The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[kyear2]

 

[Coronis]

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.

Yet you make this one exception for this one player consistently. I just don’t understand it. Not gonna harp on it anymore, Indy is on.

 

[Bolo.]

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.

Do you think he's at least as good with the gloves as Knott, Healy etc.?

And as good with the bat as Sanga, Flower etc? Actually, do you think he's at least the 7th best bat ever?

Unless these are both yes, you are compromising in terms of trading one discipline for another. They are very small sacrifices, and good ones overall, but that's also how some people feel about particular bowlers.

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

So where would you differ in team comp?

Leaving the WK issue, if your 10 best bats are not also your 10 best bowlers, you are trading between wickets and runs. You can't play your best in both departments. Diminishing returns on the bowling mean 4-5 bowling options is a generally accepted compromise. Diminishing returns on batting barely exists though, except in terms of in relation to the extra value you could get from more bowling.

I play Hadlee and Imran instead of Mcgrath and Steyn. And I might add Miller, depending on if my goal was to create the strongest team, or simply one that is stronger than yours on paper.

 

[kyear2]

Do you think he's at least as good with the gloves as Knott, Healy etc.?

And as good with the bat as Sanga, Flower etc? Actually, do you think he's at least the 7th best bat ever?

Unless these are both yes, you are compromising in terms of trading one discipline for another. They are very small sacrifices, and good ones overall, but that's also how some people feel about particular bowlers.

Leaving the WK issue, if your 10 best bats are not also your 10 best bowlers, you are trading between wickets and runs. You can't play your best in both departments. Diminishing returns on the bowling mean 4-5 bowling options is a generally accepted compromise. Diminishing returns on batting barely exists though, except in terms of in relation to the extra value you could get from more bowling.

I play Hadlee and Imran instead of Mcgrath and Steyn. And I might add Miller, depending on if my goal was to create the strongest team, or simply one that is stronger than yours on paper.

Gilchrist kept to Warne and co without worry, coincidentally two of the bowlers he would be keeping to in this hypothetical scenario.

I would figure that this would be a common sense issue, but apparently not. The wicket keeping position is literally the only one where you're expected to be equally great in both categories. Gilchrist was the only ever who was, how is this hard. Knott comes next imho. Sanga and especially Flower isn't contemplated because, the keeping standard just wasn't good enough, so you're not sacrificing anything there, because, again you're looking at the total package. And quite frankly he didn't drop anything, so I don't see how quality with the gloves is a discussion. This is a totally manufactured issue.

The bowlers now, the main goal is to take 20 wickets, period... that's how you win matches and series. If I have two equal bowlers I will obviously lean towards the one who is the better bat as a tie break.
But for me the notion or philosophy of chosing all four of your bowlers based on their batting can only be classified as insane. You're making their primary skills the secondary consideration, for a trade off which in this scenario will likely be for minimal gain.

The other point is raising questions on over a century of selection precedent and really isn't applicable to this discussion at all, so will let that pass.

Re your last point, you're free to chose who you wish, Hadlee is top tier, and Imran was a ATG performer.
The reasons I don't are.
1) having three bowlers from the same era is such a scenario is similar to chosing all your batsmen from the 1930's or 2000's.
2) Even in that scenario, one was clearly not as good as the other two and you're chosing that option over bowlers who were not only better but dominated their era
3) While lower order batting has always been important, I'm not basing the selection of my blowing attack based on batting prowess, not when there are better options.
4) That leads into the next point where, the two greatest teams of all time made do with said Marshall and Warne at no. 8 and it wasn't a detriment, and both were capable bats who came to the rescue for their respective teams. Being in stronger batting lineups they just weren't required to step in as often.
5) which segways perfectly to my final.reasom, which is in a team featuring Hobbs, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers and the aforementioned Gilchrist, with a tail already comprising Marshall and Warne, why would I select the other two bowlers based on batting. Stronger tails always feature on teams with weaker batting lineups, particularly the middle order, and the performing batsmen are relatively close in class to the ones they are bailing out. Neither of those two scenarios are at play here. So in this instance, with the best middle order ever and against strong batting opponents, is it really out of bounds to select who you believe to be the best possible attack? Their job is literally to take 20 wickets.

