The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread (white ball edition)

[CricAddict]

I think ODI as a format has evolved very fast. Test cricket (and first class cricket) has had changes taking place over several generations. While the difference between a test played in 1880s and now may be huge, the changes have been gradual; because, to start with, two innings cricket was a beautifully structured game that didn't need major tinkering every few years.

The ODI format, on the other hand, has gone through many changes, the one bouncer per over rule, changing field restrictions, no of overs per innings, super sub, free hit after no ball etc. all in less than 50 years.

I would rather have three different XIs to play ODIs to represent the different schools of thought prevailing in the respective eras in terms of approaching limited overs cricket.

The early ODI XI (1970 to 1986)

Greenidge
Haynes
Viv Richards
G. Chappell
Clive Lloyd *
Kapil Dev
Dujon +
Holding
Garner
Lillee
Qadir

The ODI era XI (1987-2003)

Tendulkar
Gilchrist +
Ponting *
Jones
Bevan
Klusener
S Pollock
Akram
Murali
Waqar
McGrath

The T20 era ODI XI (2004-2020)

Rohit
Warner
Kohli
Williamson
ABDV
Shakib
Dhoni + *
M Johnson
Lee
Starc
Steyn

Lovely post. I will have either Lara or Jayasuriya in there ahead of Klusenar/Pollock though. 6 and 7 is too high for them in a ATG team.

 

[bagapath]

Lovely post. I will have either Lara or Jayasuriya in there ahead of Klusenar/Pollock though. 6 and 7 is too high for them in a ATG team.

What will be your teams / or your alternate teams to my teams?

 

[h_hurricane]

Hadlee over Lillee is a no brainer for me. Lillee never took a wicket outside down under and England(played only 2 matches elsewhere). Hadlee was exposed to a wide variety of countries and did extremely well almost everywhere. Played through an era where ODI cricket was evolving well and not just its baby step years. Also provides good batting cushion at no.8. That tail looks a lot better with him there.

Chappell vs Abbas is close. Abbas would sneak in for me though Chappell was a gun LOI player as well.

Otherwise, that initial era team looks very good all round.

 

[Days of Grace]

Sharma
Tendulkar
Kohli
Richards
De Villiers
Flintoff
Dhoni
Wasim Akram
Garner
Muralitharan
McGrath

Hard to imagine a better alltime XI.

 

[honestbharani]

Poor Wasim the lone leftie there..

 

[bagapath]

Sharma
Tendulkar
Kohli
Richards
De Villiers
Flintoff
Dhoni
Wasim Akram
Garner
Muralitharan
McGrath

Hard to imagine a better alltime XI.

great team... but can be challenged by

Gilchrist +
Jayasurya
Ponting *
Lara
Bevan
Symonds
SM Pollock
Hadlee
Warne
Waqar
Donald

 

[honestbharani]

Will play Hussey ahead of Symonds coz he was the better batter and Symonds bowling won't be needed in a side where Jayasuriya is basically the 6th bowler. And Starc for Donald.

 

[bagapath]

ATG Team 3rd XI

Q de Kock +
Hayden
Williamson
Kallis
Miandad
Hussey
Imran *
Klusener
Saqlain
Lee
Starc

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Hadlee over Lillee is a no brainer for me. Lillee never took a wicket outside down under and England(played only 2 matches elsewhere). Hadlee was exposed to a wide variety of countries and did extremely well almost everywhere. Played through an era where ODI cricket was evolving well and not just its baby step years. Also provides good batting cushion at no.8. That tail looks a lot better with him there.

Not meaning to put forward an opinion on which to prefer I will note that neither has records that would probably be considered complete by modern standards:

Lillee:

Country	Innings	Wickets	Average
Aus	41	69	18.72
Eng	17	27	26.07
NZ	3	7	13.42
SL	2	0	-
Overall	63	103	20.82

Hadlee:

Country	Innings	Wickets	Average
Aus	46	61	22.37
Eng	21	33	21.63
NZ	35	49	20.67
SL	3	7	9.71
UAE	3	5	25.60
WI	4	3	39.66
Overall	112	158	21.56

Hadlee has almost double the number of matches to consider, but this is due to the expansion of ODI series with the World Series Cricket/Cup; the years a WSC series was played are clearly distinguishable on the list of matches played by year for both players, and otherwise, both played similar numbers each year. Hadlee has only one more country where he played extensively: his home country, NZ.

Both had only a handful of matches played elsewhere, and only failed in one country: SL for Lillee, WI for Hadlee. In both cases, there may have been intervening factors: Hadlee did not bowl in one of the WI matches, implying he may have had injury problems although I'm not bothered to check. Hadlee was better in England and Lillee better in Australia by a smaller margin, and their records elsewhere do not really permit comparison. Neither played in Pakistan or India.

