• 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

CricketFan90s

State Vice-Captain
Denis Compton
Vs Australia1938-195628518184218442.83597
In Australia1946-19551325470314733.47234
Kevin Pietersen
Vs Australia2005-201427502215822744.95385256.02413224024
In Australia2006-201415261114422745.76216552.842611238
Peter May
Vs Australia1953-196121373156611346.053102
In Australia1954-19591019075611339.78241
Ken Barrington
Vs Australia1961-196823396211125663.965131
In Australia1962-1966101831046132*69.73460
David Gower
Vs Australia1978-199142774326921544.78598654.6191233892
In Australia1978-199124454182413644.48337853.995822030
Joe Root
Vs Australia2013-202334655242818040.46482550.32418527012
In Australia2013-2022142728928935.68201544.26092910

In an Ashes Series i will probably go with Barrington, Pietersen and Gower.
 

Coronis

International Coach
you don't know either Ashes series in 1980s after Kerry Packer Series England won 9 Tests and Australia only 5 Tests. So they were good enough to dominate Australia.

If i include 1989 Ashes then the scores are level.

9 Test Wins for England and 9 Test Wins for Australia with 3 Series won by England and 2 Series Won by Australia.

A 3 Leg Rabbit Historian like you should relearn the History.
Again, all you’re saying is England were relatively dominant in those Ashes series, which I’m not denying. You’re ignoring that the Aussie team was poor and trying to big up Gower because of that.
 

kyear2

International Coach
That's not really a point. You're just asking to ignore a large section of cricket history.
A part that was devoid of expanded competition and that had different rules, conditions and that we have 0 video evidence of.

There's always going to be a line drawn, it's just where it is.
 

Coronis

International Coach
That is correct. It took a long time for Barrington's reputation to grow.

England lost five consecutive home series to Australia, West Indies and South Africa in the 1960s and didn't lose any away. English pitches offered more assistance to fast bowlers like Hall, Griffith, Adcock and Peter Pollock. Barrington struggled against them at home, and also against left-armers Sobers, Goddard and Davidson who swung the ball in with favourable overhead conditions. He averaged 28 against West Indies and South Africa at home, and was dropped for the last three Tests of the 1966 series against West Indies.

Barrington's only hundred in England against Australia, West Indies or South Africa was on a Manchester featherbed when both sides scored over 600, Simpson made 311 for the opposition, and there was only time for two overs in the third innings. As far as home audiences were concerned, Barrington wasn't as good a county batsman as Hammond, Compton or May either.

Pitches abroad were usually comfortable for batting in the 1960s, unlike the previous decade, and Barrington took full advantage. In his own words, once he saw a flat surface he "booked in for bed and breakfast".
Mhm, this is all true.

tbf to him, its not like he was underperforming relative to his contemporaries - vs Aus/SA/Windies at home in matches he played in:

Barrington 51 innings 1880 @ 40.00 1 ton 13 fifties
Dexter 36 innings 1313 @ 36.47 2 tons 7 fifties
Cowdrey 36 innings 1275 @ 38.63 3 tons 6 fifties
 

CricketFan90s

State Vice-Captain
Again, all you’re saying is England were relatively dominant in those Ashes series, which I’m not denying. You’re ignoring that the Aussie team was poor and trying to big up Gower because of that.
Gower was a Great Batsmen for England in 1980s and undermining his achievement by saying Australia was weak is a poor logic. The same logic can you apply to Australia when England were weak in 90s ?
 

Coronis

International Coach
Gower was a Great Batsmen for England in 1980s and undermining his achievement by saying Australia was weak is a poor logic. The same logic can you apply to Australia when England were weak in 90s ?
lol. That’s not what happened.

First, you claimed Gower deserved a place because he was England’s best bat in the 80’s.

Then I told you England was weak in the 80’s and pointed out that wasn’t much of an achievement.

Then you claimed England was strong in the 80’s by virtue of beating Australia.

Then I showed that England has a **** record in the 80’s and Australia had multiple Ashes series with poor/compromised teams and a **** record in the 80’s too.

You’re trying to claim England beating Australia made them a strong team to support your original thought that Gower being the best bat they had is a big accomplishment and he should be in a post-war ATG England XI. The fact is England weren’t a strong team in the 80’s (neither were Australia) and Gower being better than **** teammates doesn’t make him better than say, the lesser of two quality batsmen who played alongside each other.
 

CricketFan90s

State Vice-Captain
lol. That’s not what happened.

First, you claimed Gower deserved a place because he was England’s best bat in the 80’s.

Then I told you England was weak in the 80’s and pointed out that wasn’t much of an achievement.

Then you claimed England was strong in the 80’s by virtue of beating Australia.

Then I showed that England has a **** record in the 80’s and Australia had multiple Ashes series with poor/compromised teams and a **** record in the 80’s too.

