The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[capt_Luffy]

Yes, yes they should, never disagreed with that, and I have that covered with Marshall and Warne. That's 8 and 9, and both have records of saving or winning matches for their team with the bat, and for the best two teams in history at that. Sounds quite good enough to me.

I don't need the best ever batsman that kept wicket, that's Flower or deVilliers. I don't need the absolute best slip fielders, that's Hammond and Simpson (though both are close), and don't need the absolute best lower order batsmen who bowl (Imran and Pollock, though, and I can't stress this enough, Imran is in the ****ing squad while the others referenced aren't). Balance, and despite what you think, consistency.

Guys like Sobers and Hadlee thread the needle of being good enough to brilliant at the secondary while being ATG top tier in the primary. Gilchrist hits that 50 / 50 split in literally an all-rounder spot, and that's why it's not even a question or a debate for a position that hasn't been selected purely on keeping skills in decades.

But keep up the bad faith arguments, again this started out as me simply saying show me where Imran was better than Steyn and a better bowling for for the team.

Red just posted a while 18 man squad and didn't have Imran in it, but you will focus on me, lol. . He's not the no discussion lock that some on the forum believe him to be.

We are focusing on you because of your contradictory nature. We all showed you where Imran was more beneficiary than Steyn. And you just went he won't make a dent at 8 if the top order fails. While simultaneously picking Gilchrist because his superior batting over Knott and Healy at 7. That's contradictory. That's the problem. Red wasn't the one asking for explanation on Steyn over Imran. You where. Marshall and Warne aren't World Class 8 & 9, Imran is.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Kyear is perfectly fine picking Gilchrist as keeper over Knott or whoever while also maintaining slip fielding is important because Gilchrist was a perfectly fine keeper.

Keeping to Warne and MacGill is a more difficult keeping job than anyone’s had since OReilly and Grimmett were going.

No one is questioning his competence, but Spin it any way you want, he isn't a better keeper than Healy, Knott, Oldfield or Evans. If he truly believes Imran's batting won't make a difference if top order fails, he should hold that for Gilly as well.

 

[capt_Luffy]

You guys are hilarious.

Ames was among the first chosen with batting in mind, but guess he was after Gilly. Engineer was also a quality bat.

We just had this conversation re keepers. My only disagreement with you was that the weighting should be different, but it is most definitely an all rounder position.

And I also said no way in hell am I taking Flower over someone like Knott. Also further added that's why guys like Gilly and Sobers are as highly rated because it requires zero to minimal sacrifices to slot them in. He was a cheat code for Australia while brilliantly handling Warne.

And Billy Barnes was selected with his batting in mind as a front line bowler.

 

[subshakerz]

Kyear is perfectly fine picking Gilchrist as keeper over Knott or whoever while also maintaining slip fielding is important because Gilchrist was a perfectly fine keeper.

Keeping to Warne and MacGill is a more difficult keeping job than anyone’s had since OReilly and Grimmett were going.

Imran is a perfectly fine bowler. Doesn't stop Kyear from insisting that he isn't good enough and that his runs don't make up for it. Being in the top tier in your specialisation as a prerequisite for selection in a ATG XI has been his argument for a long time except when it comes to cricketers he doesn't want to exclude, then he changes the rules.

 

[Red]

No one is questioning his competence, but Spin it any way you want, he isn't a better keeper than Healy, Knott, Oldfield or Evans. If he truly believes Imran's batting won't make a difference if top order fails, he should hold that for Gilly as well.

Who’s argued he’s a better keeper than the guys you mentioned? However, I saw most of Healy’s career, and all of Gilchrist’s, and I can’t recall seeing anything in their keeping vastly disparate (Gilchrist did drop a few at the very end but you expect that).

We’re also discussing the #7 position vs the #8 position. So by nature it’s diminishing returns. At #8 Imran might be able to sustain a slightly better partnership for longer than others, but tbh I don’t think it’s going to be much more valuable at #8 than Hadlee or Wasim would be, or even Warne or Marshall.

Finally, whatever. If you saw Gilchrist play, you want him in your team at #7. If he wasn’t a keeper, you’d consider having him in the top six.

 

[Red]

Fwiw Imran and Hadlee’s records at #7 and #8 are virtually identical

 

[subshakerz]

Who’s argued he’s a better keeper than the guys you mentioned? However, I saw most of Healy’s career, and all of Gilchrist’s, and I can’t recall seeing anything in their keeping vastly disparate (Gilchrist did drop a few at the very end but you expect that).

