ODI ATG XIs

[srbhkshk]

Haha, "played for a dominant team" is usually a convenient way to avoid giving credit to all the members of said team. Somehow, the team did great while all of them were free-loading.

To me the argument makes a lot of sense for bowlers - you have to go off a spell and the others will bowl, having bowlers which can continue taking wickets so you bowl to a batsman who is on 10* is better than bowling to someone on 35*. I am not sure if it works as well for batsman - maybe you have to occasionally change your style of play and have to learn to play with the tail a bit more - but that's it.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Nah McGrath gets better because he faces half strength teams in ODIs and in tests gets to clean up the tail.

It's a bit like Hadlee, playing for a weaker team just exacerbated some of his stats (the wpm stat for tests for example).

Basically ,
improves stats against minnows while worsening actual stats.

Hadlee WPM came without damaging AVG , SR , RPO ..etc . But yes .. being only great in the side helps you to get more WPM.

 

[trundler]

Basically ,
improves stats against minnows while worsening actual stats.

Hadlee WPM came without damaging AVG , SR , RPO ..etc . But yes .. being only great in the side helps you to get more WPM.

You truly deserve Stephen tbh

 

[trundler]

I don't what is Miyagi territory but if you mean they are absolutely wrong, I agree.

Miyagi level wrong! Not standard wrong.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

The thing is not that people here hate Aussie players. Australia while great as team actually didn't have players who ended with superlative records such as:

Most runs and hundreds - Tendulkar
Most wickets - Murali
Most wickets for a fast bowler - Akram
Highest batting average - Kohli
Highest average at ridiculous strike rate in early years - Richards
Highest strike rate while averaging 50 - AB
Best bowling average and ER - Garner

2 superlatives we get from Aussie players are:

Highest average before 50+ average became commonplace - Bevan
Best burning record in world cup - McGrath

And those 2 Aussies do make it most ATG XIs. And anyone not including them, especially McGrath, is making a mistake.

No place for Beven among 3 middle order locks. Viv , Kohli and ABdV ( + 2 openers and Dhoni)

It's virtually impossible to improve Kapil , Hadlee , Akram , Saqlain and Garner combination.

- Kapil , + McGrath = stronger bowling , weaker batting

- Hadlee / Akram , +McGrath = no change in bowling strength , batting weakens

-Saqlain, + McGrath = No spinner in the team

- Garner, +McGrath = everything remains the same .

 

[harsh.ag]

Pollock >> Hadlee if you want an AR at 8 below Kapil. Stop with the "virtually impossible to improve upon" nonsense. You're ruining the thread.

 

[h_hurricane]

Nah McGrath gets better because he faces half strength teams in ODIs and in tests gets to clean up the tail.

It's a bit like Hadlee, playing for a weaker team just exacerbated some of his stats (the wpm stat for tests for example).

Most of your points are valid, but don't think playing for a weaker team helped Hadlee inflate his stats. After all, you can bowl at the tail only after you run through the top order. In Hadlee's case, he had to do all heavy lifting himself unlike some one like Mcgrath or Marshall. Mostly all lone wolves fall short in such cases. Wasn't taking 5 wickets per match an indicator of how good he was, inspite of very little support ?. He averaged an awesome 22 as well.

 

[Bolo]

The last couple of pages have been kinda fun.

Tldr:
There is no way anyone could possibly pick anyone but my anointed bowlers. Which would be fine, if people weren't saying this wrt completely different bowlers.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Pollock >> Hadlee if you want an AR at 8 below Kapil. Stop with the "virtually impossible to improve upon" nonsense. You're ruining the thread.

Pollock is not inarguably better than Hadlee. Both in Batting and bowling.

You can get better batsmen by compromising bowling quality
For example , Klusner , Watson.

As a bowler Hadlee is among the very best , so no room for improvement there.

Pollock Arguably better ODi AR. that I admit. But it's not conclusive.

And I can not remember any other name in ATG bowler + decent lower order bat category. May Be Procter . But That's a different case.

A 5 men attack with at least 1spinner and 1 AR is the requirement.
If you think, Kapil + Hadlee + Akram + Saqlain + Garner combo can be improved indisputably in terms of bowling quality .. I am curious.. let me know the possibility.
( Sacrificing Kapil's Batting for a premium great bowler is not recommended)

 

[marc71178]

Again we see the overrating of Kapil’s batting. He’s barely better then an Afridi.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Again we see the overrating of Kapil’s batting. He’s barely better then an Afridi.

I don't remember afridi being a top 20 batsman for a day .let alone a decade.

And the discussion is on bowling quality. If you are selecting Glenn McGrath or Allan Donald or Dennis Lillee ahead of Kapil to improve bowling strength, Hadlee is going to bat at number 7. Not a good idea.