You’re trying to claim England beating Australia made them a strong team to support your original thought that Gower being the best bat they had is a big accomplishment and he should be in a post-war ATG England XI. The fact is England weren’t a strong team in the 80’s (neither were Australia) and Gower being better than **** teammates doesn’t make him better than say, the lesser of two quality batsmen who played alongside each other.
They were not strong because West Indies was too strong and they have to change the bouncer rule to stop the West Indies. 80s had Fast bowlers better than the *****other times. So you have to see the quality of the opposition into consideration before making a judgement. These 60s Batsmen will struggle too in 80s and 90s as bowling was becoming more and more intimidating. 3 Rabbit Leg Coronis start using your both left and right brain 🧠 before putting a comment.
 

Coronis

International Coach
They were not strong because West Indies was too strong and they have to change the bouncer rule to stop the West Indies. 80s had Fast bowlers better than the *****other times. So you have to see the quality of the opposition into consideration before making a judgement. These 60s Batsmen will struggle too in 80s and 90s as bowling was becoming more and more intimidating. 3 Rabbit Leg Coronis start using your both left and right brain 🧠 before putting a comment.
Mate, they lost multiple series to every single team bar SL in the 80’s, they weren’t a good team.

Anyway, Ima take a page out of PEWS’ book and be done with you.
 

CricketFan90s

State Vice-Captain
Mate, they lost multiple series to every single team bar SL in the 80’s, they weren’t a good team.

Anyway, Ima take a page out of PEWS’ book and be done with you.
hmm ok whats your England XI (Players younger than bradman and played from ww2) that you feel can give a good fight with Australia XI ?
 

capt_Luffy

International Captain
A part that was devoid of expanded competition and that had different rules, conditions and that we have 0 video evidence of.

There's always going to be a line drawn, it's just where it is.
The County Cricket system was in full glory and the rules were close enough to current ones, the conditions if anything were tougher for batting and the video evidence we have of the likes of even Bradman is hardly anything significant.
 

kyear2

International Coach
The County Cricket system was in full glory and the rules were close enough to current ones, the conditions if anything were tougher for batting and the video evidence we have of the likes of even Bradman is hardly anything significant.
Yes, 1 country's county players, and while there's little of Hobbs, Bradman, Headley, there's at least something.

At least from the 30's there were more teams, better competition, variety of conditions, a decent lbw rule. Competition was still questionable, but it was way better.
 

capt_Luffy

International Captain
Yes, 1 country's county players, and while there's little of Hobbs, Bradman, Headley, there's at least something.

At least from the 30's there were more teams, better competition, variety of conditions, a decent lbw rule. Competition was still questionable, but it was way better.
Not really one country. Spofforth was the best bowler pre 1900s.... So, pretty much 2. Back in the time of Hobbs, there was 3 countries, and one of them was total minnows. If the competition was questionable in the pre 1900s, then so it was in the 10s and 20s and pretty much the 30s; and we should then really only count from the 70s like some posters like Shortpitched and CF90s says.
 

kyear2

International Coach
Not really one country. Spofforth was the best bowler pre 1900s.... So, pretty much 2. Back in the time of Hobbs, there was 3 countries, and one of them was total minnows. If the competition was questionable in the pre 1900s, then so it was in the 10s and 20s and pretty much the 30s; and we should then really only count from the 70s like some posters like Shortpitched and CF90s says.
After the great war there was a 3rd entrant that was capable, if not fully competitive. Headley, Martindale, Constantine all gave England trouble. And we could see they had close enough techniques to handle modern players.

After the 2nd war, it was definely game on and the sport we play today, but I personally believe the mid war period was a good enough starting ground.
 
Last edited:

capt_Luffy

International Captain
After the great war there was a 3rd entrant that was capable, if not fully competitive. Headley, Martindale, Constantine all gave England trouble. And we could see they had close enough techniques to handle modern players.

After the end war, it was definely game on and the sport we play today, but I personally believe the mid war period was a good enough starting ground.
And again, WI batting was total trash and Headley did some heavy lifting to make them any shape of competitive. Given Ranji was Indian, could you count 3 countries pre 1900s?? Anyways, I believe Overarm becoming legal is the most valid, logical and non biased starting point; and we can very much disagree on that.
 

kyear2

International Coach
And again, WI batting was total trash and Headley did some heavy lifting to make them any shape of competitive. Given Ranji was Indian, could you count 3 countries pre 1900s?? Anyways, I believe Overarm becoming legal is the most valid, logical and non biased starting point; and we can very much disagree on that.
The fact that Ranji (according to his profile, because we have never seen him play) developed the backwards defence, from that alone I will maintain that he was still very much of the infancy of a developing sport and he nor Grace nor Barnes (who no one can swear they knew what he bowled far less) can really qualify to be rated among the more modern greats.

So yes, we can agree to disagree.
 

Top