Fred Trueman vs Joel Garner

[kyear2]

I think Bradman was always considered a good tactician on field but off field was a dickhead. In a hypothetical ATG scenario I think a good tactician would be very important as you’d think players would need less motivation than usual in order to perform at their best in such high level competition.

I actually mostly agree with this. Just would wonder if he would have been the best person to deal with the egos.

Think Benaud had the idea to choose Worrell as manager / coach to held deal with that part.

But yeah, among those players most likely to be selected for such an XI, Bradman would be the best option.

 

[kyear2]

I forgot that Worrell was captain only for 15 matches.....

Who would you consider the 5 Greatest Captains?

Border. Imran. Ranatunga.
They had a huge impact on their team.

The more I read about such, a couple names always comes up

Brearley
Illingsworth

Taylor
Benaud
Border

Ranatunga

Worrell

But I agree with what I believe @peterhrt was saying, it's more important to not have a bad one, than it is to have a great one.

Also, a captain is only as great as his players, especially his (fast) bowlers.

 

[Coronis]

I actually mostly agree with this. Just would wonder if he would have been the best person to deal with the egos.

Think Benaud had the idea to choose Worrell as manager / coach to held deal with that part.

But yeah, among those players most likely to be selected for such an XI, Bradman would be the best option.

Depends on the situation I guess. If its Earth vs some Aliens with a loss meaning our planet is destroyed I’d hope they could put their egos aside.

Even against another ATG team it’d probably vary from player to player. e.g a Bradman would always try to grind any team into the dust. If the team Miller’s on has a few hundred run lead he’ll no doubt chuck his wicket away

 

[kyear2]

Depends on the situation I guess. If its Earth vs some Aliens with a loss meaning our planet is destroyed I’d hope they could put their egos aside.

Even against another ATG team it’d probably vary from player to player. e.g a Bradman would always try to grind any team into the dust. If the team Miller’s on has a few hundred run lead he’ll no doubt chuck his wicket away

How important fo you believe captaincy to be?

 

[Coronis]

How important fo you believe captaincy to be?

Idk. Its hard to define really. So much depends on the makeup of the team. Its hard to be considered a top captain if you have a poor side, no matter how tactically skilled you might be, or how great a presence off the field.

Basically if you’re not completely **** with tactics it should be fine and not matter that much. But a debate over “no me I should be captain” is where I could see some egos clash.

 

[kyear2]

Idk. Its hard to define really. So much depends on the makeup of the team. Its hard to be considered a top captain if you have a poor side, no matter how tactically skilled you might be, or how great a presence off the field.

Basically if you’re not completely **** with tactics it should be fine and not matter that much. But a debate over “no me I should be captain” is where I could see some egos clash.

That's basically where I'm at.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Idk. Its hard to define really. So much depends on the makeup of the team. Its hard to be considered a top captain if you have a poor side, no matter how tactically skilled you might be, or how great a presence off the field.

Basically if you’re not completely **** with tactics it should be fine and not matter that much. But a debate over “no me I should be captain” is where I could see some egos clash.

It's hard but there are a fair few that sprung to my mind. Pataudi, Fleming, Ranatunga, there are number of captains who regarded very highly for changing the mindset of a team or laying the foundation for the future.

 

[sayon basak]

It's hard but there are a fair few that sprung to my mind. Pataudi, Fleming, Ranatunga, there are number of captains who regarded very highly for changing the mindset of a team or laying the foundation for the future.

Mashrafe.

 

[DrWolverine]

Hansie Cronje used to be regarded very highly during the 1990s BUT

 

[subshakerz]

I know it’s blasphemy to say this but sometimes I am not really sure about Jack Hobbs as well even though he was the best batsman before Bradman.

How can we even compare to a modern day great like Steven Smith who has proved himself in a professional era in multiple countries against better bowlers?

Yes. I am being influenced by @kyear2 to potentially drop Hobbs from my ATG XI. It just seems so blasphemous though.

 

[DrWolverine]

Yes. I am being influenced by @kyear2 to potentially drop Hobbs from my ATG XI. It just seems so blasphemous though.

I have seen some of the ATG teams picked here. I do not understand one thing - If people are picking Jack Hobbs because he was far ahead of the rest (at least before he got paired with his legendary but underrated teammate & opener Herbert Sutcliffe) why don’t they pick Barnes for same reason?

 

[sayon basak]

I have seen some of the ATG teams picked here. I do not understand one thing - If people are picking Jack Hobbs because he was far ahead of the rest (at least before he got paired with his legendary but underrated teammate & opener Herbert Sutcliffe) why don’t they pick Barnes for same reason?

