The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[capt_Luffy]

Why do you rate highly compton and may. What’s the problem with Joe root ?

Lol. Forgot Root..... Will add him.

 

[CricketFan90s]

Denis Compton

Vs Australia

1938-1956

28

51

8

1842

184

42.83

5

9

7

In Australia

1946-1955

13

25

4

703

147

33.47

2

3

4

Kevin Pietersen

Vs Australia

2005-2014

27

50

2

2158

227

44.95

3852

56.02

4

13

2

240

24

In Australia

2006-2014

15

26

1

1144

227

45.76

2165

52.84

2

6

1

123

8

Peter May

Vs Australia

1953-1961

21

37

3

1566

113

46.05

3

10

2

In Australia

1954-1959

10

19

0

756

113

39.78

2

4

1

Ken Barrington

Vs Australia

1961-1968

23

39

6

2111

256

63.96

5

13

1

In Australia

1962-1966

10

18

3

1046

132*

69.73

4

6

0

David Gower

Vs Australia

1978-1991

42

77

4

3269

215

44.78

5986

54.61

9

12

3

389

2

In Australia

1978-1991

24

45

4

1824

136

44.48

3378

53.99

5

8

2

203

0

Joe Root

Vs Australia

2013-2023

34

65

5

2428

180

40.46

4825

50.32

4

18

5

270

12

In Australia

2013-2022

14

27

2

892

89

35.68

2015

44.26

0

9

2

91

0

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

 

[Coronis]

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]

In that case

so what’s your England XI will be ? (They has to be younger to Don Bradman or started playing after ww2

Just stop, please just stop.

 

[kyear2]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ?

 

[PlayerComparisons]

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 ?

There’s no Eng XI that can do that

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

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 ?

Hutton
Boycott
Barrington
May
Root
Stokes
Woakes
Botham
Knott
Laker
Anderson

 

[TheJediBrah]

People who include Botham in their England side but don't include Miller in their Australia side are weird.

Not really. Australia just has much better cricketers (and people in general) to choose from. It's a higher bar for Miller than it is for Botham

 

[capt_Luffy]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[capt_Luffy]

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]

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.