The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[kyear2]

Like I said, its not the primary or secondary concern or consideration.

The primary concern was to best build a team around having both the spinners.

Thinking on it more, Miller is the ideal choice. He was somewhat of a reluctant bowler iirc, this team would allow him to have a reduced bowling load and focus more on moving his batting towards his domestic level hopefully. Plus he was an excellent allround fielder and often fielded in the slips when not bowling.

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Bradman*
Tendulkar
Sobers
Miller
Gilchrist+
Marshall
Warne
Murali
McGrath

If someone is truly that concerned about the tail they can add in Hadlee but its eh. Like I believe I said in a thread re: Tendulkar and Sobers, I would also consider there to be a small but clear gap between McGrath and Hadlee. Just to reiterate, you wouldn’t go wrong with choosing either of them in either of those comparisons, and realistically there’s not going to be much difference. (Unless you’re playing NZ)

I also believe there is a small but clear gap between McGrath and Hadlee and believe that the former would be more beneficial on more surfaces and conditions.

Personally wouldn't include Miller, and don't think he's the quality batsman needed at 6. It ridiculously weakens the batting, imo.

In decent to helpful conditions and not over burdened and turned into the stock bowler, Sobers was more than useful. His production in the ROW series was instructive and that was at the burnt out end to his career.

Not weakening the batting to facilitate the two spinners, not when part of their appeal is being that they can bowl extended spells and long periods, and Murali, even with the new(ish) ball.

With regards to not being a primary concern. I agree that I'm not choosing my no. 10 batsman based on his he can bat. If that's a consideration or being consistently relied upon, you have far bigger issues.
That doesn't apply for the other thing. With an attack of Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee and Warne (your standard attack), it doesn't work if you don't have the keeper and slip catchers to support them.

And this has been borne out in history by similar scenarios and selections, well by the good teams at least. It can't be an afterthought.
Sobers was elite, so was Richards(V), not to mention Hammond, Chappell etc. who not only took almost everything offered, but created half chances as well. Richards(B) and yes, Miller, was just below them, but Warne was even below them, and not someone I would trust there at said level. That's before I even get into the Tendulkar discussion.

 

[Srinath P]

Like I said, its not the primary or secondary concern or consideration.

The primary concern was to best build a team around having both the spinners.

Thinking on it more, Miller is the ideal choice. He was somewhat of a reluctant bowler iirc, this team would allow him to have a reduced bowling load and focus more on moving his batting towards his domestic level hopefully. Plus he was an excellent allround fielder and often fielded in the slips when not bowling.

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Bradman*
Tendulkar
Sobers
Miller
Gilchrist+
Marshall
Warne
Murali
McGrath

If someone is truly that concerned about the tail they can add in Hadlee but its eh. Like I believe I said in a thread re: Tendulkar and Sobers, I would also consider there to be a small but clear gap between McGrath and Hadlee. Just to reiterate, you wouldn’t go wrong with choosing either of them in either of those comparisons, and realistically there’s not going to be much difference. (Unless you’re playing NZ)

Why Miller over Imran? Sure, Miller was a better batter but Imran was a better package isn't it

 

[kyear2]

Why Miller over Imran? Sure, Miller was a better batter but Imran was a better package isn't it

That person would have a reduced bowling role and hold greater reliability batting at 6.

Have to slide towards the better batter there.

 

[Srinath P]

That person would have a reduced bowling role and hold greater reliability batting at 6.

Have to slide towards the better batter there.

You can also push Gilchrist up to six. Imran at 7 and Hadlee at 8 is enough batting IMO, and then you have Marshall and Warne too.

 

[Coronis]

Why Miller over Imran? Sure, Miller was a better batter but Imran was a better package isn't it

It was also slightly to placate someone’s fielding fears.

I also believe there is a small but clear gap between McGrath and Hadlee and believe that the former would be more beneficial on more surfaces and conditions.

Personally wouldn't include Miller, and don't think he's the quality batsman needed at 6. It ridiculously weakens the batting, imo.

