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

[kyear2]

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.

Yes he fits the 5th role, but is it worth the batting downgrade. For me, no.

I'll take Border every day.

 

[capt_Luffy]

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.

Every single one of them is quite a few tiers above Botham as batsmen.... Especially Compton.

 

[Coronis]

Every single one of them is quite a few tiers above Botham as batsmen.... Even Compton.

ftfy

 

[kyear2]

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

Yes they have a part to play, but I prefer to have someone where you don't have to make a compromise for, that's all. And have been consistent about that. Like one of the guys who can make the team on their batting alone, who can give me a Hammond like bowling presence. One of the bowlers who can hang around with one of our top order batsmen.

Doesn't have to be an "all rounder" per say, more flexibility.

A good team should have a little of everything, a decent 5th option, a strong cordon, and batting depth in the tail. No issues there, but has to make sense.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yes they have a part to play, but I prefer to have someone where you don't have to make a compromise for, that's all. And have been consistent about that. Like one of the guys who can make the team on their batting alone, who can give me a Hammond like bowling presence. One of the bowlers who can hang around with one of our top order batsmen.

Doesn't have to be an "all rounder" per say, more flexibility.

A good team should have a little of everything, a decent 5th option, a strong cordon, and batting depth in the tail. No issues there, but has to make sense.

Still don't understand the Botham selection though....

 

[kyear2]

Graeme smith, yes.

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

That doesn't diminish his quality at first.

But yes, the 2nd slip is way more difficult and more important, why I highlight and value them higher

 

[kyear2]

Still don't understand the Botham selection though....

England's team lack fast bowling Trueman apart, Root apart, they lack attacking batsmen. I don't love the available options, so he's viable. He wouldn't make Australia's team, wouldn't even be a consideration.

Two separate and distinct scenarios. And not that I prefer Botham, but he also had grater match winning potential.

To emphasize, neither would get a sniff at an Australian team, where it negates part of the advantage you gain from having Bradman and Gilchrist.

 

[capt_Luffy]

England's team lack fast bowling Trueman apart, Root apart, they lack attacking batsmen. I don't love the available options, so he's viable. He wouldn't make Australia's team, wouldn't even be a consideration.

Two separate and distinct scenarios. And not that I prefer Botham, but he also had grater match winning potential.

To emphasize, neither would get a sniff at an Australian team, where it negates part of the advantage you gain from having Bradman and Gilchrist.

On the contrary, England team is lacking batting as it is and picking Botham isn't solving the problem. Australia can afford Miller at 6 with Gilchrist and Don, England can't. England need a proper batsman at 6. Different scenarios definitely, but an allrounder is less viable for England than Australia. You could make Pietersen bat their or if you need a fast bowler take Larwood Or Snow, but Botham at 6 followed by Knott makes the batting too poor for that standard.

 

[Bolo.]

That doesn't diminish his quality at first.

But yes, the 2nd slip is way more difficult and more important, why I highlight and value them higher

Not exactly what I mean.

I'm saying his weaknesses as a slip were somewhat masked by fielding in an easier position. Safe hands is by far the most important thing at 1st, but you do need to move sometimes, and he was poor at that.

 

[kyear2]

Not exactly what I mean.

I'm saying his weaknesses as a slip were somewhat masked by fielding in an easier position. Safe hands is by far the most important thing at 1st, but you do need to move sometimes, and he was poor at that.

I'm not arguing. He wasn't near the slip that Kallis was. He did have safe hands though and was adept at moving forward, two key aspects of the job there. He wasn't a Kallis or Sobers though, not close.

 

[kyear2]

On the contrary, England team is lacking batting as it is and picking Botham isn't solving the problem. Australia can afford Miller at 6 with Gilchrist and Don, England can't. England need a proper batsman at 6. Different scenarios definitely, but an allrounder is less viable for England than Australia. You could make Pietersen bat their or if you need a fast bowler take Larwood Or Snow, but Botham at 6 followed by Knott makes the batting too poor for that standard.

Re Miller, it negates that advantage. But we've done that already.

I agree the England situation isn't ideal. They lack middle order bats and top tier pacers, Botham is a poor attempt to cover both.

Let me be clear, he isn't a good choice, may not even be the choice, but top end options are limited.

Hobbs
Hutton
Hammond
Root
Barrington
Pieterson
Knott
Verity
Trueman
Tyson
Anderson

That's probably the best available combination.

Not happy with any aspect of the team past the top 3 and the opening bowlers, and that's basically at home..

