Australia ATG vs ROW XI - in Australia

[Coronis]

Sutcliffe himself said: "I have perhaps succumbed to the new lbw rule more than anyone else." During the 1934 English first-class season he was out lbw three times. During 1935 after the law change he was lbw fifteen times. It was a problem for him and the selectors reacted. Nonetheless there is a reasonable argument he should still have made the next tour to Australia.

Yes he said he thought he had difficulty with the new rules. That doesn’t mean squat by itself, if someone says they thought they had a weakness to x and overcame it somehow that is what counts.

1934: 44 innings, 2023 runs @ 49.34, 4 tons 12 fifties
1935: 54 innings, 2494 runs @ 48.90, 8 tons 11 fifties

Looks like the rule change caused a massive drop off right? In fact, averages overall were far higher in 34 rather than 35 (perhaps a wetter summer, the new lbw law, or a combination of both). Only Hammond (49) averaged higher than Sutcliffe in 35.

Sutcliffe wasn't an ugly player - he scored mostly through the off side. But he did not have the natural ability of some others. In those days that contributed more towards how players were regarded than it does ninety years later - due partly to the technique required on uncovered pitches. Stats tended to be used as supporting evidence when comparing players, rather than being the main criteria.

Again these are stupid ways to rate players. Plenty of “naturally talented” batsmen have been outshone by others who have exceeded their output clearly. Nobody was calling Smith the most naturally talented of the Fab Four and look how that turned out. Sutcliffe was excellent on uncovered pitches and was indeed a great player on stickies so thats useless to bring up. Stats being used as supporting evidence to technique is the stupidest way to rate a player. It should only come in if you’re picking a “best players to watch XI”

 

[Slifer]

For either side to go in with only 4 bowlers would be a massive risk for me.

These are 2 exceptional batting teams with the very best batsmen that have ever played the game.

Even the greatest bowlers are going to have many periods in the game where the bat dominates.

The great teams could get away with 4 bowlers because on the whole they were significantly better than the opposition, this wouldn't be the case in this game.

Also what if a bowler gets injured, 3 mainline bowlers wouldn't cut it

Agree with the part about bowlers having a lull during a game. Disagree with the injury comment because I believe we're all assuming the bowlers/batsmen are fit.

 

[peterhrt]

Yes he said he thought he had difficulty with the new rules. That doesn’t mean squat by itself, if someone says they thought they had a weakness to x and overcame it somehow that is what counts.

1934: 44 innings, 2023 runs @ 49.34, 4 tons 12 fifties
1935: 54 innings, 2494 runs @ 48.90, 8 tons 11 fifties

Looks like the rule change caused a massive drop off right? In fact, averages overall were far higher in 34 rather than 35 (perhaps a wetter summer, the new lbw law, or a combination of both). Only Hammond (49) averaged higher than Sutcliffe in 35.



Again these are stupid ways to rate players. Plenty of “naturally talented” batsmen have been outshone by others who have exceeded their output clearly. Nobody was calling Smith the most naturally talented of the Fab Four and look how that turned out. Sutcliffe was excellent on uncovered pitches and was indeed a great player on stickies so thats useless to bring up. Stats being used as supporting evidence to technique is the stupidest way to rate a player. It should only come in if you’re picking a “best players to watch XI”

So should how players were regarded by those who actually saw them be disregarded in favour of Statsguru look-ups decades later?

We can all see that Sutcliffe scored more Test runs than Hutton in Australia at a higher average. If that's the only question, there's nothing to debate. Is there a single Australian source (player/journalist) who considered him a better batsman?

 

[Coronis]

So should how players were regarded by those who actually saw them be disregarded in favour of Statsguru look-ups decades later?

We can all see that Sutcliffe scored more Test runs than Hutton in Australia at a higher average. If that's the only question, there's nothing to debate. Is there a single Australian source (player/journalist) who considered him a better batsman?

I don’t know, maybe? I don’t really care tbh. If you’d rather rate players on peer opinion than actual performance, go ahead.

 

[Nintendo]

1.Hobbs
2.Hutton
3.Vrichards
4.Hammond
5.TENDULKAR
6.Faulkner
7.Knott
8.Akram
9.Holding
10.Ambrose
11.Hadlee
12.Donald
13.Kallis
14.Murali
15.Kapil
16.Gavaskar
17.Wattling
18.I Khan

Simpson/Hayden/Morris/Trumper
Ponting
Smith
Chappell/Waugh/Border
Miller
Gilly
Warne
Lillee
McGrath
O'Reilly/Lindwall/Cummins/Davidson

is the squads i'm gonna use for the ROW vs AUS.

