English ATG Team- Open Voting

[watson]

It's killing me but I think i have to let this out; this side will collapse in a heap many times and someone from top 5 will be stranded alone. It's a serious pressure on top 5 to score heavily, they are very much capable of doing it often but the difference is they will be facing ATG attack. But this extra amount of pressure might bring out the best in them.

I would rather prefer a solid no.6, One Spinner, Three Fast Bowlers and Hammond as 5th option.

Makes a lot of sense!

 

[Red]

Or just take the most popular spinner, and the most popular pace bowler from this exististing poll? That would give us Laker and Larwood thus far.

An ATG team without a pair of fast bowlers is unthinkable.

Lillee + Thomson, Holding + Roberts, Lindwall + Miller, Gregory + McDonald, McGrath + Gillespie, Waqar + Wasim etc etc have all won 'countless' Test matches. Two quicks opening the bowling is the most proven method for winning games of cricket in the history of cricket.

Corrected.


Playing one quick was quite normal in the earlier days of cricket. Playing no quicks was also quite common. It's only been since the 40s/50s/60s that two quicks have been common, then it's moved on to three, and now in some cases four.

Pre WW2 guys like Stan McCabe would often open the bowling for Australia, largely to get the shine off it so the spinners could do their job. I actually think this team is a nice nod to the past.

I'm happy to go with the consensus here Watson, which is what people voted for. The reason I left these two spots til last was because I wondered whether Botham would be in the team, and thought that would effect these last two votes. The people have spoken, democratically!

 

[watson]

Perhaps we could set up a poll with the question:

'Is Ian Botham a viable No.6 batsman in the context of competing ATG teams?' (or something like that)

Then re-do the ATG England team again when the answer is 'No'.

 

[Red]

Perhaps we could set up a poll with the question:

'Is Ian Botham a viable No.6 batsman in the context of competing ATG teams?' (or something like that)

Then re-do the ATG England team again when the answer is 'No'.

Well, if you like. But considering enough people voted for him to bat 3-6 in this team for him to be selected....

 

[watson]

Corrected.


Playing one quick was quite normal in the earlier days of cricket. Playing no quicks was also quite common. It's only been since the 40s/50s/60s that two quicks have been common, then it's moved on to three, and now in some cases four.

Pre WW2 guys like Stan McCabe would often open the bowling for Australia, largely to get the shine off it so the spinners could do their job. I actually think this team is a nice nod to the past.

I'm happy to go with the consensus here Watson, which is what people voted for. The reason I left these two spots til last was because I wondered whether Botham would be in the team, and thought that would effect these last two votes. The people have spoken, democratically!

And when 2 quicks were played in the 20s the Aussie team won the Ashes in a cake-walk.

Far for me to decry democracy - but I have to get things off my chest. We HAVE just defied proven cricket wisdom and logic.

 

[fredfertang]

This is where you have to think carefully about how you choose your ATG sides. Ian Botham had a superb eye and a wonderful technique - had he never turned his arm over who knows what he might have achieved with the bat, so for me he has to be in any ATG side because of what he was demonstrably capable of - he was a much better batsman than his stats suggest

 

[Red]

. We HAVE just defied proven cricket wisdom and logic.

Not sure how. The team selected by cricinfo's experts had Botham at 6. I know experts aren't always right, but hardly seems we're defying wisdom when they selected him.

I'd probably agree we could have another quick in the team personally over Laker or Verity, considering SF Barnes seems to have been a quickish spinner.. But, the way people have voted has seen a different result.

 

[Red]

And, tbh, I think having Botham in England's top six and Miller in Australia's is virtually the same thing.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think part of the problem is that we're voting blind as to what the rest of the team will be to a certain extent. Selectorial decisions usually involve bartering and compromises as to the composition of the team.

For myself if I'd known Beefy was going to be batting #6 I might've gone for Matty Prior over Knotty. Equally if Beefy was selected in a "bowling" slot worries about the length of the tail would've been avoided.

Ditto a seam attack of Trueman, Barnes and Larwood. With Beefy and Knott at 6 & 7 I might've gone for the extra batting of Rhodes or Verity over Laker had I knowledge beforehand.

 

[watson]

Not sure how. The team selected by cricinfo's experts had Botham at 6. I know experts aren't always right, but hardly seems we're defying wisdom when they selected him.

I'd probably agree we could have another quick in the team personally over Laker or Verity, considering SF Barnes seems to have been a quickish spinner.. But, the way people have voted has seen a different result.

Ok, fair enough over the Botham thing, but not having Larwood/Snow/Tyson in the team to partner Trueman does seem a tad silly.

 

[The Sean]

Larwood and Laker for me.