I mean, I would like to have Barnes in my team.
But Hobbs is an opener, a bit rarer than other batting positions, don't you think?

 

[capt_Luffy]

I have seen some of the ATG teams picked here. I do not understand one thing - If people are picking Hobbs because he was far ahead of the rest(at least before he got paired with the legendary but underrated Sutcliffe) why don’t they pick Barnes for same reason?

Two reasons really:
1) Barnes never had a Test career even close to length of that of Hobbs. He played two tests in early 1900s and was dropped for being a huge dick and playing in Lancashire League. He was someone who valued money over anything else. So had a effective career of 7 years. Hobbs longer than Tendulkar.
2) He played even before Hobbs and some people aren't exactly sure of his bowling style.
3) He wasn't as ahead of the pack as Hobbs was.
4) They played in a significantly bowler friendlier era, hence batsmen who can shatter the norm are more highly regarded.
5) Higher competition for the opening bowlers really.

 

[kyear2]

Yes. I am being influenced by @kyear2 to potentially drop Hobbs from my ATG XI. It just seems so blasphemous though.

Not trying to convince anyone.

Two points though.

If you had to transport a team of players at their best to play in a 5 test series vs a current world XI for the existence of the planet. Are you comfortable with 1914 Hobbs?

Secondly, Magic is the greatest point guard of all time. But his style of play (can't shoot and doesn't play defence)is out dated and no longer fits into the modern game, and especially with LBJ at SF, Curry is a better option to start.

Yet another basketball analogy. Some see Russell as the best center (they would be wrong, but hey), but are you playing a 6"9 centre who forget can't shoot, can't score?

Neither diminishes their greatness.

 

[kyear2]

Two reasons really:
1) Barnes never had a Test career even close to length of that of Hobbs. He played two tests in early 1900s and was dropped for being a huge dick and playing in Lancashire League. He was someone who valued money over anything else. So had a effective career of 7 years. Hobbs longer than Tendulkar.
2) He played even before Hobbs and some people aren't exactly sure of his bowling style.
3) He wasn't as ahead of the pack as Hobbs was.
4) They played in a significantly bowler friendlier era, hence batsmen who can shatter the norm are more highly regarded.
5) Higher competition for the opening bowlers really.

We don't often agree on much, but I can on the highlighted points, especially the first one.

 

[DrWolverine]

9 batsmen scored 200+ runs after turning 43.

3 batsmen scored 200+ runs after turning 45.

2 batsman scored 200+ runs after turning 47.

It is hard to believe even with so much advancement in science and fitness that not a single batsman post WW 2 features in that list.

My issue with rating pre War batsmen(except Don Bradman who was just light years ahead of the rest) is I am not sure how competitive the sport was.

 

[subshakerz]

Not trying to convince anyone.

Two points though.

If you had to transport a team of players at their best to play in a 5 test series vs a current world XI for the existence of the planet. Are you comfortable with 1914 Hobbs?

Secondly, Magic is the greatest point guard of all time. But his style of play (can't shoot and doesn't play defence)is out dated and no longer fits into the modern game, and especially with LBJ at SF, Curry is a better option to start.

Yet another basketball analogy. Some see Russell as the best center (they would be wrong, but hey), but are you playing a 6"9 centre who forgrt can't shoot, score even?

Neither diminishes their greatness.

My issue is just watching clips from that era that reeks of low intensity club game cricket and telling myself that there is enough evidence that his skillset and success in that background is translatable. I don't have that confidence.

Same reason I dropped Barnes from my XI.

 

[DrWolverine]

The only cricketer before the war I am comfortable having in my ATG team is Donald George Bradman

 

[DrWolverine]

If you had to transport a team of players at their best to play in a 5 test series vs a current world XI for the existence of the planet. Are you comfortable with 1914 Hobbs?

No. Hobbs may be the greater cricketer for various reasons.I am picking Len Hutton and Sunil Gavaskar as my openers.

I am like 100% sure Sunny can play any modern day fast bowler or spinner on any pitch because he proved himself.

Before @sayon basak asks me, yes I believe test cricket evolved and changed a lot more from 1900-1970 than it has in the last 50 years.

 

[subshakerz]

The only cricketer before the war I am comfortable having in my ATG team is Donald George Bradman

Yes because he is such an outlier that it makes one have confidence in his selection that he is going to give worldclass++ output even though @kyear2 and I agree he will have a significant dropoff if put in post WSC environment.