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

[Coronis]

Well um yeah.. I think this discussion over what constitutes a good batsmen is very yeah subjective. I think a lot of our perceptions on here are greatly biased due to how much we focus on ATG discussion. Depending on the country our perceptions are also going to be warped because of past or present players. Its a much tougher label to decide upon than ATG imo.

 

[ataraxia]

On a really random aside, maybe this is an opinion warped by watching county highlights on slow English decks but for pacers I think that 1st slip is so much less than important than 2nd slip it isn't even funny. The job of a 1st slip is to concentrate and settle under dollies, especially throughout history when slip spacing was less than it is now (which is btw a terrible take of mine given Bob Simpson 2 catches per match).

Not necessarily of relevance to this discussion to be clear.

 

[Coronis]

On a really random aside, maybe this is an opinion warped by watching county highlights on slow English decks but for pacers I think that 1st slip is so much less than important than 2nd slip it isn't even funny. The job of a 1st slip is to concentrate and settle under dollies, especially throughout history when slip spacing was less than it is now (which is btw a terrible take of mine given Bob Simpson 2 catches per match).

Not necessarily of relevance to this discussion to be clear.

I’m sure someone’s done analysis in recent years on which slip takes more catches off pacers.

 

[kyear2]

Trumper - Ponsford
Don, Chappell, Smith
Miller, Gilly, Davidson
Warne, Lillee, McGrath

Miller Bats at 6

Any issues with that?

Yes, as a batsman he's not good enough to make the team. Period.

 

[kyear2]

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.

Worrell wasn't trash there, but that's another story. But I referenced that in my post citing that's why they are called FTB, Walcott specifically.
I mentioned a few months ago that's why I didn't consider them ATGs either, and was also argued with about that as well.

Good enough for the most part doesn't make in into a team ahead of genuine ATGs like Border, especially when it's for a minimum role such as being the 5th bowler in an attack, where he isn't getting the same conditions he got where he played, ie getting the ****ing new ball. And he barely wanted to do that.
He batted slower than Kallis, and not nearly as well, he primarily bowled short spurts with the new ball and from memory bowled less than Lindwall and Johnston. How is this person an automatic choice for a team where he clearly weaken the batting and throws off the balance for no reason.

But we'll see the next time we make an AT Aus XI.

As you said, agree to vigorously disagree.

 

[kyear2]

Miller averages 40+ at 5

All still the middle order.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Worrell wasn't trash there, but that's another story. But I referenced that in my post citing that's why they are called FTB, Walcott specifically.
I mentioned a few months ago that's why I didn't consider them ATGs either, and was also argued with about that as well.

Good enough for the most part doesn't make in into a team ahead of genuine ATGs like Border, especially when it's for a minimum role such as being the 5th bowler in an attack, where he isn't getting the same conditions he got where he played, ie getting the ****ing new ball. And he barely wanted to do that.
He batted slower than Kallis, and not nearly as well, he primarily bowled short spurts with the new ball and from memory bowled less than Lindwall and Johnston. How is this person an automatic choice for a team where he clearly weaken the batting and throws off the balance for no reason.

But we'll see the next time we make an AT Aus XI.

As you said, agree to vigorously disagree.

I mean, he is the kind of bowler excelling in short spurts I would like in my ATG team. What I really find strange is having Botham in English team but losing **** over Miller in the Australian one.

 

[kyear2]

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.

Graeme Smith? And he spent his career at 1st next the Kallis who was superb at 2nd.

I'm lost.

 

[kyear2]

@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.

Where did I walk back anything. You love to create narratives in your head.

I said yes, he has drops, too many, but he also catches stuff no one else can. Hence he was a difficult one to rate. Never made the top 10 list and you're referring one single post from 5 years ago.

Give it a rest.

And it's also apparent we are talking about two different Smiths, but you live to jump don't you.

 

[kyear2]

Well um yeah.. I think this discussion over what constitutes a good batsmen is very yeah subjective. I think a lot of our perceptions on here are greatly biased due to how much we focus on ATG discussion. Depending on the country our perceptions are also going to be warped because of past or present players. Its a much tougher label to decide upon than ATG imo.

Yes, tbh a mid thirties averaging batsman was one on the periphery on a good team, not even referencing anything ATG. I personally don't think ours right now is even a decent 1st class one.

But when we look at the era, it's difficult to suggest that averaging 35 qualified as good. He got leeway because of the war, his bowling, potential and his persona.