And I'm more than happy with Botham at no.6. The idea of Miller and Botham having no place at no.6 in an all time XI seems to be a recent phenomenon led by a younger generation who have grown up in a six batsmen/four bowlers world. Both men have traditionally been locks at no.6 in their country's ATXI and any expert panel assembled continues to select them as such.

I could understand reticence in picking a bits-and-pieces player just to have an all rounder, but the sheer value that a cricketer such as Miller or Botham adds to a team means than IMO they're impossible to leave out, and I have no problem selecting them at 6 given what bit you'll lose in batting strength compared to a specialist bat is more than made up for in your quest to take 20 wickets.

 

[Red]

I think part of the problem is that we're voting blind as to what the rest of the team will be to a certain extent. Selectorial decisions usually involve bartering and compromises as to the composition of the team.

For myself if I'd known Beefy was going to be batting #6 I might've gone for Matty Prior over Knotty. Equally if Beefy was selected in a "bowling" slot worries about the length of the tail would've been avoided.

Ditto a seam attack of Trueman, Barnes and Larwood. With Beefy and Knott at 6 & 7 I might've gone for the extra batting of Rhodes or Verity over Laker had I knowledge beforehand.

What would your personal team be? Curious to know.

 

[BoyBrumby]

What would your personal team be? Curious to know.

Hmm. Off the top of my head I think I'd go for something like this:

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hammond
Jardine*
Barrington
Compton
Knott+
Larwood
Laker
Trueman
Barnes

Tough to leave Beefy out, but Hammond as 2nd change seamer lessens the need for 4 specialists.

 

[NUFAN]

Jim Laker and Frank Tyson.

I thought about Tate to add some batting, but feel as though the attack really needs another fiery quick.

Changing my vote to Laker and Larwood thanks. I agree with Watson that the balance isn't right in this team at all if we include both Laker and Verity.


Going back to the ATG XI thread I would recommend leaving the 6 and 8 spots for last. They are the two spots where you can really fix the team balance - I don't think Botham at 6 is a problem at all though.

Its easy enough to do multiple options at the same time such as the two opening bats and two opening bowlers together.

 

[watson]

Larwood and Laker for me.

And I'm more than happy with Botham at no.6. The idea of Miller and Botham having no place at no.6 in an all time XI seems to be a recent phenomenon led by a younger generation who have grown up in a six batsmen/four bowlers world. Both men have traditionally been locks at no.6 in their country's ATXI and any expert panel assembled continues to select them as such.

I could understand reticence in picking a bits-and-pieces player just to have an all rounder, but the sheer value that a cricketer such as Miller or Botham adds to a team means than IMO they're impossible to leave out, and I have no problem selecting them at 6 given what bit you'll lose in batting strength compared to a specialist bat is more than made up for in your quest to take 20 wickets.

Miller and Gilchrist come as a package. That's the difference.

I'm not sure that Botham and Knott are quite up to scratch in the context of an ATG competition. In fact, of the two, Knott is more likely to fair better against Marshall/Ambrose/Holding, McGrath/Lillee/Miller, Imran/Wasim/Waqar, or Donald/Procter/Steyn in my opinion.

But I am happy to be wrong.

 

[kyear2]

Don't see what every one is complaining about not having two genuine fast bowlers after choosing a quick spinner who dominated on wet and matting pitches and destroyed a weak and infant South African team to specifically OPEN the bowling. Even if Barnes was choosen as a back up bowler to Trueman/ Snow/ Willis/ Tyson/ Larwood it would have been understandable, but not to open the bowling as a fast spin bowler.

 

[The Sean]

Miller and Gilchrist come as a package. That's the difference.

I disagree. Gilly obviously strengthens the line-up immensely, but Miller was getting picked at no.6 in all time Australian XIs long before anyone had ever heard of Adam Gilchrist.

Speaking of Gilly, I found myself sitting about 10 metres away from him in the Singapore Airlines Lounge at Changi last weekend. Nothing whatsoever to do with this thread, obviously, but it was awesome nonetheless.

 

[Jager]

Larwood and Verity - more than happy to have two/three spinners in this side

 

[Days of Grace]

Now that I think about it, I would feel more comfortable if Matt Prior was my no.7 with Beefy at no.6

Also, having Miller at no.6 is fine since you have Bradman at no.3 with an average almost double that of any other alltime-great batsman.

 

[Red]

Now that I think about it, I would feel more comfortable if Matt Prior was my no.7 with Beefy at no.6

Also, having Miller at no.6 is fine since you have Bradman at no.3 with an average almost double that of any other alltime-great batsman.

Tbh, just talking averages and the supposed advantage of Bradman, Hobbs, Hutton, Hammond and Barrington's high averages almost nullify the Bradman effect anyhow.