In decent to helpful conditions and not over burdened and turned into the stock bowler, Sobers was more than useful. His production in the ROW series was instructive and that was at the burnt out end to his career.

Not weakening the batting to facilitate the two spinners, not when part of their appeal is being that they can bowl extended spells and long periods, and Murali, even with the new(ish) ball.

With regards to not being a primary concern. I agree that I'm not choosing my no. 10 batsman based on his he can bat. If that's a consideration or being consistently relied upon, you have far bigger issues.
That doesn't apply for the other thing. With an attack of Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee and Warne (your standard attack), it doesn't work if you don't have the keeper and slip catchers to support them.

And this has been borne out in history by similar scenarios and selections, well by the good teams at least. It can't be an afterthought.
Sobers was elite, so was Richards(V), not to mention Hammond, Chappell etc. who not only took almost everything offered, but created half chances as well. Richards(B) and yes, Miller, was just below them, but Warne was even below them, and not someone I would trust there at said level. That's before I even get into the Tendulkar discussion.

Team already has Bradman and Gilchrist. They can afford to have a weaker batsman who would be an amazing 3rd pacer. They cannot afford to have a Garry Sobers as a 3rd pacer.

 

[kyear2]

You can also push Gilchrist up to six. Imran at 7 and Hadlee at 8 is enough batting IMO, and then you have Marshall and Warne too.

Tail still a little too long for me.

But that's just me.

 

[sayon basak]

Here's 2 by ChatGPT, I think @Coronis will like these more:

Team 1:

Jack Hobbs
Len Hutton
Don Bradman
Sachin Tendulkar
Wally Hammond
Garry Sobers
Alan Knott+
Imran Khan*
Malcolm Marshall
Mutthiah Muralitharan
Sydney Barnes


Team 2:

Sunil Gavaskar
Herbert Sutcliffe
George Headley
Graeme Pollock
Steve Smith
Keith Miller
Les Ames+
Mike Procter
Richard Hadlee
Bill O'Reilly
Glenn McGrath

I really want AI to take over.

 

[sayon basak]

My atg xi
Jack hobbs
Len hutton
Don Bradman
Sachin tendulkar
Viv Richards
Gary sobers
Adam Gilchrist
Malcolm Marshall
Wasim akram
Shane warne
Dale styen
12th man)- muttiah Muralitharan

Why Steyn ahead of McGrath/Hadlee?

And Imran deserves a mention.

 

[kyear2]

It was also slightly to placate someone’s fielding fears.



Team already has Bradman and Gilchrist. They can afford to have a weaker batsman who would be an amazing 3rd pacer. They cannot afford to have a Garry Sobers as a 3rd pacer.

I will make two counter points.

1. Bradman's teams did indeed lose matches. He's not an automatic cheat sheet.

2. Gilchrist was part of quite arguably the strongest batting line up ever, and still came in at 7, being reluctant to go in any earlier, as was his team to ask.

So on this elevated contest why go against precedent?

 

[Coronis]

I will make two counter points.

1. Bradman's teams did indeed lose matches. He's not an automatic cheat sheet.

2. Gilchrist was part of quite arguably the strongest batting line up ever, and still came in at 7, being reluctant to go in any earlier, as was his team to ask.

So on this elevated contest why go against precedent?

Bradman’s teams lost rarely. You don’t rate him highly, we all know that. Fact is, he won a lot. More than the Windies of the 80’s. This is despite him having an inferior attack to their main rival for the vast majority of his career. Post-war, when he did have a high quality attack, that win percentage soared higher.

No, he is not an automatic cheat sheet. But he is by a large margin the greatest player and match winner the game has ever seen. 80% of the time when he scored a ton his team won. And he scored tons at twice the rate of almost every batsman in history.

I’m not playing Gilchrist higher than 7, so that’s not a relevant point. With Bradman and Gilchrist, the batting talent still outmatches any other team that could face them.