Neither has a well-rounded record in terms of performing everywhere (but then, no one really did: Garner in Pak. played 6 matches to take 4 wickets at 39.75), so while there are reasons to perhaps prefer Hadlee, a 'no-brainer' it is not. Unfortunately, one cannot say with any certainty how players of that era would have faired round the world, and people need to be more restrained with their assumptions.

 

[h_hurricane]

Not meaning to put forward an opinion on which to prefer I will note that neither has records that would probably be considered complete by modern standards:

Lillee:

Country	Innings	Wickets	Average
Aus	41	69	18.72
Eng	17	27	26.07
NZ	3	7	13.42
SL	2	0	-
Overall	63	103	20.82

Hadlee:

Country	Innings	Wickets	Average
Aus	46	61	22.37
Eng	21	33	21.63
NZ	35	49	20.67
SL	3	7	9.71
UAE	3	5	25.60
WI	4	3	39.66
Overall	112	158	21.56

Hadlee has almost double the number of matches to consider, but this is due to the expansion of ODI series with the World Series Cricket/Cup; the years a WSC series was played are clearly distinguishable on the list of matches played by year for both players, and otherwise, both played similar numbers each year. Hadlee has only one more country where he played extensively: his home country, NZ.

Both had only a handful of matches played elsewhere, and only failed in one country: SL for Lillee, WI for Hadlee. In both cases, there may have been intervening factors: Hadlee did not bowl in one of the WI matches, implying he may have had injury problems although I'm not bothered to check. Hadlee was better in England and Lillee better in Australia by a smaller margin, and their records elsewhere do not really permit comparison. Neither played in Pakistan or India.

Neither has a well-rounded record in terms of performing everywhere (but then, no one really did: Garner in Pak. played 6 matches to take 4 wickets at 39.75), so while there are reasons to perhaps prefer Hadlee, a 'no-brainer' it is not. Unfortunately, one cannot say with any certainty how players of that era would have faired round the world, and people need to be more restrained with their assumptions.

Fair enough. I would still clearly go with Hadlee due to below.

1. More sample size.
2. Better economy rate by a good margin.
3. Better lower order bat.

The 3rd point makes it very close to a no brainer for me, considering the tail of Qadir, Garner and Holding

 

[Red]

Seems to be a general consensus on here that the bowling attack in an ATG team will consist of McGrath, Wasim, Garner and Murali.

Fifth bowler is debated, but those four are generally accepted by CW as the first four bowlers.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Who's the ATG supersub?

 

[Burgey]

Fair enough. I would still clearly go with Hadlee due to below.

1. More sample size.
2. Better economy rate by a good margin.
3. Better lower order bat.

The 3rd point makes it very close to a no brainer for me, considering the tail of Qadir, Garner and Holding

I think this is more than reasonable tbh. I never really considered FOT for an early era AT ODI side, so hadn't realized his numbers were that good. I don't know why it surprises me - it shouldn't. But Hadlee played more games in more places with a similar record. Plus his batting should get him the nod in a head-to-head match up in ODIs, given Lillee's relatively small sample size in the format.

 

[Burgey]

imagine running into a rampant Buttler on 68 (45) and you still got 6 overs of Symonds/Viv/Tendulkar to go

Lol as though Buttler would be on 68(45) after facing McGrath, Garner and Akram. He'd have **** himself at 6(25).

 

[ImpatientLime]

roy, bairstow and root would have chased the total down before buttler could get to the crease to face those dinosaurs.

MUH YORKER
MUH LINE AND LENGTH

into the stands you go ya ****s

 

[harsh.ag]

Seems to be a general consensus on here that the bowling attack in an ATG team will consist of McGrath, Wasim, Garner and Murali.

Fifth bowler is debated, but those four are generally accepted by CW as the first four bowlers.

Yeah. Starc and Pollock do have their merits though.

 

[TheJediBrah]

roy, bairstow and root would have chased the total down before buttler could get to the crease to face those dinosaurs.

MUH YORKER
MUH LINE AND LENGTH

into the stands you go ya ****s

that's adorable

 

[stephen]

Seems to be a general consensus on here that the bowling attack in an ATG team will consist of McGrath, Wasim, Garner and Murali.

Fifth bowler is debated, but those four are generally accepted by CW as the first four bowlers.

Saqlain or Warne often get picked over Murali. But the three quicks are often picked together. To be honest though there are cases for a number of other quicks. Hadlee, Lillee, Holding, Roberts, Starc, Donald, Pollock, and even Johnson have compelling cases.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

I'd throw in Bracken, Naved Ul Hasan Rana, and Mohammad Asif into the mix as well

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Need me some Jacob Oram, Morne Morkel, and Dwayne Bravo also