The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[kyear2]

My grandfather used to tell me this whenever we watched cricket..

“Gilchrist is great, he bats like a great batsman but he also keeps like a great wicketkeeper”

Never saw anything to contradict that throughout his career.

Yeah, there's no compromise and for a position that's literally selected on all round ability he really is the best option.
Knott is no slouch easier and deserving of mention and even of selection.

But Gilly didn't drop anything, this entire angle of attack and baseless argument was pointless and without merit.

Gilly is one of about 6 locks in an AT XI, and possibly the 4th name written down.

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

Appreciated Red.

I look at it as a team that would take the field and succeed, how I would go about it if I was the chairman of selectors and taking into account any potential opposition to be faced.

That's the only reason Hadlee isn't the simple straight forward choice (the reverse issue) and also why I factor in a cordon, because that's how it's done in reality. Want a complete and competitive team.

For me there are 6 names that are absolute locks, and this has been borne out in our voting as well.

Hobbs, Bradman, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, Marshall.

As for my personal preferences, Richards and McGrath are non-negotiable. That just leaves 3 and I have Warne slightly ahead of Murali, plus he brings other skills to the table and already forms a formidable battery with Gilly.

That leaves 2nd opener and 1st change bowler which have always been the toughest spots to fill.
Hutton was the best, but I would prefer a more assertive batsman at the top, he still makes the squad and is a security blanket should all go to hell at the top. Barry though was possibly the only opening batsman since Hobbs who merged an attacking style with perfect technique and as a bonus was a first rate performer at slip.
Hadlee like Hutton, is the best option but with the variety consideration, especially "reverse" that beings others into the discussion. But again like Hutton he's in the squad for pure quality and he also brings added batting chops.
That brings Steyn, Imran and Wasim into consideration. Wasim has the peer rating, Imran the batting, but for me Steyn is the better of the 3 with the ball and that insane sr that comes from his non stop aggression, his ability to swing the new and old ball and his record on the flat pitches of India edges him ahead in the quest for 20 wickets.

A peerless batting line up and bowling attack, batting down to 9, the most versatile 5th bowler ever, and an elite cordon to snap up the chances.

Is it perfect? Wasim would add more variety to the bowling, Imran depth to the batting, Hadlee batting depth and bowling quality and Hammond an insurance 6th bowling option and an upgrade at 1st. But think it strikes the best balance and is surely unique with the last two sections.

 

[kyear2]

This thing where Gilly is being touted as a gotcha regarding consistency is not what the posters think it is. This is apples and oranges.

Yeah, but it's not posters, it was literally just 2.
One butt hurt, and the other, one who I've been in stark disagreement with recently, who was along for the ride.

It was disingenuous from the beginning.

 

[kyear2]

Isn't an AR effectively definitionally a compromise though? Gilchrist wouldn't make a team of this level as either a bat or a keeper. However good he was, there is an option a touch better in each department. He's just a compromise most of us are very happy to make.

If you think he's a better compromise than guys like Imran and Hadlee, groovy. Pretty sure most agree. But everyone is comproming on teams in a game without unlimited subs. If people think trading a bit of wicket taking potential for a lot of batting by playing the 'best bowlers' without regard for what else they bring, OK. But these people are only playing 4/4.5 bowlers (and usually Gilchrist). They are already trading wicket taking potential in for more runs. And it's a bad tradeoff in my book, just one that a lot of people don't recognize because they are overly attached to the idea of traditional roles and team composition.

Not sure I follow, where are they trading wicket taking potential for more runs?

So where would you differ in team comp?

 

[Qlder]

@CricketFan90s You have an opinion that you see as fact and argue against the opinions of others. Much of these arguments simply go around in circles while achieving nothing.
This thread was one of the more interesting threads in that it provided a variety of opinions and points of view. Your constant labouring of one point has become tedious and is cluttering a valuable CW thread. Time for you to take a break from your one dimensional posting.

I was so happy to read this post as definitely agree the ATG thread is one of the better threads on the forum where you can generally drop an ATG team of the day and move on...until cricketfan90's made it his own personal thread.

However, the last 5 pages have been even more painful with 3 guys arguing over value of Imran vs Steyn, Hadlee not picked because he never reverse swung the ball and the devaluation of Gilchrist because he wasn't Healy. This rubbish belongs in the player comparison forum

 

[kyear2]

I was so happy to read this post as definitely agree the ATG thread is one of the better threads on the forum where you can generally drop an ATG team of the day and move on...until cricketfan90's made it his own personal thread.

However, the last 5 pages have been even more painful with 3 guys arguing over value of Imran vs Steyn, Hadlee not picked because he never reverse swung the ball and the devaluation of Gilchrist because he wasn't Healy. This rubbish belongs in the player comparison forum

I'm not sure where I fall on the Hadlee issue tbh.

On one hand he did ridiculously well in his career without the need of reverse. And more than most he bowled deep into innings as a one man show.

The counter argument that was raised however was that in a high level contest the more weapons at your disposal the better, especially when the ball is no longer conventionally swinging.

I personally think Hadlee was phenomenal and clearly among the big three, even if I rate him third.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I was so happy to read this post as definitely agree the ATG thread is one of the better threads on the forum where you can generally drop an ATG team of the day and move on...until cricketfan90's made it his own personal thread.