Your argument re Miller? One, I would love to see where he even fits into an ATG XI, because the thought of a Gus Logie type batsman in the top 6 would be welcome, sorry, awesome to bowl at, especially at the s/r that he batted at. And to be the 5th bowler? So either he isn't bowling much, so reduces the need to have him, or you're taking away overs from much better bowlers to give him opportunities, so basically diminishing returns. And that's with Sobers already in the team, unless you're dropping him, which means losing a top 5 batsman and your best slip fielder, which I'm sure who thrill the other bowlers. And that's not even taking into account that Miller was at his best with the new ball, an option that will not be afforded to him in this series. So you have an out of place batsman, and what would be an underutilized bowler who will not be at his most effective as he was during his playing days.

But yes please, I'm interested in seeing Miller in an ATG XI and who you're dropping for him. Yes, this is the hill I'm willing to go down on. As I argued against Capt Luffy, bowling is somehow the primary consideration for your no. 6 batsman, but not for your primary bowlers, that's just wild to me.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Kyear bro did you get divorced or something recently you've been epic on here last few weeks

 

[kyear2]

Kyear bro did you get divorced or something recently you've been epic on here last few weeks

Quite busy actually, work, volunteering, play tennis a couple days a week, the family.

 

[Bolo.]

Gilchrist kept to Warne and co without worry, coincidentally two of the bowlers he would be keeping to in this hypothetical scenario.

I would figure that this would be a common sense issue, but apparently not.

So did Healy. Who did it better by all accounts. If you want to argue that Gilchrist was as good, go ahead. Otherwise you are trading a bit of primary role for a lot of secondary role, like I'm doing with Imran.

I agree that it it common sense to do so for a wicket keeper, but what is the reason for thinking the same logic does not apply to a bowler?

Your argument re Miller? One, I would love to see where he even fits into an ATG XI, because the thought of a Gus Logie type batsman in the top 6 would be welcome, sorry, awesome to bowl at, especially at the s/r that he batted at. And to be the 5th bowler? So either he isn't bowling much, so reduces the need to have him, or you're taking away overs from much better bowlers to give him opportunities, so basically diminishing returns. And that's with Sobers already in the team, unless you're dropping him, which means losing a top 5 batsman and your best slip fielder, which I'm sure who thrill the other bowlers. And that's not even taking into account that Miller was at his best with the new ball, an option that will not be afforded to him in this series. So you have an out of place batsman, and what would be an underutilized bowler who will not be at his most effective as he was during his playing days.

But yes please, I'm interested in seeing Miller in an ATG XI and who you're dropping for him. Yes, this is the hill I'm willing to go down on. As I argued against Capt Luffy, bowling is somehow the primary consideration for your no. 6 batsman, but not for your primary bowlers, that's just wild to me.

IDK if Miller is the right call. I probably wouldn't play him. But to clearly improve your team, I would drop Viv, Steyn and Mcgrath for Miller, Imran and Hadlee.

The batting improves a lot. You add 35ish points in batting average, remove a lot of the variance problem that SRB posted about for Bradman, and provide more support to whoever happens to be in form.

As bowlers, Hadlee = Mcgrath. Imran + Miller > Steyn.

 

[kyear2]

So did Healy. Who did it better by all accounts. If you want to argue that Gilchrist was as good, go ahead. Otherwise you are trading a bit of primary role for a lot of secondary role, like I'm doing with Imran.

I agree that it it common sense to do so for a wicket keeper, but what is the reason for thinking the same logic does not apply to a bowler?

IDK if Miller is the right call. I probably wouldn't play him. But to clearly improve your team, I would drop Viv, Steyn and Mcgrath for Miller, Imran and Hadlee.

The batting improves a lot. You add 35ish points in batting average, remove a lot of the variance problem that SRB posted about for Bradman, and provide more support to whoever happens to be in form.

As bowlers, Hadlee = Mcgrath. Imran + Miller > Steyn.

You're free to chose who you please, it just isn't what I would do.

To say you're sacrificing for a keeper who didn't drop anything and handled Warne, McGrath, Lee and co at a rate to make him a lock for this ream, is a bit much.

One is a wicket keeper batsman, the dual roles are implied, and I've chosen one who wouldn't make mistakes.

The other scenario is one where your batting is set and you need your best possible bowlers to take the 20 wickets as cheaply and quickly as possible. I don't see why this is a difficult concept to understand.

