The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Coronis]

Other than here, O’Reilly doesn’t really get appreciated for as good as he was. When these debates of greatest bowler of all time comes up both Barnes and O’Reilly deserve a mention everytime. Those two were pretty convincingly the greatest bowler ever for decades and decades.

Its really sad, but yeah thanks to the changing attitudes leaning towards one spinner, and having both Warne and Murali he rarely gets brought up.

 

[The Sean]

Very interesting stuff. It also begs the question of course - is the current way of thinking about team construction - generally 5 batsmen, an allrounder, a keeper, 3 pacers and a spinner - better or worse? Of course we’ll never know, but interesting to muse upon.

Was shocked to see Ferris in one of the sides, despite his record you don’t really ever see him mentioned alongside early Australian bowlers like Spofforth, Turner and Trumble.

Was shocked to see a Chappell vote.

Unfortunately, all these blokes bar Pollard (who died in 2002) had died before Gilchrist debuted. (unsure about Winning, cannot find any info on him at all) Would be interesting to see what they thought of him.

I had a similar thought when reading the selections, that these teams were all picked 40 years ago, give or take, and everyone involved is dead.

I reckon Don Tallon would surely suffer the most for that. The men who saw him in action in the first few years after WWII are of no doubt that his glovework has never been surpassed. But almost all those people are dead now, and just looking at Tallon's record without having watched him (21 Tests, 58 dismissals, a batting average of 17) gives the modern cricket fan no justifiable reason to pick him.

 

[kyear2]

On a broader point (see, I got to it eventually), I find it fascinating going over these old teams – and remember, they were all selected in the 1980s so aren’t that old – and seeing how the composition and balance of such teams has evolved even in my lifetime. You can see from the above that it was almost a matter of course that you picked five bowlers, and at least two of those bowlers were spinners. The two above – O’Reilly and Winning – who bucked that trend and stacked the batting to have only four bowlers, still had two spinners!

It is probably all these old books, and the penchant for beloved old cricketers I grew up idolising to choose teams with five bowling options, that influences to this day how I pick my teams. I absolutely don’t go in for choosing five specialist bowlers and the best specialist gloveman regardless of his batting, and subsequently leave myself with a tail starting at 6 or 7. But at the same time, I’ve never quite fully embraced the idea of six batsmen and four bowlers – I always like to have a fifth option.

That fifth option can take many forms – for example, I invariably pick Mushtaq Mohammad in my Pakistan ATXI because I love the balance and depth he brings to the attack while still being a good enough batsman to play in the top 6, albeit not as good as a pure specialist bat. My All Time Australian 2nd XI, on the other hand has both Bob Simpson and Steve Waugh. They took 163 Test wickets between them, so I am prepared to stack the batting in that team and jointly consider them my “fifth bowler”.

Where I diverge from a lot of people I think is when I have a genuine world class bowling all-rounder available for selection. It came up in discussion recently when talking about Ian Botham in an all time England XI, with some people saying he’d have to bat at 8 and be one of the four main bowlers, because if you picked him at six he wouldn’t make enough runs and wouldn’t bowl enough. This is where I fundamentally disagree, because at that point and if I have a player like Botham (or Keith Miller in the Australian XI equivalent) then he’s not a “fifth bowler”, he is one of my “five bowlers”. This is for me a really important distinction.

To me – and I realise that others think differently when developing the composition of their teams – I’m not picking a player like Ian Botham to bowl a handful of overs as a glorified part-timer to give my other four a rest. If I have a bowling all-rounder of that class then I know I am giving up some runs in the middle order specifically because I now have five world class bowlers instead of four, and I will rotate and utilise them accordingly to improve my chances of taking 20 wickets.

Maybe he is the fifth best of the five bowlers, but there’s a big difference between being the fifth best in a balanced attack of five world class bowlers and being the bits-and-pieces bowler who gives the four champions a rest. Colin Croft was the fourth best quick in the WI team he shared with Holding, Roberts and Garner but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t one of the quartet and a critical part of the full time attack. My philosophy is the same, but with five rather than four when you have the bowlers and the team balance to do so.

