• 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.

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

kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
ataraxia said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sorry, that should have been averaging 40, I corrected it.

Averaging 36 you're borderline getting dropped or the last batsmen selected in a decent team.

It's not a good test batsman in my eyes. Never has been.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
kyear2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The 50s were also, well he'll.... Miller was more than a decent batsman and with his bowling more than deserving for me to bat at 6.
 
ataraxia

ataraxia

International Coach
kyear2 said:
Sorry, that should have been averaging 40, I corrected it.

Averaging 36 you're borderline getting dropped or the last batsmen selected in a decent team.

It's not a good test batsman in my eyes. Never has been.
Click to expand...
You seem to be conflating the discussion around 36.5 and the discussion around 40. All your arguments against my definition of a good test batsman are predicated on the former figure rather than the latter, while the latter was the actual bar I suggested.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
kyear2 said:
Sorry, that should have been averaging 40, I corrected it.

Averaging 36 you're borderline getting dropped or the last batsmen selected in a decent team.

It's not a good test batsman in my eyes. Never has been.
Click to expand...
Averaging 40 is a quite good batsman in general, anything over 35 is generally good.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
capt_Luffy said:
The 50s were also, well he'll.... Miller was more than a decent batsman and with his bowling more than deserving for me to bat at 6.
Click to expand...
For the West Indies right now? Sure, for an team over Border, no, I'll argue that all night.

Loosing to much for little to no gain. Definition of diminishing returns.

Even Red stopped including him in the team, And the only way it even remotely makes sense is if you're playing two spinners.

Even then, .....
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
kyear2 said:
Sorry, so Gus Logie was a good test batsman?

Carl Hooper was a good test batsman...

Sorry, one was limited and the other a disappointment.
Click to expand...
Was Atherton a bad Test batsman??

Or Alec Stewart? Or Frank Woolley? Depends on context really....
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
kyear2 said:
For the West Indies right now? Sure, for an team over Border, no, I'll argue that all night.

Loosing to much for little to no gain. Definition of diminishing returns.

Even Red stopped including him in the team, And the only way it even remotely makes sense is if you're playing two spinners.

Even then, .....
Click to expand...
I presented my points, you yours, we clearly don't agree so let's just agree to disagree as we are just going round and round now.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
capt_Luffy said:
Was Atherton a bad Test batsman??

Or Alec Stewart? Or Frank Woolley? Depends on context really....
Click to expand...
Atherton, as I've said repeatedly was the most tested and unluckiest batsman in history.

To open in the 90's isn't comparable to starting your career batting behind Bradman in the flat ass 40's vs war ravaged England.

Alec was jerked around between opening and wicket keeping.

Those two have context, Miller doesn't
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
kyear2 said:
Please explain the context where Miller was a good or great test batsman.
Click to expand...
He wasn't a great Test batsman, far from it. But he was a good batsman for the most part. Averages 40+ in both Australia and SA, scored heavily in WI and only struggled in the tough English pitches in the 50s, were most did so.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
capt_Luffy said:
He wasn't a great Test batsman, far from it. But he was a good batsman for the most part. Averages 40+ in both Australia and SA, scored heavily in WI and only struggled in the tough English pitches in the 50s, were most did so.
Click to expand...
The rough English pitches were the only real challenge. The WI was a concrete paradise vs initially not the very best attacks, SA, weren't that much of a challenge either.

I know some players have the allure of greatness and we love all rounders here but Miller wasn't that good a batsman.

I've said this before and I will again. Of his 7 hundreds, 3 was in one series that got Walcott branded a FTB, while facing a much better bowling attack mind you.

I can't believe that there has to be an argument that averaging 36 in that era, against those bowlers while plundering the WI, isn't a good batting performance.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
kyear2 said:
The rough English pitches were the only real challenge. The WI was a concrete paradise vs initially not the very best attacks, SA, weren't that much of a challenge either.

I know some players have the allure of greatness and we love all rounders here but Miller wasn't that good a batsman.

I've said this before and I will again. Of his 7 hundreds, 3 was in one series that got Walcott branded a FTB, while facing a much better bowling attack mind you.

I can't believe that there has to be an argument that averaging 36 in that era, against those bowlers while plundering the WI, isn't a good batting performance.
Click to expand...
And I can't see why they were so bad when only did bad in one country where batsmen as good as Harvey, Weekes, Walcott and Worrell were also thrash. Overall, he was far from a great batsman, but was good for the most part.
 
B

Bolo.

International Captain
kyear2 said:
Not remotely the case. But believe what you will.

And that's your concession.

If one is critically important and one not even remotely so, it's not even a discussion. This one veet much is.

And we can keep going. Is SA giving up Steyn for Imran if it means giving up Kallis's and Smith' s catching. The catching was way more important to their success.

And to take it to your extreme, in an ATG scenario, which would a SA ATG team give up if they had to chose. Pollock's lower order batting or the catching of Kallis and Smith. In a heart beat it would be Pollock's batting.

The funny and crazy thing is, and I noted this in the tour thread when India was playing England. Sunny was saying that how great it was to have two young batsmen who were also great catchers in the slips, and he went through the names. And noted how crucial and underrated a skill it was and how it had hurt the team is the past.

But somehow it's the most crazy concept to accept here.
Click to expand...
Why do you rate Smith so highly as a slip?

From my (plenty) times of watching him, I got the impression he had really good hands. Almost, but not quite, elite in terms of taking sitters. He was so slow though. Couldn't get to anything that wasn't coming to him.

I reckon he was definitely above average as a first slip, but not something I would comment on. As a second slip, I reckon he would would have been solidly Mediocre.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Bolo. said:
Why do you rate Smith so highly as a slip?

From my (plenty) times of watching him, I got the impression he had really good hands. Almost, but not quite, elite in terms of taking sitters. He was so slow though. Couldn't get to anything that wasn't coming to him.

I reckon he was definitely above average as a first slip, but not something I would comment on. As a second slip, I reckon he would would have been solidly Mediocre.
Click to expand...
@kyear2 was forced to walk back his claim that Smith was an elite slip fielder when him regularly shelling catches was admitted. Which kind of blows a hole in how he assess slip catching to begin with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top