• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
ataraxia said:
I dunno, as a wildcard a batting lineup likely to force a draw against WI or Aus seems so much more valuable than hoping Botham has an on-day.
Click to expand...
Goal is to kinda win though, think Botham gives them a better chance than anyone. Though quite frankly don't think they have much of a chance regardless.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
Prince EWS said:
Almost no matches are actually drawn due to slow batting ffs, you're off your head on that one. More runs = betterer.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is just you and Coronis on that one.
That's a reason that batsmen who can switch gears and accelerate are seen as better and more valuable. For England that would be Root and Botham and not altogether sure Root is in the class of the competitors from Aus and WI or even SA.

Also vs these attacks, mother's no guarantee of runs no matter how slowly you go, you're still likely to get a good one. Overly defensive batting, as we've seen in a couple instances the last few years can blunt your own momentum and hurt your own team.

But again, we can agree to disagree.
 
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
kyear2 said:
Hutton is I'll suited for the no. 3 role.

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hutton
Hammond
Root
Barrington

Is incapable of winning matches, sorry that's not acceptable. They would be allowing bowlers to settle into their lines against them. Picture Sutcliffe and Hutton batting together, one is enough imho.
Click to expand...
No more unacceptable than having Sobers as your main spinner.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
howitzer said:
Also, without Mushtaq Pakistan pretty much have no 5th option whatsoever which is a serious issue neither Australia nor England would have. I do like your idea of having Botham bat 7 though. England's non-Trueman specialist quicks either feel underwhelming at ATG team level or had very short peaks.
Click to expand...
Exactly, Mustaq is somewhat of a must.

And re your last point, yes again. And even Trueman could be less than stellar outside of England. They all either lacked pace, short peaks or as you said it, underwhelming. Need Botham there.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
Coronis said:
No more unacceptable than having Sobers as your main spinner.
Click to expand...
I can comfortably say that Sobers bowled more overs of spin than pace in his career. His peak bowling average of 27 over almost a decade was a mixture of both.

And for the rest of the attack, they all were adept (all in different ways) at succeeding in less than helpful conditions. Not to add that the only spinning conditions they would face would be against India at home and of greater threat, old Sydney vs Australia.

I also believe that Warne would not be the threat that it's believed he would have been in this level of competition. He was not at his best against the best of his day, and while I believe that Australia benefitted from not having to face McGrath, Warne was the one who benefitted from not having to face his own team. India and Lara took to him, and Australia would have as well, as they did Murali.

Having spin as variety for variety sake isn't worth it, and Gibbs wasn't as first as the 4 pacers being unleashed.


Again, just my opinion.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
kyear2 said:
I've explained this before.

In a direct comparison with Border (or Ponting), I can't choose Miller, just too huge of a drop off. As a test batsman, he has 7 test hundreds in 55 tests, almost half came in one series, can't put him in over AB.

The Australian attack is also bullet proof, all 4 are capable of bowling extended spells and can even rotate around Warne with Simpson and Border there to assist. Not to add that Miller was mostly used, and at his best with the new ball, something he's not getting a sniff at here.

The difference with Botham is that with that batting lineup, his aggression is a necessity. Along with Root, they are the only ones who would be consistently able to push the run rate, plus he was a legitimate match winner with the willow.
As a slip, he's even more invaluable and he's needed at 2nd. No one else in the team is a viable option.
As a bowler. Trueman was less than ideal outside of England, Tyson was likely to breakdown, God in heaven knows what Barnes bowled and if it would be viable and Verity took less than 4 wickets a match. Yes his bowling is much more needed than Miller's.

In this completion England is a wild card and just trying to be viable, Australia is a contender who's likely facing the WI in the final, no need for the wild card.

Again, we don't have to agree.
Click to expand...
Botham is an equally big drop off from KP, let alone Sutcliffe; than Miller is from Ponting. Hammond a better 5th option than Simpson (or any one else who plays) and Miller also allows you to have Warne - O'Reilly together. Not even getting into why you would want a bowler likely to breakdown with 18 matches in your team over a plethora of other talented pacers. Legitimately match winner who averaged barely 20 for a third of his 100 Test career lol..... With Botham at 6, English batting is just poor without the depth of a World Class bat like Gilchrist or a Bradman leading.
In completion, England should make their team the strongest they can, not look for such alternatives.
 
Last edited:
ataraxia

ataraxia

International Coach
kyear2 said:
Goal is to kinda win though, think Botham gives them a better chance than anyone. Though quite frankly don't think they have much of a chance regardless.
Click to expand...
Nah if they're unhappy with a draw then Australia or WI would be absolutely pissed at it, hence they wouldn't be unhappy at all. One must remember that the goal of the English is to be relentlessly negative.
 
F

Fuller Pilch

Hall of Fame Member
Unless matches are played in conditions to suit England's bowlers (SA matting pitches for Barnes, 1956 bunsens for Laker, cloudy days in the 2010s etc.), I think their best option is to play attritional "anti cricket" and only push for wins on day 5 when draws are secured. Play 6 specialist bats including Hammond and Root with Ames at 7 and bat big. Play for scoreboard pressure.
 
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
Fuller Pilch said:
I think their best option is to play attritional "anti cricket" and only push for wins on day 5 when draws are secured. Play 6 specialist bats including Hammond and Root with Ames at 7 and bat big. Play for scoreboard pressure.
Click to expand...
Agreed tbh. They’re just not able to match up on the bowling with the other top teams (Aus, WI, SA, PAK). They need to play to their strength (batting depth) rather than give up their advantage to try (and fail) to overcome. weakness.
 
Red_Ink_Squid

Red_Ink_Squid

Global Moderator
ataraxia said:
What an incredibly stupid side.

Barrington for May, ffs.
Click to expand...
For a (probably unnecessarily) serious answer to this: I don't like Barrington as a pick lower down the order, would only really consider him at 3. And especially so given the assertion that the England all time team needed Botham at 6 or it would be too stodgy.

May I think is a bit underrated, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top