Would you play Keith Miller in your Australia ATG XI?

[sayon basak]

My ideal Aus lineup has Miller, Warne, Lillee, McGrath at 8, 9, 10 and 11.

They still are behind the WI pace attack but with Miller at 8 they can afford to have Chappell in the batting middle order and a much better balanced batting lineup.

They would have to beat WI based on sheer batting strength.

Can I see your full team?

 

[the big bambino]

As long as we acknowledge that WI have the bowling advantage on pace friendly wickets in an Aus series.

It's a small advantage if measurable and if WI batted first they'd have just as much of a challenge.

 

[subshakerz]

Can I see your full team?

Trumper
Simpson
Don
Smith
Chappell
Border
Gilly
Miller
Warne
Lillee
McGrath

 

[subshakerz]

It's a small advantage if measurable and if WI batted first they'd have just as much of a challenge.

I think WI batting depth realistically makes it much harder for the Aus attack.

Mainly because WI have a trumpcard of batsmen like Lara, Sobers followed by Walcott coming in at 5, 6 and 7 (in contrast to most Aus XI where Miller is at 6).

So even with inroads you are going to have a tired attack faced with a softer ball against major run dominators capable of exceptionally long stays at the crease. It's almost the ideal situation to pile on and bat Australia out of the game.

Whereas Don is likely to face the full pace brunt every innings once the relatively weaker Aus openers fall.

 

[the big bambino]

I think WI batting depth realistically makes it much harder for the Aus attack.

Mainly because WI have a trumpcard of batsmen like Lara, Sobers followed by Walcott coming in at 5, 6 and 7 (in contrast to most Aus XI where Miller is at 6).

So even with inroads you are going to have a tired attack faced with a softer ball against major run dominators capable of exceptionally long stays at the crease. It's almost the ideal situation to pile on and bat Australia out of the game.

Whereas Don is likely to face the full pace brunt every innings once the relatively weaker Aus openers fall.

But who’s to say they’d fail? Bruce Laird, who was hardly our best ever did well against the WI. If you wanted someone to blunt the new ball pick him.

 

[subshakerz]

But who’s to say they’d fail? Bruce Laird, who was hardly our best ever did well against the WI. If you wanted someone to blunt the new ball pick him.

Yeah but you arent going to pick Laird in an ATG XI.

Trumper is a questionmark honestly. Hayden is weak against quality pace. Simpson was very good but not top drawer.

They are more likely to fail than the WI openers and regularly expose Don early. Especially Hayden despite having the best numbers.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yeah but you arent going to pick Laird in an ATG XI.

Trumper is a questionmark honestly. Hayden is weak against quality pace. Simpson was very good but not top drawer.

They are more likely to fail than the WI openers.

They literally aren't??? Greenidge (himself averages 31 odd in Australia) and Simpson/Hayden are pretty equal as batsmen; and like, you seriously don't think I hope that Hunte is as good as Trumper.

 

[the big bambino]

Yeah but you arent going to pick Laird in an ATG XI.

Trumper is a questionmark honestly. Hayden is weak against quality pace. Simpson was very good but not top drawer.

They are more likely to fail than the WI openers and regularly expose Don early. Especially Hayden despite having the best numbers.

Why not? If the opponents are the WI then Laird is a strong candidate.

 

[subshakerz]

They literally aren't??? Greenidge (himself averages 31 odd in Australia) and Simpson/Hayden are pretty equal as batsmen; and like, you seriously don't think I hope that Hunte is as good as Trumper.

Greenidge is comfortably better than Hayden/Simpson I don't think this is really debatable.

Trumper again is a questionmark ceremonial player. Kyear picks Worrell to open. I'm not sure.

 

[subshakerz]

Why not? If the opponents are the WI then Laird is a strong candidate.

That defeats the purpose of an ATG XI exercise.

 

[the big bambino]

That defeats the purpose of an ATG XI exercise.

Well I’m sorry about that but we’re all entitled to pick whomever.

 

[ma1978]

Bradman is the difference

everything else we can argue down to a wash

only one team has Bradman.

 

[subshakerz]

Bradman is the difference

everything else we can argue down to a wash

only one team has Bradman.

Bradman is the difference if the rest of the lineups are comparable.

But if one lineup has Miller at no.6 and the other has Sobers at no.6 (the best bat of either team aside from Bradman) then yeah it is competitive.

 

[stephen]

Saying that Greenidge and Haynes/Hunte outclass any two of Hayden, Simpson and Trumper is arguing over the finest of margins. Marshall and Ambrose might work over Hayden, but equally, McGrath and Lillee would probably work over Greenidge.