 

[capt_Luffy]

Re Miller, it negates that advantage. But we've done that already.

I agree the England situation isn't ideal. They lack middle order bats and top tier pacers, Botham is a poor attempt to cover both.

Let me be clear, he isn't a good choice, may not even be the choice, but top end options are limited.

Hobbs
Hutton
Hammond
Root
Barrington
Pieterson
Knott
Verity
Trueman
Tyson
Anderson

That's probably the best available combination.

Not happy with any aspect of the team past the top 3 and the opening bowlers, and that's basically at home..

Not counting Grace, Ranji and Barnes (for some reason) :

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hutton
Hammond
Root
Compton
Ames
Larwood
Trueman
Laker
Anderson

Or

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hutton
Hammond
Root
Botham
Rhodes
Ames
Larwood
Trueman
Anderson

Anyways, the point being if Botham is viable for England, then so is Miller for Australia.

 

[kyear2]

Not counting Grace, Ranji and Barnes (for some reason) :

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hutton
Hammond
Root
Compton
Ames
Larwood
Trueman
Laker
Anderson

Or

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hutton
Hammond
Root
Botham
Rhodes
Ames
Larwood
Trueman
Anderson

Anyways, the point being if Botham is viable for England, then so is Miller for Australia.

The accumulative strike rate of the first team is literally incapable of winning matches... Hutton is spectacularly unsuited for the no. 3 position and him and Sutcliffe at the crease and my God. Only Young Hobbs and Root capable of pushing the rate and not allowing the bowlers to dictate to them.

I'm not impressed by any of the England spinners, and Verity dismissed Bradman a couple times and also could bat a bit, so him. Tyson was probably better than Larwood, but .

 

[kyear2]

Not counting Grace, Ranji and Barnes (for some reason) :

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hutton
Hammond
Root
Compton
Ames
Larwood
Trueman
Laker
Anderson

Or

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hutton
Hammond
Root
Botham
Rhodes
Ames
Larwood
Trueman
Anderson

Anyways, the point being if Botham is viable for England, then so is Miller for Australia.

Neither are viable.

You have a test team tomorrow with an excellent bowling line up, you're going to weaken your batting for a fifth that will hardly bowl? When you have a guy like Border available and 3 viable alternative bowling options already?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Neither are viable.

You have a test team tomorrow with an excellent bowling line up, you're going to weaken your batting for a fifth that will hardly bowl? When you have a guy like Border available and 3 viable alternative bowling options already?

But you were putting Botham till like 5 minutes ago....

 

[kyear2]

But you were putting Botham till like 5 minutes ago....

JC

And I said why from the beginning. Neither are ideal, England's team isn't that good. I also said neither would have made Australia's team. Neither are good enough.

Neither are, were or will be viable in my mind.

 

[capt_Luffy]

JC

And I said why from the beginning. Neither are ideal, England's team isn't that good. I also said neither would have made Australia's team. Neither are good enough.

Neither are, were or will be viable in my mind.

I am just saying Botham was in fact viable in your mind....

 

[peterhrt]

Not counting Grace, Ranji and Barnes (for some reason) :

There has been talk during the past few days about the rarity of undisputed boxing champions. Grace, Ranji and Barnes are among the few batsmen and bowlers considered the undisputed best in their own day. Undisputed meaning virtually everybody acknowledged them as the best at the time, with the period at the top being a minimum of a couple of years or so.

Other batsmen in this category before 1940 would be Trumper, Hobbs and Bradman. After that it becomes tricky as more countries produce high-class cricketers. My own view is that only four batsmen qualify since: Barry Richards, Viv Richards, Lara and Tendulkar.

Without trying to reignite the Barry Richards debate, the general perception between 1970 and 1975 was that he had no serious rivals, even if a few South Africans still preferred Pollock. In 1975 The Daily Telegraph selected its current World XI. Richards was first name on the teamsheet, opening with Barlow. Procter would have been picked had he been fit. Boycott was excluded from consideration because he had opted out of Test cricket. In England at least, the South Africans were still regarded as current internationals and it was thought they might be back soon. The Gleneagles Agreement put paid to that.

Any reservations about Richards were not about lack of Tests, but that he could get bored scoring easy runs and give his wicket away. Also that he was too fond of money. During the season in Australia he was on a dollar a run and averaged over a hundred. No gifting his wicket then.

Some English writers liked to divide up the 1950s between Hutton and May. Neither was undisputed leader for any length of time, with challenges from the Three Ws, Harvey and latterly Sobers.