To say you improve your batting by dropping a top 5 ATG bat for a borderline test standard one, then stacking the tail is counterintuitive. There's a bigger difference between Viv and Miller than there is between Imran and Steyn, especially in these matchups. Quantity doesn't trump quality. So you're weakening the batting to strengthen the bowling, then weakening the bowling to try to make up for that loss.

I'm not sure how that maths work, but cool.

If Imran isn't as good as Steyn, don't see how adding an even worse one who, will either hardly bowl or take away overs from better ones, improve that.

 

[subshakerz]

Gilchrist kept to Warne and co without worry, coincidentally two of the bowlers he would be keeping to in this hypothetical scenario.

He didn't ask that. He asked if Knott was better. Why are you a fan of long responses that don't answer questions?

The wicket keeping position is literally the only one where you're expected to be equally great in both categories.

Again, you have made clear being ATG in one primary category for ARs is critical.

And quite frankly he didn't drop anything, so I don't see how quality with the gloves is a discussion. This is a totally manufactured issue.

Nobody is calling Gilly a dropper.

You are the one who made primary skills for ARs a non-negotiable. You created the issue. Stop hiding behind this framing.

 

[Bolo.]

You're free to chose who you please, it just isn't what I would do.

To say you're sacrificing for a keeper who didn't drop anything and handled Warne, McGrath, Lee and co at a rate to make him a lock for this ream, is a bit much.

One is a wicket keeper batsman, the dual roles are implied, and I've chosen one who wouldn't make mistakes.

The other scenario is one where your batting is set and you need your best possible bowlers to take the 20 wickets as cheaply and quickly as possible. I don't see why this is a difficult concept to understand.

To say you improve your batting by dropping a top 5 ATG bat for a borderline test standard one, then stacking the tail is counterintuitive. There's a bigger difference between Viv and Miller than there is between Imran and Steyn, especially in these matchups. Quantity doesn't trump quality. So you're weakening the batting to strengthen the bowling, then weakening the bowling to try to make up for that loss.

I'm not sure how that maths work, but cool.

If Imran isn't as good as Steyn, don't see how adding an even worse one who, will either hardly bowl or take away overs from better ones, improve that.

We know Gilchrist was good. Do you think Gilchrist was as good as the best keepers ever? If you do, cool. Your position is consistent at least. I've never heard anyone claim this though.

OFC Viv was a better bat than Miller. He wasn't a better bat than the 3 ARs put together though. In a completed innings against an average side, they are adding somewhere in the range of 50-150 runs pretty consistently. Viv is often giving you close to nothing.

At least one of Imran and Steyn will be outbowling Steyn very frequently. They add more variety, lighten workload, and can bowl more overs. If you don't see the advantage an extra quality bowler brings, just play yout best 2 and 8 bats. OFC diminishing returns exist, and Miller may not be the best pick. But I would still rather have the extra bowler. Imran isn't that far off alone.

 

[subshakerz]

To say you're sacrificing for a keeper who didn't drop anything and handled Warne, McGrath, Lee and co at a rate to make him a lock for this ream, is a bit much.

One is a wicket keeper batsman, the dual roles are implied, and I've chosen one who wouldn't make mistakes.

Again, the issue isn't about role. Fine, Gilly is an AR.

The question is why is it okay to have a great but not top tier keeper because of runs. Why is this tradeoff acceptable when you have made clear it isn't the case for other ARs?

 

[subshakerz]

We know Gilchrist was good. Do you think Gilchrist was as good as the best keepers ever? If you do, cool. Your position is consistent at least. I've never heard anyone claim this though.

Nope, he has stated time and again that Knott is a better keeper than Gilly and he is only selecting Gilly because of runs. So it is a contradiction he is refusing to acknowledge.

But he is chosen almost unanimously to the ATG team because of said batting. If his batting wasn't perceived to be head and shoulders above everyone else, Knott would definely be there.

 

[kyear2]

We know Gilchrist was good. Do you think Gilchrist was as good as the best keepers ever? If you do, cool. Your position is consistent at least. I've never heard anyone claim this though.

OFC Viv was a better bat than Miller. He wasn't a better bat than the 3 ARs put together though. In a completed innings against an average side, they are adding somewhere in the range of 50-150 runs pretty consistently. Viv is often giving you close to nothing.