I would feel safer with Bradman coming in after the loss of an opener than literally any other batsman in history, regardless of whether its 1/2 or 1/200 (actually in this case I'd back Bradman more in the former rather than the latter).

With Smith at 4, you literally have the best uphill skier in living memory. Always played memorable knocks against the better bowling attacks in favourable bowling conditions.

I seriously think real selectors would pick Gibbs over Holding as the 4th WIndies bowler in most conditions to avoid Sobers having to shoulder the entire spin load (assuming modern playing conditions).

England have a better claim to openers who are a class above Australia's openers but literally no side could ever claim a better middle order than Bradman, Smith, Waugh and Border (or maybe even G Chapell at 5 instead of Waugh, but that's hair splitting tbh)).

The best argument for Miller in the Aus ATXI is that Bradman covers his weaker batting and he's a 5th genuine bowler who let's you pick O'Reilly to bowl alongside Warne (even though we never really saw MacGill bowl alongside Warne even when he was clearly the second best bowler available (like in the 05 ashes when McGrath was injured).

The Aussie all time squad would have the flexibility to play two spinners if necessary, but the starting XI is going to maximise batting output in the top 7 because McGrath, Lillee, Warne and Davidson/Lindwall/Cummins is ridiculously broken strong as a bowling attack.

 

[Coronis]

Marshall, Ambrose and Holding on pace friendly wickets are just slightly more deadly than Lillee, McGrath and Cummins/Lindwall/Davo.

Gilchrist is outmatched by Walcott as keeperbat.

So you have Bradman advantage vs relative strength of all the rest of the WI bats.

The **** are you on about this time?

 

[subshakerz]

The **** are you on about this time?

Purely in terms of batting. Gilly of course is a worldclass keeper.

 

[Coronis]

Just something to note, putting Miller at no.6 compared to a giant like Sobers at no.6 for WI massively devalues your Bradman advantage.

WI have better openers and Smith and Border are behind Viv and Lara. Gilly will be matched up with a proper worldclass bat like Walcott as keeper.

So unless it's a spinning wicket, doesn't seem like Aus have much advantage at all.

 

[subshakerz]

Saying that Greenidge and Haynes/Hunte outclass any two of Hayden, Simpson and Trumper is arguing over the finest of margins. Marshall and Ambrose might work over Hayden, but equally, McGrath and Lillee would probably work over Greenidge.

I think Hayden is more of a liability in these scenarios.

I would feel safer with Bradman coming in after the loss of an opener than literally any other batsman in history, regardless of whether its 1/2 or 1/200 (actually in this case I'd back Bradman more in the former rather than the latter).

No doubt about Bradman being the biggest threat.

With Smith at 4, you literally have the best uphill skier in living memory. Always played memorable knocks against the better bowling attacks in favourable bowling conditions.

I would argue Smith is much less bulletproof against top quality pace than Viv at no.4

I seriously think real selectors would pick Gibbs over Holding as the 4th WIndies bowler in most conditions to avoid Sobers having to shoulder the entire spin load (assuming modern playing conditions).

WI would have Marshall, Ambrose , Holding and Gibbs as their likely attack. Gibbs gives them control and tightness.

England have a better claim to openers who are a class above Australia's openers but literally no side could ever claim a better middle order than Bradman, Smith, Waugh and Border (or maybe even G Chapell at 5 instead of Waugh, but that's hair splitting tbh)).

Um sorry but WI run them close with Headley, Viv and Lara. But WI have a trumpcard with Sobers batting at no.6, basically the ideal position for him to counterattack with a tired bowling lineup and softer ball.

The best argument for Miller in the Aus ATXI is that Bradman covers his weaker batting and he's a 5th genuine bowler who let's you pick O'Reilly to bowl alongside Warne (even though we never really saw MacGill bowl alongside Warne even when he was clearly the second best bowler available (like in the 05 ashes when McGrath was injured).

Miller definitely has a case for being at no.6 but it undeniably weakens the Bradman advantage.

The Aussie all time squad would have the flexibility to play two spinners if necessary, but the starting XI is going to maximise batting output in the top 7 because McGrath, Lillee, Warne and Davidson/Lindwall/Cummins is ridiculously broken strong as a bowling attack.

Again, WI still have the better all round pace attack.

 

[stephen]

Purely in terms of batting. Gilly of course is a worldclass keeper.

He was never as good with the bat while he kept as his overall record suggests. Gilly is a class above all other keeper/batsmen to have played the game.

 

[subshakerz]

I thought you don't rate Trumper.