I know a lot of people think that if four gun bowlers can’t get your 20 wickets then a fifth won’t make a difference, and if that’s your thinking then fair enough – that certainly seems to be the prevailing thought these days. Suffice it to say, I don’t necessarily agree.

Anyway, that was a lot of words to say I have recently re-read an old book.

Nice post.

By only takes would be, if you're batting Botham or Miller at 6, they're not so much bowling all rounders at that point, but that's semantics and neither here nor there.

The other point and is in response to the highlighted bit, I don't think that the resistance to 5 bowlers is about the 4th not making a substantive difference, it's more about is it worth the drop off for the batting.

We've had, this discussion before and disagreed, but to bat Miller at 6, just opens up a weakness in the batting that's not necessary. But that just my opinion, and again points out how valuable guys like Sobers and Kallis (and yes even Hammond) really are, because you loose nothing. And one just can't go into a test series at any level without having some kind of viable 5th option, doesn't matter if that rises to the level of all rounder or not.

But as I said, really nice post.

 

[Coronis]

I had a similar thought when reading the selections, that these teams were all picked 40 years ago, give or take, and everyone involved is dead.

I reckon Don Tallon would surely suffer the most for that. The men who saw him in action in the first few years after WWII are of no doubt that his glovework has never been surpassed. But almost all those people are dead now, and just looking at Tallon's record without having watched him (21 Tests, 58 dismissals, a batting average of 17) gives the modern cricket fan no justifiable reason to pick him.

I mean, Tallon must’ve no doubt been a very quality keeper.

But yeah I mean I would say if you’re considered in that top tier then right around Knott’s batting level would be the minimum for consideration against Gilchrist, like Knott gets.

 

[kyear2]

Very interesting stuff. It also begs the question of course - is the current way of thinking about team construction - generally 5 batsmen, an allrounder, a keeper, 3 pacers and a spinner - better or worse? Of course we’ll never know, but interesting to muse upon.

Was shocked to see Ferris in one of the sides, despite his record you don’t really ever see him mentioned alongside early Australian bowlers like Spofforth, Turner and Trumble.

Was shocked to see a Chappell vote.

Unfortunately, all these blokes bar Pollard (who died in 2002) had died before Gilchrist debuted. (unsure about Winning, cannot find any info on him at all) Would be interesting to see what they thought of him.

I assume you mean Ian?

 

[kyear2]

Other than here, O’Reilly doesn’t really get appreciated for as good as he was. When these debates of greatest bowler of all time comes up both Barnes and O’Reilly deserve a mention everytime. Those two were pretty convincingly the greatest bowler ever for decades and decades.

I agree re O'Reilly.

I'm doing over my rankings and he's going to get a bump. He really was the best in the world for a substantive period of time and is still a top 3 spinner of all time.

Definitely top 10

 

[Coronis]

I assume you mean Ian?

Obviously

 

[kyear2]

And yeah, the way teams are constricted now are different.

As per @peterhrt Swanton chose his team in '91 and he too chose two spinners, the best keeper and focused more on fielding and catching than worrying about the tail.

Hobbs, Gavaskar, Bradman, Sobers, Headley, Miller, Davison, Evans, Marshall, O'Reilly, Gibbs.

Let's assume at best that if redone today that Tendulkar replaces Headley and Murali replaces Gibbs, this still isn't a team most of us are choosing. Marshall and Davidson though still one hell of an opening attack and the two spinners turning it in opposite directions can be handy.

Headley over Hammond though is the selection that surprised me the most, though it's not the first time I've seen it.

 

[kyear2]

I mean, Tallon must’ve no doubt been a very quality keeper.

But yeah I mean I would say if you’re considered in that top tier then right around Knott’s batting level would be the minimum for consideration against Gilchrist, like Knott gets.

Or just out and out brilliant like Evans.

