Which players would be locks in every OTHER country’s ATG XI?

[kyear2]

Wonder what would have been Warne's Avg without them.. Its already above 25.

Yup, he was always covered.

Went from Healy and Taylor, to Gilchrist and Waugh, then Hayden.

Murali didn't have it to bad either. Sanga, Prasana and always with Mahela at slip.

Dravid was there for India as well.

 

[kyear2]

Name a better 5th bowler

Dear God, did u even read it? It was there are better batting options.

 

[subshakerz]

@kyear2 who is Kallis replacing in the Aus XI because of his elite slip catching?

 

[kyear2]

@kyear2 who is Kallis replacing in the Aus XI because of his elite slip catching?

Australia doesn't need it, he'll slip in at 3rd if need be.

If he were eligible he would replace Border at 6, bowl a little and stand at 3rd.

 

[capt_Luffy]

You've deliberately missed the point and not answered the question, which is fine. Hayden was brilliant, Warne just serviceable when he moved to first, would have been abysmal at 2nd.

That aside, I'm not talking about moving other great players into the scenario and you're smart enough to know this.

It was simple enough, forget the names, would Australia have given up a superb cordon to add further batting depth at the no. 8 position .

I don't think they would have, you don't either judging my the mental gymnastics going around.

Yes, it is crucial for the current Indian team because the middle order is, let's be nice and say inconsistent. That's not the hall mark of a great team, certainly not an ATG one.

That invincibles team had a long ass tail, and Lindwall, the best of the lot, who still batted below Tallon, was very much in the Marshall category of batsmen. Definitely, according to what has been said here before, not an all rounder or anywhere close, I believe was the quote.

I never said you can win without scoring runs, it's about quality, not quantity.

Miller wasn't a great test batsman, he was barely a good one. A no. 5 test batman averaging in the high 30's is technically a failure. You can't make up that quality by stuffing the tail, which then prohibits you from chosing your best attack. And this for a bowler who will hardly get the ball, and definitely not the new ball which is where he did his best work.

Let your batsmen bat and bowlers bowl. He's not Border and he's not Imran, you get the worse of both worlds.

But good luck getting him to bowl 5 overs with the old ball before the front end guys takes the new one.

Botham plays for England because of the lack of options, Australia literally has more than any other team. He weakens the team, like by a lot.

Re the slip point, I disagree. If they are getting a serviceable cordon in place of thier great one, I don't think exchanging that for Imran's batting will hurt them. Let's not pretend there hadn't been times when that Australia needed lower order batting (2005 Ashes is the best example, were Warne partly covered them) and almost they literally went bonkers to find allrounders....

I don't think whether it's hall mark of a great or ATG team is important for the current India one, imo what is important is that this tail is a very important reason behind India winning every home series for the last 12 years, or the last two BGTs.

Lindwall was close to an allrounder. As you said, they had a long tail and needed that extra bit of batting from him, Tallon, McCool and Ian Johnson.

Calling a 37 averaging batsman a failure in Tests is simply wrong. A good 5th bowler like him, when used in short bursts, will benefit the team more imo than Border at 6. We can disagree, but 5 batsmen, 1 allrounder, a keeper who can bat and a deep tail is perfectly fine for a team setup. There is nothing wrong with it.

He doesn't have to be better than Border at bat to be more valuable, nor he has to bowl like Imran.

I mean, he definitely can have the second new ball, nothing wrong with that. Again, the value of a good 5th bowling option is much more with the ball than you're giving credit to.

Botham instead doesn't makes my English team. He actually weakens the team as neither the English top 5 is as strong, nor they have a tail like Australia, not to mention Botham isn't as good a bat as Miller and most importantly they don't have Gilchrist. Why would you really want him as a 5th bowler when there are clearly superior batsmen, but lose **** over Miller. Imo, Miller is definitely a better fit in Australia than Botham is in England.

 

[subshakerz]

Australia doesn't need it, he'll slip in at 3rd if need be.

If he were eligible he would replace Border at 6, bowl a little and stand at 3rd.

Who is your Aus middle order?

 

[kyear2]

Re the slip point, I disagree. If they are getting a serviceable cordon in place of thier great one, I don't think exchanging that for Imran's batting will hurt them. Let's not pretend there hadn't been times when that Australia needed lower order batting (2005 Ashes is the best example, were Warne partly covered them) and almost they literally went bonkers to find allrounders....

I don't think whether it's hall mark of a great or ATG team is important for the current India one, imo what is important is that this tail is a very important reason behind India winning every home series for the last 12 years, or the last two BGTs.

Lindwall was close to an allrounder. As you said, they had a long tail and needed that extra bit of batting from him, Tallon, McCool and Ian Johnson.

Calling a 37 averaging batsman a failure in Tests is simply wrong. A good 5th bowler like him, when used in short bursts, will benefit the team more imo than Border at 6. We can disagree, but 5 batsmen, 1 allrounder, a keeper who can bat and a deep tail is perfectly fine for a team setup. There is nothing wrong with it.

He doesn't have to be better than Border at bat to be more valuable, nor he has to bowl like Imran.

