Bowling era was tough for batsmen and Gower could withstand best bowling attacks and played at no 3 and averaged 40+ for England. So I wanted to include him as my No 3 Batsmen. No 4 Pietersen most of us saw him face bowlers
Like McGrath, Warne and did a good job. I wanted more balanced team with players across the eras and not a Dump yard of old players. I did take Hutton from 1950s, Trueman from 1960s, Gower from 80s, Pietersen from 2000s, underwood from 70s, this is called having a balanced approach in taking an all time XI. If you don’t have a single player who is not experienced in facing a bowler like Shane Warne or a Batsmen who had the balls to face a West Indies attack from 80s in the Team what kind of all time XI you are building just based on statistics ?

 

[Prince EWS]

It makes sense that most of England's best players came from eras where they weren't crap.

 

[CricketFan90s]

It makes sense that most of England's best players came from eras where they weren't crap.

Less Competition quite to be honest. As Most of the Asian and Carribean Team were still struggling to become a formidable force.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I didn’t undermine Jack Hobbs. He was the Best Batsmen of that Generation. My argument was that 80s Fast Bowling era was tough for batsmen and Gower could withstand best bowling attacks and played at no 3 and averaged 40+ for England. So I wanted to include him as my No 3 Batsmen. No 4 Pietersen most of us saw him face bowlers
Like McGrath, Warne and did a good job. I wanted more balanced team with players across the eras and not a Dump yard of old players. I did take Hutton from 1950s, Trueman from 1960s, Gower from 90s, Pietersen from 2000s, underwood from 70s, this is called having a balanced approach in taking an all time XI. If you don’t have a single player who is not experienced in facing a bowler like Shane Warne or a Batsmen who had the balls to face a West Indies attack from 80s in the Team what kind of all time XI you are building just based on statistics ?

Not really. Compton played against Lindwall, Miller and Johnston and was very good; and so did Barrington and May. They were champion batsmen, the best of their time. Gower and KP were good batsmen, but not really among the best of their time, not even close. Their overall record isn't close to as impressive as those 3, who just were superior batsmen. KP especially played in a relatively easy batting era and the bowling level as a whole had gone down during his time. A few innings against McWarne isn't enough to make up for that imo. And well, I still think he was better than Gower.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Less Competition quite to be honest. As Most of the Asian and Carribean Team were still struggling to become a formidable force.

Not totally true. WI was a good team back then, as was SA.

 

[CricketFan90s]

Not really. Compton played against Lindwall, Miller and Johnston and was very good; and so did Barrington and May. They were champion batsmen, the best of their time. Gower and KP were good batsmen, but not really among the best of their time, not even close. Their overall record isn't close to as impressive as those 3, who just were superior batsmen. KP especially played in a relatively easy batting era and the bowling level as a whole had gone down during his time. A few innings against McWarne isn't enough to make up for that imo. And well, I still think he was better than Gower.

Gower looks like he had poor record against West Indies in England and did relatively well in West Indies. So we can go with Ken Barrington at No 3.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Gower looks like he had poor record against West Indies in England and did relatively well in West Indies. So we can go with Ken Barrington at No 3.

Barrington did increasingly well against stronger teams. He averages below 40 in Grade cricket, 45 in FC, 58 in Test matches and 6r against his strongest opponent, and 70 in their home .....

 

[AndrewB]

Not really. Compton played against Lindwall, Miller and Johnston and was very good; and so did Barrington and May.

Barrington basically played in the 60s: the main bowlers he faced were Mckenzie, Davidson, Hawke & Benaud for Aus; Gibbs, Hall, Griffith & Sobers for WI; Pollock, Goddard & Adcock for SA; Borde, Durani & Gupte for India.

 

[CricketFan90s]

Barrington did increasingly well against stronger teams. He averages below 40 in Grade cricket, 45 in FC, 58 in Test matches and 6r against his strongest opponent, and 70 in their home .....

Anyway just checked Gowers record against West Indies and it was not good in England. He somehow did ok in West Indies. So Barrington no 3 a more safe option.

 

[Coronis]

check the ashes history from 1977-1987. 10 Years is a long period.