Again, that's my perspective and opinion.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Yes, as a batsman he's not good enough to make the team. Period.

I selected him as 5th bowler who can bat, and there is no one better in that role.

 

[h_hurricane]

I do not get all the Miller scrutiny here. 23 with the ball and 37 with the bat is a mighty fine cricketer. May be he is a little worse than that bowling average suggests due to workload criteria, but Australia will happily take him in their ATG team, so will most others. Most teams need a 5th bowler and he gives you that role perfectly.

 

[kyear2]

On a really random aside, maybe this is an opinion warped by watching county highlights on slow English decks but for pacers I think that 1st slip is so much less than important than 2nd slip it isn't even funny. The job of a 1st slip is to concentrate and settle under dollies, especially throughout history when slip spacing was less than it is now (which is btw a terrible take of mine given Bob Simpson 2 catches per match).

Not necessarily of relevance to this discussion to be clear.

Yeah, I think I've mentioned that quite a bit.

@Coronis made a good point about the shirting focus over time from the best batsman being openers to coming in at 3 or 4, there was also a shift of focus from pace to spin and finally in importance from 1st to 2nd slip.

2nd is the premium position which gets the most and more difficult chances and where your elite guy now fields, unlike earlier for guys like Hammond and Simpson. That's why I rate them much higher than quality ones at 1st. The only modern great to buck that really was Taylor, well and the other two spin specialists.

 

[kyear2]

I mean, he is the kind of bowler excelling in short spurts I would like in my ATG team. What I really find strange is having Botham in English team but losing **** over Miller in the Australian one.

Oh ****, I've answered this so many times

England's ATG team isn't very deep and there's no better option. He makes it by default. He doesn't for you because you include players I don't even consider.

Australia has a **** ton of options and he sticks out like a sore thumb among the available options. He isn't nearly the batsmen the others are.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Oh ****, I've answered this so many times

England's ATG team isn't very deep and there's no better option. He makes it by default. He doesn't for you because you include players I don't even consider.

Australia has a **** ton of options and he sticks out like a sore thumb among the available options. He isn't nearly the batsmen the others are.

Denis Compton-Peter May-Kevin Pietersen-Colin Cowdrey; without considering players you don't consider really.
Last time I checked every single one of them was a better batting option than Botham.

 

[subshakerz]

I do not get all the Miller scrutiny here. 23 with the ball and 37 with the bat is a mighty fine cricketer. May be he is a little worse than that bowling average suggests due to workload criteria, but Australia will happily take him in their ATG team, so will most others. Most teams need a 5th bowler and he gives you that role perfectly.

This is my suspicion as well. Aus would find a way to fit him in.

Even Ponting admitted that Flintoff would be the cricketer he would want in his Aus team after 2005.

 

[Coronis]

This is my suspicion as well. Aus would find a way to fit him in.

Even Ponting admitted that Flintoff would be the cricketer he would want in his Aus team after 2005.

Pontings an idiot then.

 

[Bolo.]

Graeme Smith? And he spent his career at 1st next the Kallis who was superb at 2nd.

I'm lost.

Graeme smith, yes.

I mean that if he had had a more difficult position, like second slip, his shortcomings would have been more apparent.

 

[Socerer 01]

Pontings an idiot then.

honestly i get the craze from his perspective

whats an extra batsman averaging 40 and above doing for you that the 5 before him wouldnt have already done especially when you have a great batsman donning the gloves? maybe arrest a collapse that happens once in a while

on the other hand an all rounder on top of his confidence and the world like Flintoff was from 2004-2006 would win you a match per series with the bat or the ball and offer so much flexibility when you’re bowling and from a team selection perspective. the only test India won in 2018 in England was on the back of Hardik of all people and he’s nothing more than an above average test all rounder at best

i have noticed all rounders be unfairly maligned for not having pretty stats by the nerds here too often but their value is more than numbers like PEWS mentioned somewhere. almost every test captain or coach now has tried to include one in their test team whenever they have that option for a reason

 

[kyear2]

Denis Compton-Peter May-Kevin Pietersen-Colin Cowdrey; without considering players you don't consider really.
Last time I checked every single one of them was a better batting option than Botham.

Not a huge fan of the 50's guys who did their best to kill the game. KP seems to have lost favor, though with the guys above him, he's a viable and possibly best option.