 

[Coronis]

Or just out and out brilliant like Evans.

Not sure I see Evans ever compared with Gilchrist. More like compared with Knott.

 

[kyear2]

Not sure I see Evans ever compared with Gilchrist. More like compared with Knott.

I've seen him listed as an ATG and I've seen him in such XI's.

 

[kyear2]

One of the conversations in another thread got me thinking and I came up with batting all rounder /slip and their bowling all rounder counterpart comps.

Sobers - Hadlee
The comp for Sobers as a cricketer has to be Hadlee, top tier in primary beats out everything else. And Hadlee isn't that far away from Immy with the bat.

Imran - Hammond
Kallis, as all rounders possibly, but he's a tier behind Imran as a batsman. Hammond is squarely in the time tier and positioning, both bottom half of the top 10, Hammond the greatest slip, Imran the best lower order bat and if course Hammond was quite the handy bowler to boot.

Kallis - Pollock
Kallis would win this comp but still the closest to him? He's ahead of Pollock in primary and secondary (both of them), but it's the closest I could come up with. Both ATG's on primary though, and that's more than good enough.

 

[peterhrt]

Arthur Mailey 1961: Trumper, Ponsford, Macartney, Bradman, Archie Jackson, Noble*, Miller, Jack Gregory, Oldfield+, Trumble, O'Reilly.

Keith Miller 1977: Charles Bannerman, Trumper, Bradman, Ponsford, McCabe, Miller, Noble*, Lindwall, Tallon+, Grimmett, O'Reilly.

 

[The Sean]

Arthur Mailey 1961: Trumper, Ponsford, Macartney, Bradman, Archie Jackson, Noble*, Miller, Jack Gregory, Oldfield+, Trumble, O'Reilly.

Keith Miller 1977: Charles Bannerman, Trumper, Bradman, Ponsford, McCabe, Miller, Noble*, Lindwall, Tallon+, Grimmett, O'Reilly.

These teams continue two trends. First, that everyone who picks Noble makes him captain. He must have been an extraordinary leader of men. Second, that for a long time it was Macartney and McCabe who were ranked immediately after Bradman in Australia's middle-order pantheon.

I'd seen Mailey's team before but don't remember having seen Nugget's. Bannerman is a wonderfully eccentric pick, and it's interesting that he'd move Ponsford to the middle order rather than choose Harvey, alongside whom he played so much and so successfully.

 

[The Sean]

They both also continue a third trend (and the one I'd originally focused on!) of having five bowlers, with at least two and often three of them being spinners.

 

[JBMAC]

Totally in agreement with this sentiment. Tallon without a doubt the best gloveman i have ever seen play.

 

[capt_Luffy]

These teams continue two trends. First, that everyone who picks Noble makes him captain. He must have been an extraordinary leader of men. Second, that for a long time it was Macartney and McCabe who were ranked immediately after Bradman in Australia's middle-order pantheon.

I'd seen Mailey's team before but don't remember having seen Nugget's. Bannerman is a wonderfully eccentric pick, and it's interesting that he'd move Ponsford to the middle order rather than choose Harvey, alongside whom he played so much and so successfully.

If anything, I thing rather moving Trumper to the MO makes much more sense

 

[Coronis]

If anything, I thing rather moving Trumper to the MO makes much more sense

Opening
Trumper 32 matches 52 innings 1650 @ 33.00 3 tons 9 fifties
Ponsford 20 matches 31 innings 1517 @ 54.17 5 tons 4 fifties

Not opening
Trumper 24 matches 37 innings 1513 @ 48.80 5 tons 4 fifties
Ponsford 10 matches 17 innings 605 @ 37.81 2 tons 2 fifties

Ponsford’s high conversion rate fits with his FC exploits.

 

[vidiq]

Australia will face bangladesh after 8 years

 

[Coronis]

Australia will face bangladesh after 8 years
View attachment 46344

It will be in Australia though, so Smith will still be a failure in Bangladesh. Its why he’s out of BAB.