I mean, he definitely can have the second new ball, nothing wrong with that. Again, the value of a good 5th bowling option is much more with the ball than you're giving credit to.

Botham instead doesn't makes my English team. He actually weakens the team as neither the English top 5 is as strong, nor they have a tail like Australia, not to mention Botham isn't as good a bat as Miller and most importantly they don't have Gilchrist. Why would you really want him as a 5th bowler when there are clearly superior batsmen, but lose **** over Miller. Imo, Miller is definitely a better fit in Australia than Botham is in England.

Two points to your first one.

No way Australia is giving up an elite cordon and a serviceable tail, for a serviceable cordon and a good tail. Guys like Waugh and Hooper's place we're secured because of their catching, unlike some teams it was seen as a priority.

And two, we just see things differently. I will not pick my bowling attack around how they bat, and guys like Lindwall, Marshall, Warne are good enough once they are also the best bowling options or at least equal.

The prefix when describing India as a great team has been, home. And that's due to pitches that more than ever suit using multiple spinners which most visiting teams can't match. That covers up the middle order weaknesses that isn't so easily hidden away. So while they are a really good team, great isn't a term that comes to mind, especially compared to that other 3 mentioned. That's just my opinion though.

If Lindwall was close to an all rounder, so was Marshall and Warne. Tallon and Johnson both averaged around 17 if my memory serves correct. Those are the same kind of numbers that I have said is more than good enough for your no. 8 / 9 which Marshall and Warne provide.

Mid to late 30's average is a failure in test cricket. Guys like Hooper and Logie would have no place in any counties ATG team, nor should they. As a no. 5 / 6 batsman that's simply not acceptable. Almost half of his hundreds came on one tour for heaven's sake. Ask yourself this, is he even a thought for a world AT XI? He's a better bowler than Sobers, that's the criteria right? Or over Kallis for the 2nd? I would happily go with Hammond over him as the batting all-rounder in the top order. He's there as a 5th bowler, you're giving up that much batting for a 5th bowler? That's crazy and one of the two hills I would die on. Weaken the batting for again, the 5th bowler who was barely test standard and a reluctant bowler. Then you weaken the bowling to play the ones who can bat better. So you're weakening the batting and the bowling for a bits and pieces player that was at his best using the new ball, the new ball than no one sane would give him over Lillee and McGrath. Dude was barely test standard, definitely not ATG team standard. Imagine trusting Logie or Hooper at no. 5 for an AT WI team. Jesus....

What is the average amount of over bowlers by a fifth bowler over the history of the modern game. Especially where you already have McGrath, Lillee, Davidson and Warne who can all bowl lengthy spells efficiently. Not worth it.

Neither are good options and I easily rate Botham a better batsman than Miller. The guy had 7 hundreds and 3 came in one series. Botham faced way tougher conditions and bowlers, and in the one content with decent opposition Miller averaged mid 20's. How can a barely test standard batsman be a candidate for an Australian AT XI

 

[kyear2]

Who is your Aus middle order?

Entire team

Hayden
Simpson
Bradman
Smith
Chappell / Ponting
Border
Gilchrist
Davidson / Cummins
Warne
Lillee
McGrath

 

[capt_Luffy]

Two points to your first one.

No way Australia is giving up an elite cordon and a serviceable tail, for a serviceable cordon and a good tail. Guys like Waugh and Hooper's place we're secured because of their catching, unlike some teams it was seen as a priority.

And two, we just see things differently. I will not pick my bowling attack around how they bat, and guys like Lindwall, Marshall, Warne are good enough once they are also the best bowling options or at least equal.

The prefix when describing India as a great team has been, home. And that's due to pitches that more than ever suit using multiple spinners which most visiting teams can't match. That covers up the middle order weaknesses that isn't so easily hidden away. So while they are a really good team, great isn't a term that comes to mind, especially compared to that other 3 mentioned. That's just my opinion though.

If Lindwall was close to an all rounder, so was Marshall and Warne. Tallon and Johnson both averaged around 17 if my memory serves correct. Those are the same kind of numbers that I have said is more than good enough for your no. 8 / 9 which Marshall and Warne provide.

Mid to late 30's average is a failure in test cricket. Guys like Hooper and Logie would have no place in any counties ATG team, nor should they. As a no. 5 / 6 batsman that's simply not acceptable. Almost half of his hundreds came on one tour for heaven's sake. Ask yourself this, is he even a thought for a world AT XI? He's a better bowler than Sobers, that's the criteria right? Or over Kallis for the 2nd? I would happily go with Hammond over him as the batting all-rounder in the top order. He's there as a 5th bowler, you're giving up that much batting for a 5th bowler? That's crazy and one of the two hills I would die on. Weaken the batting for again, the 5th bowler who was barely test standard and a reluctant bowler. Then you weaken the bowling to play the ones who can bat better. So you're weakening the batting and the bowling for a bits and pieces player that was at his best using the new ball, the new ball than no one sane would give him over Lillee and McGrath. Dude was barely test standard, definitely not ATG team standard. Imagine trusting Logie or Hooper at no. 5 for an AT WI team. Jesus....