Gilly was a great keeper but Healy was elite, sharper, safer and near flawless with Warne. Of course we can disagree.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Who’s argued he’s a better keeper than the guys you mentioned? However, I saw most of Healy’s career, and all of Gilchrist’s, and I can’t recall seeing anything in their keeping vastly disparate (Gilchrist did drop a few at the very end but you expect that).

We’re also discussing the #7 position vs the #8 position. So by nature it’s diminishing returns. At #8 Imran might be able to sustain a slightly better partnership for longer than others, but tbh I don’t think it’s going to be much more valuable at #8 than Hadlee or Wasim would be, or even Warne or Marshall.

Finally, whatever. If you saw Gilchrist play, you want him in your team at #7. If he wasn’t a keeper, you’d consider having him in the top six.

If Gilly wasn't a keeper I definitely won't consider him for my ATG team. Imran averages 37 with the bat, Warne 17. That's a much bigger jump. Batting down at 8 all of a sudden doesn't makes the runs you make less significant than while batting at 7. Having Imran over Marshall at 8 is an equal upgrade to having Gilchrist for Knott at 7. Steyn isn't contributing much with the bat consistently, Imran is. And I am not the one asking the other party to explain their stance really. I only responded for the contradiction.
I think most good keepers doesn't drops much, but their ability of stumping, tidiness and grabbing half chances makes some better than others.

 

[subshakerz]

Fwiw Imran and Hadlee’s records at #7 and #8 are virtually identical

Only because as Imran became a better bat he moved up the order rather than stay at no 8.

 

[subshakerz]

I have a brilliant keeper and a brilliant cordon. Show me where in Gilly's prime where he struggled with Warne, or Lee or McGrath for that matter.

Wait now the requirement is to simply have a 'brilliant' cordon? What happened to elite cordon? You think we won't notice these deliberate changes in language as you shift goalposts?

The wicketkeeper skill is by it's nature and has been for decades, an all rounder position, I've never questioned that. Where I draw the line is where the keeping isn't up to standard, Flower isn't an option, neither would Dhoni be for me, I don't even use deVilliers for SA, preferring Cameron.

Do you want us to quote you the numbers of time you have insisted on only elite specialisation quality for your ATG XI? Now you can suffice with anything that is above standard? What?

Also, if someone decided that they wanted to use Knott, no issues. Same way Imran, no issues, it's not my preference but he isn't at the level of say Miller for me, that's not justifiable imo.

You've dedicated entire threads to justify Imran's exclusion. Stop backpedaling.

All I said is show me how Imran was better than Steyn and it's degenerated into this Cluster****. Gilchrist is all but a unanimous choice for everyone, doesn't in the least impact how I feel about my slip fielding or how I would select my bowlers. Stop conflating unrelated issues.

You justifying Gilly is clearly connected to the criteria you have laid out to justify excluding others.

Guys like Sobers and Hadlee thread the needle of being good enough to brilliant at the secondary while being ATG top tier in the primary. Gilchrist hits that 50 / 50 split in literally an all-rounder spot, and that's why it's not even a question or a debate for a position that hasn't been selected purely on keeping skills in decades.

You don't see that contradiction?

You specifically cite Sobers and Hadlee as being ATG top tier in their primary skills while Gilly is clearly not, despite how important you have made having elite catchers behind the wicket.

 

[subshakerz]

And I am not the one asking the other party to explain their stance really. I only responded for the contradiction.

It clearly is a glaring contradiction in @kyear2s method. Yet knowing him he will never admit it but being some new red herring to derail the conversation.

 

[kyear2]

Imran is a perfectly fine bowler. Doesn't stop Kyear from insisting that he isn't good enough and that his runs don't make up for it. Being in the top tier in your specialisation as a prerequisite for selection in a ATG XI has been his argument for a long time except when it comes to cricketers he doesn't want to exclude, then he changes the rules.

Yes Imran is a perfectly fine bowler, when have I said he wasn't. What I've said is that he isn't one of the four best bowlers, in such a high end scenario, "I" want the best bowlers. Am I allowed to have a preference of how I create my made up fantasy team?This is also the take of about half the persons on the forum, yet you want to believe it's just me.

Gilchrist during his prime, didn't drop anything, he wasn't Healy (no one was that dick, he was a modern genius), but he didn't cost his team either. This is a false argument because you don't have a non emotional one. Hence why I didn't ask you to begin with, it's never productive and goes in circles not to add the multiple strawmen you build, this one is a doozy though.