At least one of Imran and Steyn will be outbowling Steyn very frequently. They add more variety, lighten workload, and can bowl more overs. If you don't see the advantage an extra quality bowler brings, just play yout best 2 and 8 bats. OFC diminishing returns exist, and Miller may not be the best pick. But I would still rather have the extra bowler. Imran isn't that far off alone.

Yes, Gilchrist is an ATG wicketkeeper and you lose nothing from having him behind the stumps.
This entire Gilchrist argument has been brought up as a red herring from the beginning and makes zero sense and as someone raised earlier it's comparing oranges and apples. I've responded at length, feel free to read over the last couple posts.

The Miller argument again makes no sense because again, you yourself just said you wouldn't select him. Miller, Imran and Hadlee is giving you next to nothing for the majority of a test series of this nature. This is the equivalent of saying you're expecting Gus ****ing Logie to contribute in an ATG series.

The over rating of these guys as batsmen is crazy. Miller made almost half of his test centuries in one series, and still averaged under 40 as a top order batsman, Imran's average was soft as hell and Hadlee averaged mid 20's. Think it was ORS who showed that While Imran averaged more than I believe it was Azhar during his peak over (I believe) 40ish matches, he scored 600 less runs. Now Imran if you see him as Subs does as a top 5 bowler, then fine, but if you're chosing these guys as batsmen, I don't get it.

You are speaking of consistency, but chosing your no. 6 bat based on his bowling, then chosing all of your bowlers based on batting is not only inconsistent, but not a selector in history would do it.

I don't even know why this is a discussion because literally no one on this forum would, or have selected Miller onto an AT team because everyone knows it makes no logical or philosophical sense. Replace an ATG with a at best test standard guy, but then make up for it by picking the better batsmen among the bowlers. So now you've really compromised your ability to score runs in the top order and also to take the 20 wickets required as quickly and efficiently as possible. Congrats, you've ****ed yourself both ways.
Show me one single example of Miller making an ATG team, or even coming close.

I'm also waiting for someone to show me the great team that has consciously made the decision to play the weaker bowlers because the could bat better. A team that prioritized lower order batting over the quality of the bowling. The 4 best teams that existed post war, none of them went the direction of bat deep, and not one of them were impacted by it. It's nice to have a couple guys who don't bend over and play dead, but please show me the great teams that were built around lower order batting.

 

[kyear2]

I'm not saying Imran isn't a viable selection, he's a top 8 bowler of all time. What I'm saying is, is that with a top 7 that is assembled here and with the primary requirement of the bowlers being to take 20 wickets, how is it crazy or even wrong to select who you believe are the best 4 bowlers.

There's no historical precedent that lower order batting was a feature of great teams, nor was it an impediment when it was lacking to the extent that's being suggested here. Marshall, Warne et al were all good enough to fill that role and even helped win and save multiple matches in their careers.

This argument is half based purely on names and personalities, and the other half based on the sentiment "everyone must bat" coupled with accumulated averages. Despite the fact that I can count the victories won cumulatively by Imran and Hadlee with the bat on one hand, and possibly would be the same won by Marshall and Warne.

What I look for among successful teams are factors that stand out for each that lead to said success. It's mostly the same...

Established (proactive) opening partnership
Dominant ATG no. 3 / 4 leading a strong middle order
ATG bowling attack
Brilliant slip catching
Solid keeper (honestly only brought down by Boucher)

None of them had "bowling all-rounder", but all had solid guys that could assist when required.

I'm not saying it isn't useful, it can be, it's just less critical the better the team and batting lineup around you.

I'm my mind, and I'm not telling anyone else what to do, when you have a batting line up comprising of
Hobbs, Bradman, Tendulkar, Richards, Sobers and Gilchrist, and you're facing a strong batting line up, shouldn't the focus for your bowling attack be on bowling out the opponents as quickly and for as little runs as possible?

 

[subshakerz]

Yes, Gilchrist is an ATG wicketkeeper and you lose nothing from having him behind the stumps.

To clarify, this means you from now on agree that Gilchrist is as good as Knott and Healy as a keeper. That was the question and this apparently is your official position.