So? Australia had absolute shithouse teams in 85 and 86-87. 77 and 78-79 teams were both gutted by banned WSC players. Winning against **** teams doesn’t make your team any better

Discussion has to be open minded. As you are a global moderator try to provide better logic of why it’s not the right team ?

Take that @Prince EWS Finally called on your bs

 

[capt_Luffy]

Barrington basically played in the 60s: the main bowlers he faced were Mckenzie, Davidson, Hawke & Benaud for Aus; Gibbs, Hall, Griffith & Sobers for WI; Pollock, Goddard & Adcock for SA; Borde, Durani & Gupte for India.

Wasn't Borde a batsman who could bowl some handy spin??

 

[CricketFan90s]

So? Australia had absolute ****house teams in 85 and 86-87. 77 and 78-79 teams were both gutted by banned WSC players. Winning against **** teams doesn’t make your team any better



Take that @Prince EWS Finally called on your bs

Why do you speak some and sound like a sensible speaker. England was indeed a good team in 80s and Border changed his captaincy approach to start winning again from 1989.

 

[AndrewB]

Wasn't Borde a batsman who could bowl some handy spin??

Basically, yes, but he still took as many wickets in Tests involving Barrington as any other Indian: here's the list.

 

[Coronis]

Why do you speak some and sound like a sensible speaker. England was indeed a good team in 80s and Border changed his captaincy approach to start winning again from 1989.

Yeah England was a good team in the 80’s.

20 wins 39 losses 45 draws

Sounds good to me. So good that only SL had a worse W/L ratio.

Perhaps this is why you only pick modern players, because you have no idea about cricket history?

 

[AndrewB]

So? Australia had absolute ****house teams in 85 and 86-87. 77 and 78-79 teams were both gutted by banned WSC players.

They weren't banned in 77 (though Lillee was missing due a stress fracture).

 

[Coronis]

They weren't banned in 77 (though Lillee was missing due a stress fracture).

mb, had the dates mixed up.

 

[peterhrt]

The ones picking Evans I assume had Hirst batting at 6, but that still seems a very long tail for an all-time XI; especially when you have Grace, Hammond and Woolley (and Compton) in the top 5 who could all bowl.

Hirst, Rhodes and Evans at 6-8. Jack Fingleton's team had an extra batsman May at 6 (three openers, no left-hander) and these three at 7-9 followed by Larwood and Barnes.

During England's successful period in the 1950s, Evans normally batted at 7, followed by the tail. Bailey was number 6, a more limited batsman than Hirst. Rhodes opened the batting 43 times for England, averaging 36 and scoring a couple of big hundreds.

The tail may look longer now than it did then. Many old timers liked having the best keeper and a balanced attack of specialist bowlers. Australian all-time teams often had Oldfield at 7.

Grace's bowling is an interesting one. His numbers in first-class cricket look good. But contemporary reports rarely offer much praise, either for his medium-pace or later slow bowling, sometimes merely noting that he took wickets.

 

[kyear2]

As I said, I disagree. To begin with I don't think Davidson is a downgrade on Lillee bowling wise. Lindwall is fast aggressive enough as is Miller, so might as well go with a lefty.
And oh, if someone believes Ranji shouldn't make English AT XI, yet simultaneously thinking Barry is automatic choice for SA, then I will strongly disagree with them.

Sure if we did a vote right now Barry would make more SA teams that Ranji would England XIs.

The Barry debate is a philosophical one, but no one doubts his quality or the quality of opposition he faced.

The same was some wouldn't rate wicketkeepers they haven't seen of earlier than a certain era, I do so for cricketers pre WWI. The rules and conditions were as far apart as it could be. The level of competition isn't even comparable to even the 30's and we have little to no idea of techniques or how the looked at the crease or wicket.

Unlike the 90's cricket fan guy, I'm not advocating ignoring the history of the game, but there has to be a cutoff.

No other sport includes players from the infancy of the game, far less believe they would be competitive in any way. Hammond, Hobbs, Headley, Bradman, O'Reilly we have footage, they played vs multiple teams with noted players with modern techniques that we've seen. There's a reason Hugh Trumble doesn't make a top 10 bowlers list and discussions on Barnes is divisive.

