Would Botham make it to your England ATG XI?

[subshakerz]

Botham is an ATG but there is a question if he necessarily adds the same value to an ATG XI or would be compromise bowling or batting standards.

Does he? Dropping him seems like sacrilege though.

 

[capt_Luffy]

If he plays, then so does Rhodes.

If you want a better spinner as in Laker, Verity or Underwood; then drop him. Grace and Hammond will be fine 5th options.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Hammond & Root can share the 5th bowler duties:

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hutton
Barrington
Hammond
Root
Knott wk
Verity
Larwood
Trueman
Barnes

 

[capt_Luffy]

Hammond & Root can share the 5th bowler duties:

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hutton
Barrington
Hammond
Root
Knott wk
Verity
Larwood
Trueman
Barnes

Barrington as well

 

[subshakerz]

Hammond & Root can share the 5th bowler duties:

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hutton
Barrington
Hammond
Root
Knott wk
Verity
Larwood
Trueman
Barnes

Yeah. My heart says Botham should be in, but logically they don't need him.

 

[Coronis]

Sacrilege smacrilege. Gtfo

 

[subshakerz]

For questions like this isn't this why the long term ATG discussion thread exists?

The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

Most other threads seem to be heading in to ATG team discussion territory, and going off topic. Post your ATG teams here, so others can tell you why you know nothing about cricket. :happy: I'll kick off with my ATG Australian combo. 1. V. Trumper 2. B. Simpson 3. D. Bradman 4. G...

www.cricketweb.net

Do we need one thread for all this?

 

[peterhrt]

In these theoretical teams Botham has been one of the first names on the teamsheet since the 1980s. Before then the all-rounder spot was often occupied by Ames, allowing two spinners and three specialist seamers: Larwood, Barnes and one other. Trueman wasn't rated as highly then. Hammond and usually Grace made the team as batsmen but not as the fifth bowler.

Botham's arrival allowed a wicket-keeping upgrade in Knott and these two have normally occupied the middle order ever since. Long tails never bothered England much in the past. The successful team of the 1950s always had one, with all-rounder Bailey (average 29) and keeper Evans (20) automatic choices at six and seven in the order. The selectors back then would never have considered Hammond as fifth bowler, or anybody other than Evans as wicket-keeper, however good their batting.

@capt_Luffy mentioned Rhodes. Fifty years ago he was a regular all-time choice, either as best spinner ("remains the greatest of left-arm spinners, all conditions being taken into account" - The Cricketer 1977) or as all-rounder, or both. Yet he failed to make hypothetical teams in 1914 and 1932 and is rarely picked today.

 

[capt_Luffy]

IIRC, while Rhodes didn't made Cricinfo's England AT team, he alongside Sutcliffe made their Best of the Rest Team.

 

[Chin Music]

But this is ODIs where Botham was less good across his career than tests. Even if we allow for the fact that he was able to have more utility as a medium slow bowler in his latter years, he was still a shadow of the cricketer that I recalled from the early to mid 80s.

 

[Coronis]

But this is ODIs where Botham was less good across his career than tests. Even if we allow for the fact that he was able to have more utility as a medium slow bowler in his latter years, he was still a shadow of the cricketer that I recalled from the early to mid 80s.

Where on Earth did you get that idea?

 

[Chin Music]

Where on Earth did you get that idea?

I misread the damn thing, that's why! Doh!!!!!! Edit: I got confused between this and the thread below which was about England all time ODIs.

 

[Pothas]

Yeah he still gets in. The upside of his bowling over Hammond whoever is pretty massive.

Hobbs
Hutton
Hammond
Root
Barrington
Ames
Botham
Verity
Trueman
Anderson
Barnes

 

[Chin Music]

To be clear peak Botham was an incredible player that I watched, but it was utterly sad watching him during his last 5 years when he played tests.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah he still gets in. The upside of his bowling over Hammond whoever is pretty massive.

Hobbs
Hutton
Hammond
Root
Barrington
Ames
Botham
Verity
Trueman
Anderson
Barnes

It is pretty big yes. However the downside is his batting compared to whomever would replace him. I think this has been said on here before, but realistically, your 5th bowler is not going to bowl that many overs on average. I feel in that case the batting disadvantage outweighs the advantage of his bowling.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Hobbs
Hutton
Grace
Hammond
Root
Rhodes
Woakes
Knott
Laker
Anderson
Barnes

Botham is a legend, just very hard to see who he could replace in this team.

 

[Athlai]

Hobbs
Hutton
Grace
Hutton
Root
Rhodes
Woakes
Knott
Laker
Anderson
Barnes

Botham is a legend, just very hard to see who he could replace in this team.

One of those names stands out.

Get that spud Root out of there

 

[Pothas]

It is pretty big yes. However the downside is his batting compared to whomever would replace him. I think this has been said on here before, but realistically, your 5th bowler is not going to bowl that many overs on average. I feel in that case the batting disadvantage outweighs the advantage of his bowling.

I used to usually go with the 4 bowlers is enough idea but generally now think if you can get away with 5 proper bowlers it is probably worth it, especially in this case when you sort of have two spinners.

 

[Aidan11]

Botham would be first on the team sheet for me.

I was in my mid teens when he was cricket's version of Roy of the Rovers. Always smashing the Aussies.

 

[Randomfan]

Yes, he will make it.