Imran Khan vs Curtley Ambrose

[shortpitched713]

I must say subz has made some decent arguments against Ambrose.

I think we've been overrating him.

As in Lillee gets heavily penalized for his SC record, the same should apply to Ambrose.

Ambrose is much more consistent and incisive everywhere compared to Lillee. I don't mind Ambrose's excellent demolition record in Australia and England particularly. He played so many of his matches (especially away there) against them, and it was an important matchwinning and series winning skillset as compared to smaller sample sizes elsewhere.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Eng/Aus 11
1. Jack Hobbs
2. Len Hutton
3. Don Bradman
4. Ken Barrington
5. Steven Smith
6. Keith Miller
7. Adam Gilchrist
8. Shane Warne
9. Dennis Lillee
10. Glen McGrath
11. Sydney Barnes

This team will win against WI 11 or Asia 11.

Barrington & Smith are almost impossible to dismiss and when you add the Don easy win for them.

They will win in their own conditions but they'd be hard pressed to win in WI and in Asia.

 

[kyear2]

Yup. Australia’s only weakness is its openers and England has the best ones going. Combine the two and its game over.

Don't even think it's an easy win vs the SC XI, and their attack isn't as good one with Marshall, Hadlee and Steyn.

Hobbs | Hutton | Bradman | Smith | Chappell | Hammond | Gilchrist | Lindwall | Warne | Lillee | McGrath

Vs

Richards | Greenidge | Richards | Lara | Pollock | Sobers | Waite | Hadlee | Marshall | Steyn | Tayfield

As great as the ashes attack is, the ROW is just better, and could be a 1st team world XI pace attack and no one would blink.

The only "weak spot" in the batting is Greenidge but the positive for the ROW is that they all have experience and success vs bowlers of this caliber.

But yeah, bowlers win matches and don't see it being easy for either team.

 

[kyear2]

Pre-1950s England is a cheat code

Hobbs. Sutcliffe. Hutton. Hammond. Barnes.

Too many legends.

Two of them played in literally the flattest era of the sport, and one still couldn't score at a rate above the low '30's. No, don't rate Sutcliffe at all. Hammond, a player I very much do rate, was traumatized by Martindale and Constantine.

Not to add Hobbs and Sutcliffe played entire careers in old lbw rules, and none of us have seen Hobbs nor Sutcliffe bat, far less Barnes bowl.

 

[DrWolverine]

Two of them played in literally the flattest era of the sport, and one still couldn't score at a rate above the low '30's. No, don't rate Sutcliffe at all. Hammond, a player I very much do rate, was traumatized by Martindale and Constantine.

Not to add Hobbs and Sutcliffe played entire careers in old lbw rules, and none of us have seen Hobbs nor Sutcliffe bat, far less Barnes bowl.

I am assuming they would be just as good in modern era. I do agree with your argument and that’s why I usually have only pre war batsman in my ATG team.

 

[sayon basak]

"If you've got a champion in one era, he would've been a champion in any other era. He would simply change himself to adapting rules and conditions."

 

[Coronis]

Two of them played in literally the flattest era of the sport, and one still couldn't score at a rate above the low '30's. No, don't rate Sutcliffe at all. Hammond, a player I very much do rate, was traumatized by Martindale and Constantine.

Not to add Hobbs and Sutcliffe played entire careers in old lbw rules, and none of us have seen Hobbs nor Sutcliffe bat, far less Barnes bowl.

High 30’s. Exactly like Hutton.

Don't even think it's an easy win vs the SC XI, and their attack isn't as good one with Marshall, Hadlee and Steyn.

Hobbs | Hutton | Bradman | Smith | Chappell | Hammond | Gilchrist | Lindwall | Warne | Lillee | McGrath

Vs

Richards | Greenidge | Richards | Lara | Pollock | Sobers | Waite | Hadlee | Marshall | Steyn | Tayfield

As great as the ashes attack is, the ROW is just better, and could be a 1st team world XI pace attack and no one would blink.

The only "weak spot" in the batting is Greenidge but the positive for the ROW is that they all have experience and success vs bowlers of this caliber.

But yeah, bowlers win matches and don't see it being easy for either team.

You’re entitled to your opinion. I don’t think its necessarily “easy”. Assuming 3 XI’s of Aus/Eng, SC, ROW.. they have - the best openers easily, the middle orders without Bradman are practically equal, but then they have Bradman, they have Gilchrist, they have a slightly inferior pace attack to RoW, equal at worst to SC and a far superior spinner to RoW, equal to SC. Basically #1/equal first at everything besides the pace attack which is a slight inferiority comparitively.

