The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[capt_Luffy]

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.

I rate Wasim in same bracket as Ambrose, Imran and Steyn though

 

[kyear2]

[

Miller has regularly been included in Aust AT XIs

Not talking about Australia right now, though he doesn't make mine either, meant a world XI.

 

[kyear2]

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

Yes, and as great a player as Miller was, and I don't doubt he was great. The balance doesn't make sense to me

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yes, and as great a player as Miller was, and I don't doubt he was great. The balance doesn't make sense to me

It does to me though and I have explained why. It's the way the Invincibles team played really and if not for the lack of longevity, they have a very valid case to be the best team ever. Not really close to World XI though.

 

[kyear2]

I rate Wasim in same bracket as Ambrose, Imran and Steyn though

Akram doesn't have anything that compares to Ambrose's record vs Australia nor England.

 

[kyear2]

It does to me though and I have explained why. It's the way the Invincibles team played really and if not for the lack of longevity, they have a very valid case to be the best team ever. Not really close to World XI though.

Yeah to clarify, not saying he's horrible, I can't take him over Border. Just throws off everything

 

[capt_Luffy]

Akram doesn't have anything that compares to Ambrose's record vs Australia nor England.

He did have a viable record in SC, great longevity, crazy peer ratings, match winning performances everywhere and a very healthy spread of averages.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yeah to clarify, not saying he's horrible, I can't take him over Border. Just throws off everything

But you were fine with Botham over Compton..... That's what rubbed me the wrong way.

 

[kyear2]

He did have a viable record in SC, great longevity, crazy peer ratings, match winning performances everywhere and a very healthy spread of averages.

Yes he did have great longevity, crazy AF peer ratings, but averages wise...

He averaged 25, 30 and 28 vs Australia, England and India.

 

[kyear2]

But you were fine with Botham over Compton..... That's what rubbed me the wrong way.

I don't remotely rate Compton anywhere remotely near Border.

Guess that was the disconnect. There's a viable ATG over Miller.

England also lacks pace (bowling) and aggression (batting)

 

[capt_Luffy]

I don't remotely rate Compton anywhere remotely near Border.

Guess that was the disconnect. There's a viable ATG over Miller.

England also lacks pace (bowling) and aggression (batting)

If you take Pietersen over Botham in the English team, the batting is still weaker than Australia with Miller (given Miller>Knott/Ames and Gilchrist ~Pietersen). Also, Compton isn't close to Border and probably is not an ATG Asian well, but he was a damn good bat. Lost his peak years to WWII and actually was seen as equal to Hutton in their playing days.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yes he did have great longevity, crazy AF peer ratings, but averages wise...

He averaged 25, 30 and 28 vs Australia, England and India.

He also had a terrible slip cordon (not bad, let alone average but borderline one of the worst in history), his record against is really good really and so is India with context.

 

[kyear2]

If you take Pietersen over Botham in the English team, the batting is still weaker than Australia with Miller (given Miller>Knott/Ames and Gilchrist ~Pietersen). Also, Compton isn't close to Border and probably is not an ATG Asian well, but he was a damn good bat. Lost his peak years to WWII and actually was seen as equal to Hutton in their playing days.

But England isn't Australia's competitor,that's the WI and SA, and Miller imo makes them weaker than both. He's not going to bowl often enough to warrant the downgrade of batting.

 

[kyear2]

He also had a terrible slip cordon (not bad, let alone average but borderline one of the worst in history), his record against is really good really and so is India with context.

Yes, yes he did. But I still would go as far as to say really good.

 

[capt_Luffy]

But England isn't Australia's competitor,that's the WI and SA, and Miller imo makes them weaker than both. He's not going to bowl often enough to warrant the downgrade of batting.

Let's agree to disagree then as I think his bowling makes them stronger than WIs. (SA is a dark horse for me, I would keep England ahead; but I can understand if you don't rate Barnes).

 

[kyear2]

Let's agree to disagree then as I think his bowling makes them stronger than WIs. (SA is a dark horse for me, I would keep England ahead; but I can understand if you don't rate Barnes).

I don't see it. It just negates Bradman's batting advantage.

And no, I can't rate someone when none of us have ever seen him.

 

[subshakerz]

Let's agree to disagree then as I think his bowling makes them stronger than WIs. (SA is a dark horse for me, I would keep England ahead; but I can understand if you don't rate Barnes).

The more I think about it, not including Miller in an Aus XI cant be justified. He is a top 5 Aus cricketer of all-time.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't see it. It just negates Bradman's batting advantage.

And no, I can't rate someone when none of us have ever seen him.

More like Bradman's batting advantage (plus Gilly) allows for a somewhat lesser batter like Miller to be included and 5 bowling options.

But England isn't Australia's competitor,that's the WI and SA, and Miller imo makes them weaker than both. He's not going to bowl often enough to warrant the downgrade of batting.

I had this assumption earlier. But the others did make some good points that the whole penetration of innings may be slower in ATG XI settings. Also you could potentially allow for O'Reilly in if you have Miller as a third seamer.

Miller is the best 5th bowling option of any side.

 

[kyear2]

More like Bradman's batting advantage (plus Gilly) allows for a somewhat lesser batter like Miller to be included and 5 bowling options.



I had this assumption earlier. But the others did make some good points that the whole penetration of innings may be slower in ATG XI settings. Also you could potentially allow for O'Reilly in if you have Miller as a third seamer.

Miller is the best 5th bowling option of any side.

Bringing in O'Reilly is the only justification for it.

 

[kyear2]

The more I think about it, not including Miller in an Aus XI cant be justified. He is a top 5 Aus cricketer of all-time.

Being the better cricketer doesn't mean it's a good fit