The no. 7 batsman and slot is literally an all rounder position, I've never said it wasn't and it's not like I'm chosing Flower, that is the scenario when you can say "gotcha". This is the only position where you factor in two elements to this extent.

Your argument is extremely disingenuous and kinda desperate tbh.

 

[kyear2]

Wait now the requirement is to simply have a 'brilliant' cordon? What happened to elite cordon? You think we won't notice these deliberate changes in language as you shift goalposts?


Do you want us to quote you the numbers of time you have insisted on only elite specialisation quality for your ATG XI? Now you can suffice with anything that is above standard? What?


You've dedicated entire threads to justify Imran's exclusion. Stop backpedaling.


You justifying Gilly is clearly connected to the criteria you have laid out to justify excluding others.



You don't see that contradiction?

You specifically cite Sobers and Hadlee as being ATG top tier in their primary skills while Gilly is clearly not, despite how important you have made having elite catchers behind the wicket.

I'm not planning to respond to either of u anymore on this topic, but Jos one was special.

So let me be clear, the cordon I've chosen with Richards at 1st, Sobers at 2nd and Richards at 3rd is brilliant, and elite, and Hammond or Simpson aside for 1st, (Ponting possibly at 3rd) the best cordon one can put together from ATG batsmen.

Now I could drop Tendulkar for Hammond if I followed your philosophy, close enough batsman, best option for 1st and an additional options with the ball to supplement Sobers. But I don't.

Though it does make sense doesn't it.

But yeah, Barry was a first rate performer at 1st, Sobers was top 5 all time in the cordon and IVA was brilliant at 3rd in the 70's. So yes, elite.

 

[kyear2]

It clearly is a glaring contradiction in @kyear2s method. Yet knowing him he will never admit it but being some new red herring to derail the conversation.

The only fed herring is bringing up Gilchrist.

The question was, was Imran a better bowler than Steyn, which never got off the ground and ended up in this mess.

Your argument is basically, maybe no he wasn't but the batting was worth it.

I think Steyn with his strike rate, aggression, ridiculous swing with old ball and new, dominance if his era and insane record in India shows me he brings enough to the table to make a difference.

Hence we disagree and anyone else can make their argument.


Is it a perfect pick? No, and there isn't one, hence why there is a discussion and there's 4 people viable for the spot.

Hadlee is the next best bowler, a good bat and was quite successful in his career without reverse. He may be the best option that covers almost all bases and was accostomed to long spells.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes Imran is a perfectly fine bowler, when have I said he wasn't. What I've said is that he isn't one of the four best bowlers, in such a high end scenario, "I" want the best bowlers. Am I allowed to have a preference of how I create my made up fantasy team?This is also the take of about half the persons on the forum, yet you want to believe it's just me.

Gilchrist during his prime, didn't drop anything, he wasn't Healy (no one was that dick, he was a modern genius), but he didn't cost his team either. This is a false argument because you don't have a non emotional one. Hence why I didn't ask you to begin with, it's never productive and goes in circles not to add the multiple strawmen you build, this one is a doozy though.

The no. 7 batsman and slot is literally an all rounder position, I've never said it wasn't and it's not like I'm chosing Flower, that is the scenario when you can say "gotcha". This is the only position where you factor in two elements to this extent.

Your argument is extremely disingenuous and kinda desperate tbh.

I'm not planning to respond to either of u anymore on this topic, but Jos one was special.

So let me be clear, the cordon I've chosen with Richards at 1st, Sobers at 2nd and Richards at 3rd is brilliant, and elite, and Hammond or Simpson aside for 1st, (Ponting possibly at 3rd) the best cordon one can put together from ATG batsmen.

Now I could drop Tendulkar for Hammond if I followed your philosophy, close enough batsman, best option for 1st and an additional options with the ball to supplement Sobers. But I don't.

Though it does make sense doesn't it.

But yeah, Barry was a first rate performer at 1st, Sobers was top 5 all time in the cordon and IVA was brilliant at 3rd in the 70's. So yes, elite.

The only fed herring is bringing up Gilchrist.

The question was, was Imran a better bowler than Steyn, which never got off the ground and ended up in this mess.

Your argument is basically, maybe no he wasn't but the batting was worth it.

I think Steyn with his strike rate, aggression, ridiculous swing with old ball and new, dominance if his era and insane record in India shows me he brings enough to the table to make a difference.

Hence we disagree and anyone else can make their argument.


Is it a perfect pick? No, and there isn't one, hence why there is a discussion and there's 4 people viable for the spot.

Hadlee is the next best bowler, a good bat and was quite successful in his career without reverse. He may be the best option that covers almost all bases and was accostomed to long spells.