I'm not saying Imran isn't a viable selection, he's a top 8 bowler of all time. What I'm saying is, is that with a top 7 that is assembled here and with the primary requirement of the bowlers being to take 20 wickets, how is it crazy or even wrong to select who you believe are the best 4 bowlers.

It's exactly the same argument as you give for Gilly. Gilly is an ATG keeper and his runs make his selection clear, Imran is an ATG pacer and his runs make his selection clear.

It's just that you think Imran's runs are less important, whereas most of us don't want four tailenders and don't exaggerate the difference between Imran and the other pacers.

 

[Bolo.]

Yes, Gilchrist is an ATG wicketkeeper and you lose nothing from having him behind the stumps.
This entire Gilchrist argument has been brought up as a red herring from the beginning and makes zero sense and as someone raised earlier it's comparing oranges and apples. I've responded at length, feel free to read over the last couple posts.

The Miller argument again makes no sense because again, you yourself just said you wouldn't select him. Miller, Imran and Hadlee is giving you next to nothing for the majority of a test series of this nature. This is the equivalent of saying you're expecting Gus ****ing Logie to contribute in an ATG series.

The over rating of these guys as batsmen is crazy. Miller made almost half of his test centuries in one series, and still averaged under 40 as a top order batsman, Imran's average was soft as hell and Hadlee averaged mid 20's. Think it was ORS who showed that While Imran averaged more than I believe it was Azhar during his peak over (I believe) 40ish matches, he scored 600 less runs. Now Imran if you see him as Subs does as a top 5 bowler, then fine, but if you're chosing these guys as batsmen, I don't get it.

You are speaking of consistency, but chosing your no. 6 bat based on his bowling, then chosing all of your bowlers based on batting is not only inconsistent, but not a selector in history would do it.

I don't even know why this is a discussion because literally no one on this forum would, or have selected Miller onto an AT team because everyone knows it makes no logical or philosophical sense. Replace an ATG with a at best test standard guy, but then make up for it by picking the better batsmen among the bowlers. So now you've really compromised your ability to score runs in the top order and also to take the 20 wickets required as quickly and efficiently as possible. Congrats, you've ****ed yourself both ways.
Show me one single example of Miller making an ATG team, or even coming close.

I'm also waiting for someone to show me the great team that has consciously made the decision to play the weaker bowlers because the could bat better. A team that prioritized lower order batting over the quality of the bowling. The 4 best teams that existed post war, none of them went the direction of bat deep, and not one of them were impacted by it. It's nice to have a couple guys who don't bend over and play dead, but please show me the great teams that were built around lower order batting.

That's a unique take on Gilchrist's keeping.

I'm not going out of my way to defend these guys individually in specialist batting terms. I'm saying there are 3 of them. They collectively average about 105. Even if they collectively have a pretty poor game with the bat, there's a decent chance the runs they score will turn a game. You can't say this for the 3 you are selecting.

Miller's own team (one of the best ever) used him in this way. The only point you are illustrating when saying it's not usually done is that there have been very few top ARs in history.

IDK if Miller is the right pick. But it's clear to me that a team that includes him is stronger than the one you picked. And if he's the wrong pick, and the team still works out stronger than yours, it just shows how right picking Imran and Hadlee is.

 

[Red]

I like you Kyear but I won’t tolerate this Miller nonsense.

 

[Red]

Miller has regularly been included in Aust AT XIs

 

[capt_Luffy]

I like you Kyear but I won’t tolerate this Miller nonsense.

The argument began with me (actually, it almost was exclusively) about can Miller be included in an AT Australia XI reasonably.

 

[kyear2]

We tend to dismiss Lillee, and for various reasons, some quite valid. But again, as is repeated by many from the era, one of the only two names he references from the era are Marshall and Lillee.

I always find it strange that the 3 highest rated bowlers by peer review, again not the best methods obviously, are Marshall, Lillee and Wasim.

Even from the 70's and '80's when one reads on extensively on the era the names that pops up are Lillee, Marshall and Hadlee.
The 90's Ambrose and Wasim. The 2000's McGrath then Steyn held center stage.

As with batsmen, always seem to be a clear passing of the torch from the 70's till today.

Lillee, Marshall, Ambrose, Wasim, McGrath, Steyn, yet two of those names hardly pop up in our discussions.