However, the last 5 pages have been even more painful with 3 guys arguing over value of Imran vs Steyn, Hadlee not picked because he never reverse swung the ball and the devaluation of Gilchrist because he wasn't Healy. This rubbish belongs in the player comparison forum

Fwiw, I NEVER devalued Gilly. Just said he wasn't a keeper equal to Healy. And tbt, I have Healy in like my 12th team and Knott 6th. And Hadlee makes my ATG team.

 

[kyear2]

Fwiw, I NEVER devalued Gilly. Just said he wasn't a keeper equal to Healy. And tbt, I have Healy in like my 12th team and Knott 6th. And Hadlee makes my ATG team.

6th?

Really?

 

[capt_Luffy]

6th?

Really?

Totally. Gilly, Sanga, Walcott, ABD, Ames.

 

[Red]

Totally. Gilly, Sanga, Walcott, ABD, Ames.

Three of your top five keepers of all time only kept in about about a third of the tests they played.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Three of your top five keepers of all time only kept in about about a third of the tests they played.

I know, but they are borderline ATG batsmen and for time they kept were quite safe. That's my criteria basically, once you're a safe keep, your batting gets much more importance than additional keeping skill to me.

 

[subshakerz]

But Gilly didn't drop anything, this entire angle of attack and baseless argument was pointless and without merit.

Nobody is arguing Gilly was a dropper, just that Knott was better.

Is it perfect? Wasim would add more variety to the bowling, Imran depth to the batting, Hadlee batting depth and bowling quality and Hammond an insurance 6th bowling option and an upgrade at 1st. But think it strikes the best balance and is surely unique with the last two sections.

And Knott would be better behind the stumps.

 

[subshakerz]

the devaluation of Gilchrist because he wasn't Healy.

Maybe you had trouble following if you think anyone is devaluing Gilly. He is already in our ATG XIs.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I completely forgot @subshakerz that Kyear rates Sobers over Don as the GOAT.....

 

[subshakerz]

I completely forgot @subshakerz that Kyear rates Sobers over Don as the GOAT.....

The problem with him is that his way of showing he has lost an argument is to avoid discussing it completely.

 

[number11]

Really close to mine.

Sir John Hobbs
Barry Richards^
Sir Donald Bradman *
Sir I.V.A. Richards^
Sachin Tendulkar
Sir Garfield Sobers^ (5)
Adam Gilchrist +
Malcolm Marshall (1)
Shane Warne (2)
Dale Steyn (3)
Glenn McGrath (2)

Sir Leonard Hutton
Sir Richard Hadlee
Brian Lara
Muttiah Muralitharan

Imran Khan
Jacques Kallis
Allan Knott

18 man squad, Hammond the unlucky one to miss out. The extra bowling over Lara may have been useful, but

I dont think a fair analysis is possible for a man with only 4 tests - however well he may have done. His FC record is excellent but not a SD over other players who have had full test careers. The inconsistency of data sampling here is something mind-boggling.

 

[kyear2]

I dont think a fair analysis is possible for a man with only 4 tests - however well he may have done. His FC record is excellent but not a SD over other players who have had full test careers. The inconsistency of data sampling here is something mind-boggling.

I'm looking at the quality of the batsman, questionable? Yes. But based on everything I've seen, read and been told, I think he was the best.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I'm looking at the quality of the batsman, questionable? Yes. But based on everything I've seen, read and been told, I think he was the best.

Never proven himself in SC nor I can recall him playing many great spinners in turners. Got a lot of English media love (like Lillee, Trumper, etc) and really had a Country record on par with the likes of Glenn Turner and Zaheer Abbas.

 

[Coronis]

I'm looking at the quality of the batsman, questionable? Yes. But based on everything I've seen, read and been told, I think he was the best.

I mean, you could say the same about Grace or Barnes.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I mean, you could say the same about Grace or Barnes.

But they actually played at the highest level of their time and totally dominated there unlike Barry.....

 

[kyear2]

I mean, you could say the same about Grace or Barnes.

Yes you can. But none of us have seen either, nor has anyone else alive. And there's a question along the level of competition.

Yes, I know you hate peer reviews, so do I. And I also know you don't rate the man nor one of the referenced players, but...

When DK Lillee rates him the equal of IVA and Sobers and someone who's option I respect like @peterhrt tells me that he's one of the best 3 batsmen he's seen, along with Sobers and Tendulkar, nor to mention guys like @fredfertang etc.
He was better than GG, who was arguably the 4th best opener ever, he tested himself in the 3 most difficult counties to bat and finally, and quite frankly watching him bat.

In the early 70's he was seen as the best in the game, that's when Gavaskar was establishing his legacy and still Barry was seen as the best. His combination of technique and scoring rate is unique to only him and no matter the test, and small the sample size, he produced. WSC was a different animal and even with his limited opportunities and against the very best, he flourished.

Yes, I picked a strange hill to stake a claim on, but he was a brilliant cricketer and batsman. Not for nothing he was also a excellent slip fielder, and for me possibly based purely on quality a top 10 batsman of all time.