Looking back now, many would give the 1960s in their entirety to Sobers. Some did then, but not everyone. As early as 1960-61, opposing captain Benaud said Kanhai was the world's best batsman. Several shared his view up to and including 1965. When Sobers pulled clear of Kanhai in 1966, another challenger had arrived in Graeme Pollock. At the turn of the new year in 1967, Pollock played an innings of 209 against Australia at Newlands entirely off the back foot due to injury. Reporting for The Cricketer, Michael Melford proclaimed Pollock the world's leading batsman and several Australians agreed. Bradman placed him ahead of Sobers.

Nobody since Tendulkar fits the bill. A few years ago six Sky Sports commentators debated the relative merits of the so-called Fab Four and couldn't agree. None placed Steve Smith first, not even Warne who went for Kohli. Botham put Smith last.

There seem to have been even fewer undisputed best bowlers during their own time. Perhaps only four: Spofforth, Barnes, O'Reilly and Lindwall.

 

[Socerer 01]

After that it becomes tricky as more countries produce high-class cricketers.

Nobody since Tendulkar fits the bill. A few years ago six Sky Sports commentators debated the relative merits of the so-called Fab Four and couldn't agree. None placed Steve Smith first, not even Warne who went for Kohli. Botham put Smith last.

point no 1 is why i think nostalgia jerking is objectively wrong, its harder to standout as an “atg” or player of rarefied quality that has writers jizzing in their pants to the point of writing ****** love poems in modern day cricket when everyone is competent af

didnt watch the debate you said but i doubt it was just limited to test cricket because if it was they would be ****ing stupid to not rank Smith first by a country mile and if you dont share that opinion then idk what to say

then again maybe im expecting too much intellect from a panel that includes Shane “pick Meredith for test cricket” Warne and Ian Botham as experts

 

[capt_Luffy]

There has been talk during the past few days about the rarity of undisputed boxing champions. Grace, Ranji and Barnes are among the few batsmen and bowlers considered the undisputed best in their own day. Undisputed meaning virtually everybody acknowledged them as the best at the time, with the period at the top being a minimum of a couple of years or so.

Other batsmen in this category before 1940 would be Trumper, Hobbs and Bradman. After that it becomes tricky as more countries produce high-class cricketers. My own view is that only four batsmen qualify since: Barry Richards, Viv Richards, Lara and Tendulkar.

Without trying to reignite the Barry Richards debate, the general perception between 1970 and 1975 was that he had no serious rivals, even if a few South Africans still preferred Pollock. In 1975 The Daily Telegraph selected its current World XI. Richards was first name on the teamsheet, opening with Barlow. Procter would have been picked had he been fit. Boycott was excluded from consideration because he had opted out of Test cricket. In England at least, the South Africans were still regarded as current internationals and it was thought they might be back soon. The Gleneagles Agreement put paid to that.

Any reservations about Richards were not about lack of Tests, but that he could get bored scoring easy runs and give his wicket away. Also that he was too fond of money. During the season in Australia he was on a dollar a run and averaged over a hundred. No gifting his wicket then.

Some English writers liked to divide up the 1950s between Hutton and May. Neither was undisputed leader for any length of time, with challenges from the Three Ws, Harvey and latterly Sobers.

Looking back now, many would give the 1960s in their entirety to Sobers. Some did then, but not everyone. As early as 1960-61, opposing captain Benaud said Kanhai was the world's best batsman. Several shared his view up to and including 1965. When Sobers pulled clear of Kanhai in 1966, another challenger had arrived in Graeme Pollock. At the turn of the new year in 1967, Pollock played an innings of 209 against Australia at Newlands entirely off the back foot due to injury. Reporting for The Cricketer, Michael Melford proclaimed Pollock the world's leading batsman and several Australians agreed. Bradman placed him ahead of Sobers.

Nobody since Tendulkar fits the bill. A few years ago six Sky Sports commentators debated the relative merits of the so-called Fab Four and couldn't agree. None placed Steve Smith first, not even Warne who went for Kohli. Botham put Smith last.

There seem to have been even fewer undisputed best bowlers during their own time. Perhaps only four: Spofforth, Barnes, O'Reilly and Lindwall.

Given that all of Lara's career overlapped with Sachin's and saw heavy debate among sections of fans about boths merits and demerits, does he really qualify as undisputed best of his time?? (Given Sachin also had his late 2000s peak).