What is the average amount of over bowlers by a fifth bowler over the history of the modern game. Especially where you already have McGrath, Lillee, Davidson and Warne who can all bowl lengthy spells efficiently. Not worth it.

Neither are good options and I easily rate Botham a better batsman than Miller. The guy had 7 hundreds and 3 came in one series. Botham faced way tougher conditions and bowlers, and in the one content with decent opposition Miller averaged mid 20's. How can a barely test standard batsman be a candidate for an Australian AT XI

Saying Miller wasn't Test standard makes this whole debate redundant. Let's just agree to disagree then.

 

[kyear2]

Saying Miller wasn't Test standard makes this whole debate redundant. Let's just agree to disagree then.

As a batsman?

He was the same as Hooper and Logie. Logie, the weak link in our batting that we would have replaced in a heart beat. Hooper who only kept his pace because he was special at 2nd (well and potential and being a handy bowler didn't hurt).

Keeping it local, guys like Richardson for me is the baseline for good test batsmen. Averaging mid 30's is waking the line of getting dropped. He batted primarily at 5, and the 40's were flat as hell and England immediately post war were poor. Come on.

 

[ataraxia]

I cannot comprehend how in the context of world test cricket someone like Gayle or Sarwan would not be considered a good bat.

 

[subshakerz]

Entire team

Hayden
Simpson
Bradman
Smith
Chappell / Ponting
Border
Gilchrist
Davidson / Cummins
Warne
Lillee
McGrath

Why Border is a lock if you rate Chappell and Ponting higher?

And why is Davidson even an option at level with Cummins?

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Lindwall > Davidson

 

[kyear2]

I cannot comprehend how in the context of world test cricket someone like Gayle or Sarwan would not be considered a good bat.

Gayle averaged in the 40's as an opener for a bad team. He was a decent to good bat, Sarwan had so much talent that his career was seen as a disappointment. But to be test standard, at least crack 40.
They both did.

I don't understand the issue, is a top order batsman averaging below 40 not seen as not great, borderline decent at best?

Was Carl Hooper a good test batsman?

 

[ataraxia]

I don't understand the issue, is a top order batsman averaging below 40 not seen as not great, borderline decent at best?

No, IMO; I think generally one who averages 38/39 is okay in high-scoring eras and good in low-scoring eras. Like the textbook definition of decent. It seems to me as if you're focussing on the top 4 teams – for whom 40 is indeed oft that Henry Nicholls line of being test-standard – and glossing over the bottom 4 teams, who would dearly love someone averaging 40.

As for Hooper, averaging 36.5 in a middling-to-low scoring era is the textbook definition of decent. Atherton averaged little more and his performance couldn't really be called anything but "good". For Hooper, his record looks a bit worse than it is due to the strong batting lineup he was in at career start.

[edit: okay maybe I shouldn't have said "the textbook definition of decent" twice referring to two (slightly) different things]

 

[kyear2]

Why Border is a lock if you rate Chappell and Ponting higher?

And why is Davidson even an option at level with Cummins?

Both are the same type of player, Border is the anchor. Styles and who compliments whom also come into this. Border also faced better bowlers than both of them and if they are facing a WI XI, Border has to be there.

So let's get my ranking for batsmen clear. After the top 8, and I've said this before, similar to after the top 8 bowlers, it's a toss up. Sunny is most often at 9, Hammond at 10, but really any of the top 12 to 15 can slot in anywhere depending on the day.

Davidson and Cummins are really close, and Cummins is till writing his story.

 

[ataraxia]

And why is Davidson even an option at level with Cummins?

At the most superficial level, both of Davidson's batting and bowling averages were better over longer than Cummins'.

 

[kyear2]

No, IMO; I think generally one who averages 38/39 is okay in high-scoring eras and good in low-scoring eras. Like the textbook definition of decent. It seems to me as if you're focussing on the top 4 teams – for whom 40 is indeed oft that Henry Nicholls line of being test-standard – and glossing over the bottom 4 teams, who would dearly love someone averaging 40.

Right now we would like someone averaging 40, that doesn't make them a good test batsman.
36 is average at best, especially starting out in a flat pitch, high scoring, poor opposition era.

I have never recalled consolidating watching Hooper bat and seeing his average and being anything but disappointed. Or thinking Logie was someone we could rely on as a top batsman.

This isn't skewed by ATG discussions, this is real life

 

[kyear2]

At the most superficial level, both of Davidson's batting and bowling averages were better over longer than Cummins'.

The only advantage Cummins has over Davidson is the supposed reverse swing, and quite frankly I don't doubt that any past great bowler wouldn't pick it up in a two week training camp

 

[ataraxia]

Right now we would like someone averaging 50, that doesn't make them a good test batsman.
36 is average at best, especially starting out in a flat pitch, high scoring, poor opposition era.

I have never recalled consolidating watching Hooper bat and seeing his average and being anything but disappointed. Or thinking Logie was someone we could rely on as a top batsman.

This isn't skewed by ATG discussions, this is real life

I'm not talking about top batsmen! There's a massive, yawning gap between "top" and "good". And also, average is pretty much synonymous with, if not superior to, decent in my book.