 

[kyear2]

Bradman’s teams lost rarely. You don’t rate him highly, we all know that. Fact is, he won a lot. More than the Windies of the 80’s. This is despite him having an inferior attack to their main rival for the vast majority of his career. Post-war, when he did have a high quality attack, that win percentage soared higher.

No, he is not an automatic cheat sheet. But he is by a large margin the greatest player and match winner the game has ever seen. 80% of the time when he scored a ton his team won. And he scored tons at twice the rate of almost every batsman in history.

I’m not playing Gilchrist higher than 7, so that’s not a relevant point. With Bradman and Gilchrist, the batting talent still outmatches any other team that could face them.

Bradman played 15 games vs abject minnows. The other 37 games he played vs England and lost 11.

It's impressive, but it's not "rarely" vs the only viable competition in you era.

I never said I don't rate him, I don't rate him to be twice as good as anyone else,.even up to when he retired no one thought he was twice as good as Hobbs. That's a purely modern determination.

He played 15 matches vs minnows, so would imagine he would have a higher winning percentage, not to add he had the unquestionable best bowler in the world, arguable the 2nd best as well.

And we just disagree, having Miller or Imran at 6 drops the overall quality of the lineup dramatically.

 

[Prince EWS]

I never said I don't rate him, I don't rate him to be twice as good as anyone else,.even up to when he retired no one thought he was twice as good as Hobbs. That's a purely modern determination.

He played 15 matches vs minnows, so would imagine he would have a higher winning percentage, not to add he had the unquestionable best bowler in the world, arguable the 2nd best as well.

And we just disagree, having Miller or Imran at 6 drops the overall quality of the lineup dramatically.

He's definitely not twice as good as Hobbs. He might be twice as good as Viv though.

 

[Prince EWS]

On the topic of the actual debate, I think Sobers as first change is fine if he's still effectively going to be the fifth bowler in terms of workload. I actually think it's a better use of him than having him come on with the old ball and bowl spin. I'd probably try to get him on second change in the 'normal' lineup anyway before the spinner.

The reason I don't select two spinners in my side is just because it'd be Marshall who I dropped and I just rate him too far ahead of the two spinners as a bowler to justify that. Sobers's role in it is fine IMO, dropping a batsman for another allrounder to bat 6 or 7 is overkill.

 

[Coronis]

The assumption for me at least, is that this team will face another ATG team. So it is about the matchups.

Obviously we already differ on our opinions of other players to be selected but lets try and ignore that. Once again disclaimer, the two spinners is not the ideal XI for any of us, this is to try and balance an XI with both of them locked in.

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Bradman*
Tendulkar
Sobers
Miller/Imran (note: I would likely pick Imran, I brought up Miller due to the fielding complaints)
Gilchrist+
Marshall
Warne
Murali
McGrath

or

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Bradman*
Tendulkar
Hammond
Sobers
Gilchrist+
Marshall
Warne
Murali
McGrath

Whilst increasing the batting advantage that this team will already have it provides a significant disadvantage in bowling imo.

Hutton
Gavaskar
Lara
Smith
Chappell
Kallis
Knott/whoever, add AB if you’re desperate to prove a batting strength point+
Hadlee
Steyn
O’Reilly
Ambrose


I just feel the first team matches up better. Still has a batting advantage, a far smaller gap in pace attack and a great advantage in spin.

 

[Tejretics]

For a true all-time eleven, judging also by things I’ve read rather than things I’ve seen, I’d go:

1. Jack Hobbs
2. Barry Richards
3. Don Bradman
4. Brian Lara
5. Steve Smith
6. Garry Sobers
7. Les Ames †
8. Richard Hadlee
9. Malcolm Marshall
10. Shane Warne
11. Sydney Barnes

Note, as earlier, that I think Tendulkar > Lara, and that Murali is the 2nd greatest bowler of all time behind Warne—I’m simply picking a team, and hence went with a left hander at No. 4 + only one true spinner (plus ~sorta Barnes and ~sometimes Sobers).

