The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[The Sean]

Australia will face bangladesh after 8 years
View attachment 46344

It's like they couldn't find a NZ flag so just grabbed an Australian one and shopped out two of the stars.

 

[Coronis]

It's like they couldn't find a NZ flag so just grabbed an Australian one and shopped out two of the stars.

Isn’t that how New Zealand came up with it in the first place?

 

[The Sean]

It'll be interesting to see if Steve Smith has it in him to play on for another two-and-a-bit years through to the Ashes 2027. He'll have turned 38 by then so perhaps not, but he could potentially play another 30 Tests from now til then if he can stick around that extra couple of years, which is huge.

That's a question for several other players too of course, but I feel like it's particularly prevalent for SPD.

 

[Thala_0710]

It'll be interesting to see if Steve Smith has it in him to play on for another two-and-a-bit years through to the Ashes 2027. He'll have turned 38 by then so perhaps not, but he could potentially play another 30 Tests from now til then if he can stick around that extra couple of years, which is huge.

That's a question for several other players too of course, but I feel like it's particularly prevalent for SPD.

Those 2-3 great years are what he needs imo to seperate himself from the rest and genuinely challenge for the no 2 spot behind the Don.

 

[The Sean]

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.

Miller's had a shocker there with his batting order.

 

[Coronis]

Warning, this is going to be a few rambling posts here so either a) settle in, or b) avoid like the plague.

I have recently regained access to some of my old cricket books which had been in storage on the other side of the world for quite some time. One of those was a book I’ve referenced here many times, The Top 100 & The 1st XI by Philip Derriman, a 1988 tome which profiles (in his view) the 100 greatest Australian cricketers – in alphabetical, not ranked order – and then attempts to statistically choose an all time Australian XI based on relative performance, i.e. by how far players exceeded their peers (the methodology is explained in the book).

I’ve posted the selected XI here before I think, though I’ll post again now for reference. The qualification was that the player must have scored at least 1,000 Test runs or taken at least 75 Test wickets. The team selected was:

Bob Simpson
Sid Barnes
Don Bradman*
Neil Harvey
Greg Chappell
Alan Davidson
Don Tallon
Dennis Lillee
Clarrie Grimmett
Fred Spofforth
Bill O’Reilly
Keith Miller (12th Man)

Derriman notes that this selection was based on the old theory that an ideal XI should consist of five bowlers, five batsmen and a wicketkeeper. He acknowledges the long tail and says that he strongly considered bringing Miller into the side, but said that if that happened then he had to drop Lillee (as both Davo and Spofforth ranked higher on the statistical analysis for bowlers), which he didn’t want to do. Dropping a spinner (it would have been Grimmett who went) was apparently never even a consideration.

I am in agreement that the tail is too long for a team like this, but I thought it really interesting as an example of how team selection has evolved over recent decades. The book in question, in addition to selecting the above team, also asked seven other eminent cricketers, writers and followers of the game to select their own all time Australian XIs, which I will post subsequently below.

So making an ATG XI to follow this older way of thinking. 5 batsmen, 5 bowlers 1 keeper, no thought given on secondary or tertiary skills.

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Bradman*
Tendulkar
Sobers
Tallon/Oldfield/Evans/Cameron/Taylor/Russell/Healy/Knott/Bari/etc+
Hadlee
Marshall
Warne
Murali
McGrath

Honestly no idea who I’d put as best pure keeper. Think there was a thread sometime ago and no consensus at all.

And a team to play against them

Gavaskar
Hutton
Hammond
Smith
Lara
Keeper+
Imran*
Tayfield
Steyn
O’Reilly
Ambrose

Imran and Hadlee can bat above the keepers likely.

Obviously I know most people would rather have Viv up there (probably in place of Hammond?) and Hutton and Sutcliffe swapped but I feel these are pretty solid and representative otherwise.

I went for Tayfield because having an offspinner and a legspinner makes more sense to me than two legspinners. Could go Laker another day.

 

[The Sean]

That composition also seems to be how Bradman himself selected his All Time XI:

Barry Richards
Arthur Morris
Don Bradman
Sachin Tendulkar
Garry Sobers
Don Tallon
Ray Lindwall
Alec Bedser
Dennis Lillee
Clarrie Grimmett
Bill O'Reilly

Leaving aside the debate about the inclusion or otherwise of individual players, that team is almost like an optical illusion to me. When I look at it I get the feeling there must be 12 players listed, but it's just that the tail starts so ****ing early.