 

[marc71178]

And the discussion is on bowling quality. If you are selecting Glenn McGrath or Allan Donald or Dennis Lillee ahead of Kapil to improve bowling strength, Hadlee is going to bat at number 7. Not a good idea.

Only if you believe that the bowlers you've anointed as undroppable are the remainder of the attack.

 

[NZTailender]

Hadlee's stats are a reflection for playing for a weaker team, and should thus be discounted.

McGrath's stats are a reflection of playing for a strong team, and thus should be discounted.

ok.

 

[AnthonyC]

OK what is the purpose of an ATG team, is it to make a team that has the most statistical potential or the team that is most likely to win?

The depth of talent and number of great sides is a double sided thing, you have great support but you also have to share the limited number of balls, runs and wickets with other exceptional players.

Also presuming you pick a spinner, then the national keeper that kept to him most of the time has a considerable advantage in keeping to the spinner then another player, he knows how to read the balls and what is coming up much better. So for example, if you pick Warne than Gilchrist has a huge advantage other any other nations keeper.

Furthermore team spirit and knowing your follow team mates strength, weaknesses and motivations is a clear advantage.

So whilst you can come up with multinational teams that may have better statistical potential, I would back a number of Australian ODI sides to outplay them as a team, and cricket in the end is a team sport.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Why not pick a team with a few great player, a few one tier down, and a few other tiers down.

Let's face it the ATG-team is polar af

 

[Red]

If you think, Kapil + Hadlee + Akram + Saqlain + Garner combo can be improved indisputably in terms of bowling quality

By replacing any of them with McGrath (except Garner who I view as on par with Pidge)

 

[Bolo]

Each to their own, but I struggle to see how anyone can think of anyone other than Garner or Mcgrath as the top odi bowler. Differences in era make for a really difficult comparison. If you try and equalise by doing something like normalizing by stats (which I'm not sure we can do in the same way we cant really compare grace to a modern player), garner wins on output per game and Mcgrath wins on career output.

Whichever you prefer, they were the most successful quicks of their generations, and these together make up most of odi history.

This said, neither of them are a first pick quick for me in an odi xi. Akram is. And I'm not an akram fan. I have had many a dirty word to say about him on cw. He is horribly overrated in tests. He might even be overrated in odis (this said, I still think he is in the top 5-6 quicks ever).

But he's basically a necessity in an odi team for me. All the other top quicks are right arm line and length merchants like Mcgrath and Garner. His variety in tests borders on a liability, but in odis its almost a necessity.

And his presence, together with murali, can push out either Garner or Mcgrath in my team. Putting all of them in is one of the most worthless tails ive ever seen. It's going to lose a ton of games for you. If you try to shore the batiing by playing a batting ar you run the additional risk of the 5th bowler losing the game, withouth properly mitigating the weakness of the tsil.

The most replaceable in terms of boosting the batting are obviously Garner and Mcgrath . Plenty of like for like quicks who boost the batting. I might teplace them- even the best arent locks.

 

[NZTailender]

OK what is the purpose of an ATG team, is it to make a team that has the most statistical potential or the team that is most likely to win?

The depth of talent and number of great sides is a double sided thing, you have great support but you also have to share the limited number of balls, runs and wickets with other exceptional players.

Also presuming you pick a spinner, then the national keeper that kept to him most of the time has a considerable advantage in keeping to the spinner then another player, he knows how to read the balls and what is coming up much better. So for example, if you pick Warne than Gilchrist has a huge advantage other any other nations keeper.

Furthermore team spirit and knowing your follow team mates strength, weaknesses and motivations is a clear advantage.

So whilst you can come up with multinational teams that may have better statistical potential, I would back a number of Australian ODI sides to outplay them as a team, and cricket in the end is a team sport.

I mostly treat it as a stastical-lead thing. If you start bringing in more nuanced playing factors, as you say, Warne-Gilchrist and Murali-Sangakkara is going to be a better combo for a team than Warne-Dhoni or Murali-Boucher for instance. Just lime having three out and out quicks who may have been the solitary tearaway in their side won't work.

I feel like people are going to pick based on their own perceptions, and that's fine. I'm somewhat less fine with people telling other people you can't pick someone based on their own criteria, in a thread such as this where there has been no particular outline by the OP as to how you should be picking your team.

 

[NZTailender]

Garner and McGrath would be the opening bowlers in my ATG ODI XI. Can see arguments otherwise but they're almost like the perfect duo.

 

[Prince EWS]

Garner and McGrath would be the opening bowlers in my ATG ODI XI. Can see arguments otherwise but they're almost like the perfect duo.

I think they're the best two bowlers so I'd probably do that too, but I don't really think they're the perfect duo from a style perspective; I'd rather have a genuine swing bowler or a left armer there if I was picking bowling types rather than bowlers. The fact that they're clearly the best two bowlers would the overriding factor for me.