Your ATG Team opening batsmen combo

[kyear2]

Well, his peak came in a flatish era and like, someone is the 6th best doesn't really makes them viable (not to mention he isn't even 6th really, more like 12th). Verity is probably the 7th best spinner and a better bat than many, doesn't really makes him viable.

So that's the thing, tbh there should have been 5 options, but put him in as the "utility option".

Really was no need for the remainder though.

 

[Coronis]

I mean according to CW Simpson and Greenidge are poor choices for the extra spots here. Obvs Grace and Richards didn’t feature on the poll but the next two openers outside the big 4 were voted Smith and Boycott.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I mean according to CW Simpson and Greenidge are poor choices for the extra spots here. Obvs Grace and Richards didn’t feature on the poll but the next two openers outside the big 4 were voted Smith and Boycott.

And then Trumper.

 

[kyear2]

I mean according to CW Simpson and Greenidge are poor choices for the extra spots here. Obvs Grace and Richards didn’t feature on the poll but the next two openers outside the big 4 were voted Smith and Boycott.

Neither were going to receive a substantive amount of votes. Greenidge was added to get a second vote.

How many do you believe should have been included?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Neither were going to receive a substantive amount of votes. Greenidge was added to get a second vote.

How many do you believe should have been included?

If Simpson is? Trumper (very attacking batsman, sky high peer ratings), Greenidge, Boycott (did very well in tough eras), Hayden, Smith (left handed, quick scoring), Sehwag (very quick scoring).

 

[kyear2]

If Simpson is? Trumper (very attacking batsman, sky high peer ratings), Greenidge, Boycott (did very well in tough eras), Hayden, Smith (left handed, quick scoring), Sehwag (very quick scoring).

This whole thing is about Simpson isn't it. And you made your opinion clear re him in the discussion re him and Trumper.

Again, he was included as a utility option, give it a rest, just don't vote for him. He has 0 votes and was never going to win, what's the issue?

 

[Coronis]

Neither were going to receive a substantive amount of votes. Greenidge was added to get a second vote.

How many do you believe should have been included?

idk tbh. If you want to be restrictive, I would have restricted it to the big 4 + the two wildcards (Richards and Grace) Not sure what the max poll options are but if you want to add anyone else I think you’d have to add the whole next bunch of Trumper/Simpson/Boycott/Greenidge/Hayden/Sehwag/Smith to be fair since there is no true consensus on these guys.

 

[kyear2]

idk tbh. If you want to be restrictive, I would have restricted it to the big 4 + the two wildcards (Richards and Grace) Not sure what the max poll options are but if you want to add anyone else I think you’d have to add the whole next bunch of Trumper/Simpson/Boycott/Greenidge/Hayden/Sehwag/Smith to be fair since there is no true consensus on these guys.

There were ever only going to be 3 of them that has a chance to win, so why add 15 people? The bowler poll had 7 names, and again, Simpson was the utility choice, not as specifically the outright 6th best choice.

The purpose of the poll were two fold, both quite simple.

1. With a lot of discussion around Sunny recently, wanted to see if Hutton and Hobbs were still the consensus choice.

2. If one thing the bowlers poll showed is that Maco is a lock, and possibly the 3rd name of the team sheet. I wanted to see if Hobbs was a similar automatic choice (still to early to confirm)

This side discussion on adding names 7 to 15 is pointless and a distraction from actually discussing the main 6 protagonists.

 

[Coronis]

There were ever only going to be 3 of them that has a chance to win, so why add 15 people? The bowler poll had 7 names, and again, Simpson was the utility choice, not as specifically the outright 6th best choice.

The purpose of the poll were two fold, both quite simple.

1. With a lot of discussion around Sunny recently, wanted to see if Hutton and Hobbs were still the consensus choice.

2. If one thing the bowlers poll showed is that Maco is a lock, and possibly the 3rd name of the team sheet. I wanted to see if Hobbs was a similar automatic choice (still to early to confirm)

This side discussion on adding names 7 to 15 is pointless and a distraction from actually discussing the main 6 protagonists.

Hey man, you asked the question. If you add any apart from Grace and Richards (presuming you explain in the OP why they’re there) then all you’re going to get is complaints as to why the others aren’t included because there is no consensus on their rankings.

Sobers is enough of a utility player that Simpson’s extra skills aren’t going to factor into his selection really.

The better question is probably why did you make the thread and poll in the first place? Hutton was probably higher than one might’ve expected in the recent batsman poll, and he resoundly smashed Gavaskar.

 

[kyear2]

Hey man, you asked the question. If you add any apart from Grace and Richards (presuming you explain in the OP why they’re there) then all you’re going to get is complaints as to why the others aren’t included because there is no consensus on their rankings.

Sobers is enough of a utility player that Simpson’s extra skills aren’t going to factor into his selection really.

The better question is probably why did you make the thread and poll in the first place? Hutton was probably higher than one might’ve expected in the recent batsman poll, and he resoundly smashed Gavaskar.

Sobers yeah, but I'm thinking with Simpson you get that extra spin option for turning wickets, upgrade at 1st slip (creating as close to a perfect cordon as one can get) and a batsman who averaged mid 50's opening.

The purpose, wanted to see how close Hutton and Gavaskar were and if Hobbs was close to, if not unanimous.
I always say they are 6 automatic, pretty close to unanimous options, wanted to see if Hobbs actually still was.

To that I would say kinda (for Hobbs), Hutton so far has over performed and I surprised at Sunny's numbers. Becuse for me, him or Barry would have to be ahead of Hutton.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Sobers yeah, but I'm thinking with Simpson you get that extra spin option for turning wickets, upgrade at 1st slip (creating as close to a perfect cordon as one can get) and a batsman who averaged mid 50's opening.

Average by position isn’t something to really consider much. IIRC Bruce Mitchell averaged near 60 opening. Anyway Boycott > Simpson.

 

[ataraxia]

Bruce Mitchell is a better batter, leggie, and first slip than Bob Simpson.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Considered Sutcliffe and not that much difference between him and Hutton really. But went with Sir Len who is marginally better player imho to partner Hobbs. Hobbs - Sutcliffe chemistry though makes it even closer imho. But, Hutton regardless.

 

[kyear2]

Bruce Mitchell is a better batter, leggie, and first slip than Bob Simpson.

Ummmm, batter can be argued, but not the other two. Simpson was the better test bowler and arguable top 3 slip fielder of all time.

 

[subshakerz]

Hobbs and Gavaskar.

Hobbs most condition tested and Gavaskar most pace tested among ATGs.

 

[ataraxia]

Ummmm, batter can be argued, but not the other two. Simpson was the better test bowler and arguable top 3 slip fielder of all time.

Ok sure there's a slight but clear distinction in their slipping abilities, but the other two are at the very least arguable.

 

[shortpitched713]

Can't believe a guy whose only as good of a batsman as Shakib al Hasan is leading the voting.

 

[shortpitched713]

Hobbs and Gavaskar.

Hobbs most condition tested and Gavaskar most pace tested among ATGs.

The conditions being tested for don't really matter.

Modern batsmen, if given an opportunity to have some practice sessions in those conditions (presumably stickies being the most treacherous in question), will end up performing as well or better than Hobbs against the bowling opposition he faced. Those bowlers of the past simply were of a lower standard, and didn't use appropriate approaches and techniques to trouble modern bats, like it or not.

 

[kyear2]

Ok sure there's a slight but clear distinction in their slipping abilities, but the other two are at the very least arguable.

Can live with that.

 

[kyear2]

Can't believe a guy whose only as good of a batsman as Shakib al Hasan is leading the voting.

Please stop.