Games may not be easy ofc and will also no doubt be condition dependant but there’s no way the Ashes XI wouldn’t be favourites.

 

[DrWolverine]

I love the quote

I do not believe it 100%

Rod Laver was the greatest tennis player pre-1970. He even won all four Slams in one year in the Open era but I find it unlikely he would be just as good today.

 

[kyear2]

I am assuming they would be just as good in modern era. I do agree with your argument and that’s why I usually have only pre war batsman in my ATG team.

That's a big assumption. It would held if we had an eye test though. Think Hobbs has as good a case for 2nd as anyone, but I'm also not choosing him to take on the squad from Proxima.

 

[Coronis]

I love the quote

I do not believe it 100%

Rod Laver was the greatest tennis player pre-1970. He even won all four Slams in one year in the Open era but I find it unlikely he would be just as good today.

I find it unlikely the big 3 would be just as good with these racquets.

 

[DrWolverine]

But why would the big 3 play with these racquets today?

 

[Coronis]

But why would the big 3 play with these racquets today?

I’m talking about them during Laver’s time obviously…

 

[kyear2]

High 30’s. Exactly like Hutton.




You’re entitled to your opinion. I don’t think its necessarily “easy”. Assuming 3 XI’s of Aus/Eng, SC, ROW.. they have - the best openers easily, the middle orders without Bradman are practically equal, but then they have Bradman, they have Gilchrist, they have a slightly inferior pace attack to RoW, equal at worst to SC and a far superior spinner to RoW, equal to SC. Basically #1/equal first at everything besides the pace attack which is a slight inferiority comparitively.

Games may not be easy ofc and will also no doubt be condition dependant but there’s no way the Ashes XI wouldn’t be favourites.

Yes exactly like Hutton.

The difference being that one played their entire career pre lbw law, and more importantly in the flattest period of the sport.

The other faced modern ATG pacers and was in one of the 3 live pitch eras, and low scoring periods in the game.

Context.

lao as we've discussed in the past Warne is not a factor. He's never been against superior completion, and this is that.

We can disagree on this, but Hobbs is a question mark and Hutton may stay there, but he isn't going to hurt you, and eventually vs this level of competition, one will have your name on it.
The wild card for me is Gilchrist. But the ROW batting is insane as well and the bowling is near perfect.

The one spot that's troubling is the 2nd opener, but early 80's Greenidge was just as effective as early 80's Sunny. Also tempted to say **** it and send in Headley but hey.

If we do get the time machines though, the one thing I want to see is prime Marshall vs prime Bradman.

 

[kyear2]

I love the quote

I do not believe it 100%

Rod Laver was the greatest tennis player pre-1970. He even won all four Slams in one year in the Open era but I find it unlikely he would be just as good today.

Past a certain point, I don't believe it at all.

 

[sayon basak]

Past a certain point, I don't believe it at all.

Ok.

 

[Coronis]

lao as we've discussed in the past Warne is not a factor. He's never been against superior completion, and this is that.

Right, arguably greatest spinner ever is not a factor. Why do you have him in your ATG XI then? Must be his slip fielding right?

We can disagree on this, but Hobbs is a question mark

Says the guy who has Barry Richards opening for him.

The wild card for me is Gilchrist. But the ROW batting is insane as well and the bowling is near perfect.

I like that you refuse to acknowledge that Bradman clearly makes their middle order superior.

 

[sayon basak]

That's a big assumption. It would held if we had an eye test though. Think Hobbs has as good a case for 2nd as anyone, but I'm also not choosing him to take on the squad from Proxima.

Pretty sure the Alpha centauri system doesn't have any life, considering the violent radiation of the host star and tidal locking.

 

[OverratedSanity]

This idea that Warne and Murali were scrubs (or non-factos) against great batsmen is such a nonsensical opinion that has taken over certain sections of CW. They struggled against one very specific set of players that played them well (and in Murali's case only in India, he dominated India in SL). They had consistently great performances against lots of amazing batting lineups. That they'd be reduced to bit part players against an ATG XI is totally divorced from reality.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Hutton may stay there, but he isn't going to hurt you, and eventually vs this level of competition, one will have your name on it.

Do you honestly believe this about all defensive batsmen?

 

[Coronis]

Do you honestly believe this about all defensive batsmen?

It explains a bit though, doesn’t it?