Think it was Red who one referenced that these players should be compared among themselves and rated accordingly, because they nor the game is comparable to the sort today. But recognition is due.

With regards to the Miller argument, with a team with Lillee, McGrath, Davidson and Warne, how many overs is Miller realistically even getting? Far less getting to make it worth the the batting down grade and losing a Border? Keith Miller who almost half of his centuries came in one series, who did most of his bowling damage with shirt bursts with the new ball, which he wouldn't be getting here.

If you can't earn your position with either that bat or ball in such a team with specialists options, then how is there added value when you're going to be a little used 5th bowler, who doesn't offer anything that Lillee doesn't offer in spades.

 

[AndrewB]

Hirst, Rhodes and Evans at 6-8. Jack Fingleton's team had an extra batsman May at 6 (three openers, no left-hander) and these three at 7-9 followed by Larwood and Barnes.

During England's successful period in the 1950s, Evans normally batted at 7, followed by the tail. Bailey was number 6, a more limited batsman than Hirst. Rhodes opened the batting 43 times for England, averaging 36 and scoring a couple of big hundreds.

The tail may look longer now than it did then. Many old timers liked having the best keeper and a balanced attack of specialist bowlers. Australian all-time teams often had Oldfield at 7.

Grace's bowling is an interesting one. His numbers in first-class cricket look good. But contemporary reports rarely offer much praise, either for his medium-pace or later slow bowling, sometimes merely noting that he took wickets.

The difficulty with Rhodes is that during his spell as an opener (the 4 series in the 1910s), he only took 11 wickets @43; before that, his batting average was 25.

Just out of interest, I compared this England pre-1977 team with the England players picked in the "Centenary" draft we had.
10 of the 14 players mentioned were picked fairly quickly: Hobbs, Hutton, Hammond and Barnes were picked in round 1; Grace in round 2; Laker and Larwood in round 3; Compton and Tate in round 4; and Ames in round 5.
Rhodes wasn't picked until round 8, Woolley in round 9, Evans in round 11, and Hirst wasn't picked at all.

Meanwhile, you could get an alternative XI from other players picked in the first 5 rounds:
Sutcliffe, Boycott, Barrington, Ranjitsinhji, May/Dexter, Knott, Verity, Tyson, Bedser, Statham, Snow.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Sure if we did a vote right now Barry would make more SA teams that Ranji would England XIs.

The Barry debate is a philosophical one, but no one doubts his quality or the quality of opposition he faced.

The same was some wouldn't rate wicketkeepers they haven't seen of earlier than a certain era, I do so for cricketers pre WWI. The rules and conditions were as far apart as it could be. The level of competition isn't even comparable to even the 30's and we have little to no idea of techniques or how the looked at the crease or wicket.

Unlike the 90's cricket fan guy, I'm not advocating ignoring the history of the game, but there has to be a cutoff.

No other sport includes players from the infancy of the game, far less believe they would be competitive in any way. Hammond, Hobbs, Headley, Bradman, O'Reilly we have footage, they played vs multiple teams with noted players with modern techniques that we've seen. There's a reason Hugh Trumble doesn't make a top 10 bowlers list and discussions on Barnes is divisive.

Think it was Red who one referenced that these players should be compared among themselves and rated accordingly, because they nor the game is comparable to the sort today. But recognition is due.

With regards to the Miller argument, with a team with Lillee, McGrath, Davidson and Warne, how many overs is Miller realistically even getting? Far less getting to make it worth the the batting down grade and losing a Border? Keith Miller who almost half of his centuries came in one series, who did most of his bowling damage with shirt bursts with the new ball, which he wouldn't be getting here.

If you can't earn your position with either that bat or ball in such a team with specialists options, then how is there added value when you're going to be a little used 5th bowler, who doesn't offer anything that Lillee doesn't offer in spades.

Yes, the cutoff is once Overarm bowling became legal. The County cricket was golden standard, it was a graveyard for batsmen and people averaged low 30s back then. Ranji does 56. That's bloody impressive. Trumble doesn't makes top 10 bowlers because he was just alright. Also, the late 19th century can hardly be called cricket in infancy when it has existed from the 17th century.