Gonna do the 1st match tonight then do the rest progressively over the next week.

 

[The Sean]

Not sure if I'm missing an inside joke, but why is Tendulkar always in caps?

 

[Nintendo]

Not sure if I'm missing an inside joke, but why is Tendulkar always in caps?

I just typed his name like that in an initial post and keep on copy pasting it. No funny joke to it.

 

[Nintendo]

Picked Sutcliffe before the series on accident and i've already had to reset 3 times, just playing it with sutcliffe in the squad over hutton, sorry.
Game one.
FLAT PITCH
XI:
AUS
1.Trumper
2.Hayden
3.Ponting
4.Smith
5.Waugh
6.Miller
7.Gilly
8.Warne
9.O'reilly
10.Lillee
11.Mcgrath

WORLD:
1.Hobbs
2.Sutcliffe
3.Richards
4.Tendulkar
5.Hammond
6.Faulkner
7.Wattling
8.Holding
9.Ambrose
10.Hadlee
11.Akram

World XI win the toss and bat.


Lunch day 1: 47/1 Sutcliffe 24* Hobbs 8

Tea day 1: 121/2 Sutcliffe 67* Richards 19

GILCHRIST DROPS HAMMOND ON 15

End of day 1: 193/3 SUTCLIFFE 73 TENDULKAR 56*

Lunch day 2: 256/8 Tendulkar 67 Warne 4-61

WORLD XI 298 ALL OUT SUTCLIFFE 73 FROM 247 5 X 4, TENDULKAR 67 FROM 173 4 X 4, WATTLING 53 FROM 174 5 X 4 1 X 6, WARNE 5-73 LILLEE 2-60

Tea day 2: 4/0

End of day 2: 80/0 TRUMPER 39* HAYDEN 35*

LUNCH DAY 3: 161/1 TRUMPER 81* HADLEE 1-32

TEA DAY 3: 246/1 TRUMPER 119* PONTING 74*

PONTING DROPPED ON 136

Lunch day 4: 366/2 TRUMPER 163 PONTING 138*

Tea day 4: 491/4 PONTING 164 GILCHRIST 83 FAULKNER 1-53

TEA DAY 4: AUS DECLARE 640-4 PONTING 164 FROM 336 14 X 4 2 X 6, TRUMPER 163 FROM 319 14 X 4 1 X 6, SMITH 107* FROM 158 18 X 4, GILCHRIST 83 FROM 99 9 X 4 2 X 6.



END OF DAY 5: 30/0 HOBBS 18* SUTCLIFFE 11*

LUNCH DAY 5: 90/1 SUTCLIFFE 44* WARNE 1-19

TEA DAY 5: 139/4 SUTCLIFFE 68 MCGRATH 2-26

END OF DAY 5: 205/6 MATCH DRAWN SUTCLIFFE 68 FROM 237 3 X 4, FAULKNER 39* FROM 111 3 X 4. WARNE 2-35 MCGRATH 2-36 SMITH 1-19

MOTM PONTING

OTHER NOTABLE PERFORMANCES

WARNE 5-73 AND 2-35

SMITH 105* AND 1-19

SUTCLIFFE 73 AND 68

TRUMPER 163

GILCRIST 83 FROM 99

SCORECARDS:





WAGONWHEELS:
SUTCLIFFE 73 AND 68


SMITH 107*

PONTING 164

 

[Nintendo]

GAME 2:
SPINNERS PITCH

AUS THE SAME, MURALI FOR HOLDING IN THE WORLD XI
AUS WIN THE TOSS AND BAT.