Just want to point out, @kyear2 gives a lot of dross in these responses but never actually addresses the argument as is his way.

Why doesn't the ATG specialisation requirement, which he has reiterated time and again, apply to Gilly and wicketkeeping skills in an ATG XI? Why is he suddenly okay with exchanging top tier skill for AR secondary skills like runs, but not so for others?

Instead we just get him repeating everything he has said before. And we know why, because he has clearly been caught stonecold in a contradiction that is obvious.

 

[Red]

Only because as Imran became a better bat he moved up the order rather than stay at no 8.

Sure, but in this scenario he’s batting at #8. And I’m quite sure the point Kyear is making is that #8 isn’t generally considered an all rounder position. You might disagree, which is fine. But I’m not sure it’s worth the pile on he’s copping here from multiple people.

My opinion has always been your #8 should be at least a competent tail ender. Imran is the best batsmen of the options, sure. But he’s hardly being disingenuous by picking Gilchrist at #7, over guys who might be slightly better keepers, then wanting to pick who he considers the absolute best 4 bowlers from #8-#11, in at ATG team

As it happens, you can pick Wasim or Hadlee at #8, both were considered near all rounders or bowling all rounders, or whatever. There’s others like Lindwall, Davidson or Kapil who would provide similar batting at #8.

Or you can pick Imran.

Tbh picking Marshall and Warne (which most do) gives you at least two guys in the lower order who are handy lower order batsmen, able to stick around with recognised batsmen and contribute runs themselves.

It’s all dependant on how you view an ATG XI. For me there’s a difference between selecting guys who were the absolute best in a skill (batting, bowling, keeping) and selecting a team you think would win. Or you can mix those two if you like, cos it’s your team.

In short, I’m unsure why Kyear is getting piled on here lol

 

[subshakerz]

Sure, but in this scenario he’s batting at #8. And I’m quite sure the point Kyear is making is that #8 isn’t generally considered an all rounder position. You might disagree, which is fine. But I’m not sure it’s worth the pile on he’s copping here from multiple people.

The issue isn't really number 8 position. It is inconsistency regarding Kyear's take on all-rounders, where he has said:

The best all rounders are the ones who can make it purely on their primary skills without drop off, then the rest is the icing.

He has made it clear that in ATG XI, members should have ATG skills in their primary discipline, the reason he has removed Miller from consideration. He has also stressed repeatedly the need to have the best catchers behind the wicket among the options you have. None of this accords with selecting Gilchrist.

 

[Coronis]

The issue isn't really number 8 position. It is inconsistency regarding Kyear's take on all-rounders, where he has said:



He has made it clear that in ATG XI, members should have ATG skills in their primary discipline, the reason he has removed Miller from consideration. He has also stressed repeatedly the need to have the best catchers behind the wicket among the options you have. None of this accords with selecting Gilchrist.

Hasn’t he said multiple times that keeping is an inherently allround position, and has been so for years? If so, that makes perfect sense, he’s picking the keeper-batsman as an AR and he’s picking his number 8 as a bowler, not an AR.

Anyway I pretty much completely agree with @Red here.

Also yeah um, we just kind of redirected from a pretty poor loop in here, this Imran nonsense being rehashed again between you two is ass. Just agree to disagree, neither of your opinions on this will ever change.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Hasn’t he said multiple times that keeping is an inherently allround position, and has been so for years? If so, that makes perfect sense, he’s picking the keeper-batsman as an AR and he’s picking his number 8 as a bowler, not an AR.

Anyway I pretty much completely agree with @Red here.

Also yeah um, we just kind of redirected from a pretty poor loop in here, this Imran nonsense being rehashed again between you two is ass. Just agree to disagree, neither of your opinions on this will ever change.

I really don't have a problem with Kyear including Steyn over Imran in his ATG side, it's his team and I also rate Steyn as a marginally better bowler. What I have problem with is him literally asking people for reasons on including Imran, people giving those reasons and him disregarding them completely. "No 8 is not an allrounder position" Is ass; just take the team you feel will let you win. If that means you have more confidence in Steyn over Imran, be my guest; but don't question others for taking Imran.

 

[subshakerz]

Hasn’t he said multiple times that keeping is an inherently allround position, and has been so for years? If so, that makes perfect sense, he’s picking the keeper-batsman as an AR and he’s picking his number 8 as a bowler, not an AR.

Understood but we are contesting based on his stated view on ARs, where he has stated multiple times that primary top tier disciplines trumps secondary ones to merit consideration for an ATG side.