I prefer to pick an eleven based on players I’ve thought about and at least seen real footage of, which would mean:

1. Barry Richards
2. Gordon Greenidge
3. Viv Richards
4. Brian Lara
5. Steve Smith
6. Garry Sobers
7. Adam Gilchrist †
8. Wasim Akram
9. Malcolm Marshall
10. Shane Warne
11. Dale Steyn

Note, once more, that I rate Tendulkar over Lara; but I also rate Gavaskar over Greenidge; McGrath, Hadlee, and Lillee over Akram; and Murali except every bowler besides Warne. I am merely picking a side that I think would work well.

If I were, instead, to pick an eleven based on their all-time-great status as individual cricketers—rather than as a team to take the field—it would be:

1. Jack Hobbs
2. Barry Richards
3. Don Bradman
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. Steve Smith
6. Garry Sobers
7. Les Ames †
8. Malcolm Marshall
9. Shane Warne
10. Sydney Barnes
11. Muttiah Muralitharan

(with special mentions to Imran Khan, Jacques Kallis, and Richard Hadlee, who narrowly miss making this side)

 

[Coronis]

For a true all-time eleven, judging also by things I’ve read rather than things I’ve seen, I’d go:

1. Jack Hobbs
2. Barry Richards
3. Don Bradman
4. Brian Lara
5. Steve Smith
6. Garry Sobers
7. Les Ames †
8. Richard Hadlee
9. Malcolm Marshall
10. Shane Warne
11. Sydney Barnes

Note, as earlier, that I think Tendulkar > Lara, and that Murali is the 2nd greatest bowler of all time behind Warne—I’m simply picking a team, and hence went with a left hander at No. 4 + only one true spinner (plus ~sorta Barnes and ~sometimes Sobers).

I prefer to pick an eleven based on players I’ve thought about and at least seen real footage of, which would mean:

1. Barry Richards
2. Gordon Greenidge
3. Viv Richards
4. Brian Lara
5. Steve Smith
6. Garry Sobers
7. Adam Gilchrist †
8. Wasim Akram
9. Malcolm Marshall
10. Shane Warne
11. Dale Steyn

Note, once more, that I rate Tendulkar over Lara; but I also rate Gavaskar over Greenidge; McGrath, Hadlee, and Lillee over Akram; and Murali except every bowler besides Warne. I am merely picking a side that I think would work well.

If I were, instead, to pick an eleven based on their all-time-great status as individual cricketers—rather than as a team to take the field—it would be:

1. Jack Hobbs
2. Barry Richards
3. Don Bradman
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. Steve Smith
6. Garry Sobers
7. Les Ames †
8. Malcolm Marshall
9. Shane Warne
10. Sydney Barnes
11. Muttiah Muralitharan

(with special mentions to Imran Khan, Jacques Kallis, and Richard Hadlee, who narrowly miss making this side)

What makes you have Les Ames above Adam Gilchrist?

 

[Tejretics]

What makes you have Les Ames above Adam Gilchrist?

I’ve heard he was at least a comparable bat to Gilly (in terms of quality, not style), and a better gloveman—the latter matters a fair bit in an all-time team with excessively good batting already.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I’ve heard he was at least a comparable bat to Gilly (in terms of quality, not style), and a better gloveman—the latter matters a fair bit in an all-time team with excessively good batting already.

Ames wasn't a better keeper and definitely not a better batsman

 

[Coronis]

I’ve heard he was at least a comparable bat to Gilly (in terms of quality, not style), and a better gloveman—the latter matters a fair bit in an all-time team with excessively good batting already.

Not exactly sure how both of their keeping measures up - in the same region I assume, neither were ridiculously outstanding but both pretty quality. Gilly easily the better bat imo.

 

[Johan]

1. Jack Hobbs
2. Len Hutton
3. Donald Bradman (C)
4. Viv Richards
5. Sachin Tendulkar
6. Garry Sobers
7. Adam Gilchrist (W.K)
8. Richard Hadlee
9. Malcolm Marshall
10. Shane Warne
11. Glenn McGrath