LUNCH DAY 1: 78/2 TRUMPER 35 HAYDEN 28 HADLEE 1-14 AMBROSE 1-21

TEA DAY 1: 132/3 SMITH 29*

END OF DAY 1: 220/3 SMITH 93* BORDER 45*

LUNCH DAY 2: 308/4 SMITH 130 BORDER 83* AMBROSE 1-58 MURALI 1-66

TEA DAY 2: 391/5 BORDER 114* FAULKNER 1-31

END OF DAY 1: AUS 509 ALL OUT: SMITH 130 FROM 257 16 X 4 1 X 6, BORDER 120 FROM 372 9 X 4, GILCHRIST 52 FROM 49 9 X 4, O'REILLY 48* FROM 61 8 X 4 1 X 6, HADLEE 3-121 FAULKNER 2-31

LUNCH DAY 3: 16 OVERS LOST TO RAIN 50/0 SUTCLIFFE 30* HOBBS 19*

TEA DAY 3: TENDULKAR RETIRED HURT AFTER COPPING A BOUNCER, UPDATE LATER 97/2 SUTCLIFFE 55* O'REILLY 1-18 WARNE 1-21 15 OVERS LOST TO RAIN

END OF DAY 3 16 OVERS LOST TO RAIN, 129/7 SUTCLIFFE 67 O'REILLY 2-18 MILLER 2-26 WARNE 2-27

WORLD XI 144 ALL OUT: SUTCLIFFE 67 FROM 149 9 X 4 O'REILLY 3-22 WARNE 3-38

AUSTRALIA ENFORCE THE FOLLOW ON:

LUNCH DAY 4: 43/0 HOBBS 27* SUTCLIFFE 13*

TEA DAY 4: 96/0 HOBBS 51* SUTCLIFFE 38*

END OF DAY 4: 183/2 SUTCLIFFE 67* HOBBS 59 MCGRATH 1-27 LILLEE 1-33

LUNCH DAY 5 14 OVERS LOST TO RAIN: 220/2 SUTCLIFFE 87*

TEA DAY 5: 275/4 SUTCLIFFE 117*

WORLD XI 377 ALL OUT: SUTCLIFFE 121 FROM 411 4 X 4 1 X 6, HOBBS 59 FROM 194 5 X 4, WATTLING 46 FROM 156 6 X 4, HADLEE 40 FROM 82 4 X 4, O'REILLY 4-102 WARNE 2-10 SMITH 1-16 (SUTCLIFFE WICKET).

END OF DAY 5: AUSTRALIA WIN BY 8 WICKETS 13/2 AKRAM 1-3 HADLEE 1-10

MOTM O'REILLY

OTHER NOTABLE PERFORMANCES

SMITH 130, 1* AND 1-16

BORDER 120

GILLY 52 FROM 49

HADLEE 40, 3-121 AND 1-10

SUTCLIFFE 67 AND 121.

WILL POST SCORECARDS TOMMOZ.

 

[Burgey]

BORDER 120

?????

 

[Burgey]

NGL plenty of long term CW members are currently shook that someone has said they’ll sim something and then gone and actually done it.

 

[Coronis]

I don’t care how many times you had to sim it for Sutcliffe to have the highest scores in all 4 innings, but I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

 

[subshakerz]

TEA DAY 5: 275/4 SUTCLIFFE 117*

WORLD XI 377 ALL OUT: SUTCLIFFE 121 FROM 411 4 X 4 1 X 6, HOBBS 59 FROM 194 5 X 4, WATTLING 46 FROM 156 6 X 4, HADLEE 40 FROM 82 4 X 4, O'REILLY 4-102 WARNE 2-10 SMITH 1-16 (SUTCLIFFE WICKET).

END OF DAY 5: AUSTRALIA WIN BY 8 WICKETS 13/2 AKRAM 1-3 HADLEE 1-10

MOTM O'REILLY

OTHER NOTABLE PERFORMANCES

SMITH 130, 1* AND 1-16

BORDER 120

GILLY 52 FROM 49

HADLEE 40, 3-121 AND 1-10

SUTCLIFFE 67 AND 121.

WILL POST SCORECARDS TOMMOZ.

Don't see how it's possible to lose from there.

 

[Burgey]

Don't see how it's possible to lose from there.

Maybe it was played in Sydney in 2008…

 

[Shri]

Think it's time for Cummins to replace lillee in aus ATG team

 

[subshakerz]

The ROW bowling in these sims is pretty toothless, and their tail nonexistent.

 

[Nintendo]

T

The ROW bowling in these sims is pretty toothless, and their tail nonexistent.

I'm a bit mixed on that tbh. I got to midway day four of the first test in that Sim and the scoreline was 330-300-260 going into the fourth dig on the flat pitch but my game crashed for no reason.

 

[Shri]

 

[Shri]

 

[Shri]

ABDV drops bradman off marshall