• 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

centurymaker

centurymaker

Cricketer Of The Year
CricketFan90s said:
Historical documents written by British Anthropologists before 1950s a lot of them are proven wrong. Just because you see an information in Internet it won't become absolute truth. For Example : Earth is Round is what most Asians used to believe for Centuries. But many European and Middle East Kingdoms used to believe Earth is Flat. These People when they started trading with Asian Countries got the idea that Earth can be round.
Click to expand...
Not just believed but knew as fact many centuries prior. It's also written in the Vedas which date back to 1200-1500 BCE.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
Starfighter said:
That isn't correct either. Belief in a round Earth has been normal amongst educated Europeans since late Roman times, and certainly was in the middle ages.
Click to expand...
I kinda know, but there was that whole Gallieleo fiasco (if I am not mixing it up) and the church did forced the flat earth notion.
 
CricketFan90s

CricketFan90s

State Vice-Captain
capt_Luffy said:
I kinda know, but there was that whole Gallieleo fiasco (if I am not mixing it up) and the church did forced the flat earth notion.
Click to expand...
The concepts of a Judgement Day, Hell and Heaven all these are some of the Biblical Non Sense. But the concept of trinity makes some sense to me.
 
N

number11

State Regular
To get this thread back on track, here is an England AT ODI XI.

With ODI xi's, I always have an issue with a fair conversion factor for batting SRs for players who played before the modern era. In the 80s/90 - a SR of ~70 was good - typical for a good player, but that is terrible now. It is unfair to assume previous players could not make an adjustment to modern rules - so you have to [mentally at least] adjust their SR stats to reflect [realistically] what one might do today. I tend to take the average score for an era [say 240 in the 90s], and see where a batsman stands in relation to that SR (eg 80 in this example) and adjust accordingly. Ie if he was above that - apply the difference etc. Ditto for bowlers ERs. Hope that makes sense. I teach Literature, not Maths. :laugh:

In any case:

Buttler +
Bairstow
Root
KP
Morgan *
Stokes
Flintoff
Botham
Swann
Gough
Willis

I think that is an incredible team. Reflects the reality of England's recent rise in LOI cricket - with players I think would make the jump between eras/add more than their numbers. Sad to keep some icons of bygone eras out: Lamb, Fairbrother etc - but I reckon that's the most powerful line-up England could field. 3 top ARs adds depth to both departments.
 
F

Fuller Pilch

Hall of Fame Member
number11 said:
To get this thread back on track, here is an England AT ODI XI.

With ODI xi's, I always have an issue with a fair conversion factor for batting SRs for players who played before the modern era. In the 80s/90 - a SR of ~70 was good - typical for a good player, but that is terrible now. It is unfair to assume previous players could not make an adjustment to modern rules - so you have to [mentally at least] adjust their SR stats to reflect [realistically] what one might do today. I tend to take the average score for an era [say 240 in the 90s], and see where a batsman stands in relation to that SR (eg 80 in this example) and adjust accordingly. Ie if he was above that - apply the difference etc. Ditto for bowlers ERs. Hope that makes sense. I teach Literature, not Maths. :laugh:

In any case:

Buttler +
Bairstow
Root
KP
Morgan *
Stokes
Flintoff
Botham
Swann
Gough
Willis

I think that is an incredible team. Reflects the reality of England's recent rise in LOI cricket - with players I think would make the jump between eras/add more than their numbers. Sad to keep some icons of bygone eras out: Lamb, Fairbrother etc - but I reckon that's the most powerful line-up England could field. 3 top ARs adds depth to both departments.
Click to expand...
It is greatly improved from 10 years ago but still the weakest of the top 8 AT ODI sides. Also Butler has never opened in ODI cricket. The lack of elite bowlers hurts this side. Perhaps if Archer had been fit and firing for the last 5 years it would be stronger.
 
F

Fuller Pilch

Hall of Fame Member
number11 said:
You reckon?

NZ? Lanka?

It has tremendous depth and flexibility. Top fielding side. Powerful batting. Yes, the bowling is a bit weaker than the very best attacks.
Click to expand...
The batting is strong. Fielding is worse than the 4 SH hemisphere sides and SL and with the emergence of Bumrah and Shami the bowling is by far the weakest of the top 8 sides.

SL and NZ have several of the best ODI bowlers of all time. Their B attacks would be as good as the England A attack.
 
Last edited:
shortpitched713

shortpitched713

International Captain
capt_Luffy said:
The oldest written record of cricket, agreed universally upon by scholars dates back to a court proceeding over a piece of common land in Surrey in 1597, where a 59 year John Derick testified that he and his schoolmates have played creckett there while attending Free School over fifty years ago....
The oldest reference of cricket being played as an adult sport dates back to 1611, when two men were prosecuted for playing cricket on Sunday instead of going to Church.
Look, I hate the colonist Britishers as much as you do, if not more. But this "cricket originated in India" claim is just plain wrong without any historical backing.
Click to expand...
Sacre merde! You're all wrong, because the French were the ones who invented cricket no later than 1478, before they got bored of the game and left it to you silly English kniiigggiitts! You know it's true, because the Daily Mail wrote an article about it:

www.dailymail.co.uk

Cricket 'invented in France' 80 years before it was played in England

A letter to King Louis XI in 1478 may contain the first known reference to the sport of 'criquet' being played in the village of Liettres in northern France, though the first evidence of it in England was in 1550.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top