 

[Coronis]

That composition also seems to be how Bradman himself selected his All Time XI:

Barry Richards
Arthur Morris
Don Bradman
Sachin Tendulkar
Garry Sobers
Don Tallon
Ray Lindwall
Alec Bedser
Dennis Lillee
Clarrie Grimmett
Bill O'Reilly

Leaving aside the debate about the inclusion or otherwise of individual players, that team is almost like an optical illusion to me. When I look at it I get the feeling there must be 12 players listed, but it's just that the tail starts so ****ing early.

Alleged XI ofc. I don’t really trust that is was made by him. But it definitely does follow the older selection policy.

Benaud ofc was a bit younger than most of those guys and we all know his XI and format

Openers, 3 middle order, 2 AR’s, keeper and 3 bowlers. Though of course he very specifically chose a batting and bowling allrounder.

 

[The Sean]

Alleged XI ofc. I don’t really trust that is was made by him. But it definitely does follow the older selection policy.

Benaud ofc was a bit younger than most of those guys and we all know his XI and format

Openers, 3 middle order, 2 AR’s, keeper and 3 bowlers. Though of course he very specifically chose a batting and bowling allrounder.

You make a fair point about it being “alleged”. One of my other long-lost finds was an old Cricketer magazine special called Bradman and the Legends of Australian Cricket. In it was referenced a team that Bradman had chosen in 1975 as his Australian post-war XI (including himself), and it displayed a completely different philosophy regarding team composition and batting deep. The selection was:

Bob Simpson
Arthur Morris
Don Bradman
Neil Harvey
Ian Chappell
Greg Chappell
Keith Miller
Richie Benaud
Alan Davidson
Ray Lindwall
Don Tallon
(Lindsay Hassett, 12th Man)

Apparently – in the 20-odd years between the two selections – Don Tallon went from batting at number 11 in an Australian 1945-1975 team to batting at number six for the All Time World XI.

 

[Coronis]

You make a fair point about it being “alleged”. One of my other long-lost finds was an old Cricketer magazine special called Bradman and the Legends of Australian Cricket. In it was referenced a team that Bradman had chosen in 1975 as his Australian post-war XI (including himself), and it displayed a completely different philosophy regarding team composition and batting deep. The selection was:

Bob Simpson
Arthur Morris
Don Bradman
Neil Harvey
Ian Chappell
Greg Chappell
Keith Miller
Richie Benaud
Alan Davidson
Ray Lindwall
Don Tallon
(Lindsay Hassett, 12th Man)

Apparently – in the 20-odd years between the two selections – Don Tallon went from batting at number 11 in an Australian 1945-1975 team to batting at number six for the All Time World XI.

Of course players are known to be notoriously unreliable and fickle in terms of rating others but its hard to believe such a change.

Personally, I really like this team. Though honestly, picking anyone else at this point would’ve been quite odd. Fairly early for Greg, in addition to Hassett perhaps Walters could have been another considerable option. Or Johnston to add to the bowling. Apart from that not sure I can see many viable changes.

Never seen that team before though, great find.

 

[The Sean]

Of course players are known to be notoriously unreliable and fickle in terms of rating others but its hard to believe such a change.

Personally, I really like this team. Though honestly, picking anyone else at this point would’ve been quite odd. Fairly early for Greg, in addition to Hassett perhaps Walters could have been another considerable option. Or Johnston to add to the bowling. Apart from that not sure I can see many viable changes.

Yeah, he said he did consider Lillee - and in an update text box it was noted that in the subsequent years (the magazine special was from 1988) Bradman had now acknowledged Lillee as the greatest Australian fast bowler.

Barnes, Lawry and Grout were the other three I can see mentioned who were under consideration but missed out. Bradman claimed that Grout was very close to Tallon as a gloveman, and also said that Rod Marsh's batting ability did not bridge the wicketkeeping gap.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah, he said he did consider Lillee - and in an update text box it was noted that in the subsequent years (the magazine special was from 1988) Bradman had now acknowledged Lillee as the greatest Australian fast bowler.

Barnes, Lawry and Grout were the other three I can see mentioned who were under consideration but missed out. Bradman claimed that Grout was very close to Tallon as a gloveman, and also said that Rod Marsh's batting ability did not bridge the wicketkeeping gap.

Good to see Barnes mentioned, I assumed he had been left out due to starting pre-war. He was truly a talent as well, but sadly never fully materialised. Somewhat reminds me of Kambli.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yeah, he said he did consider Lillee - and in an update text box it was noted that in the subsequent years (the magazine special was from 1988) Bradman had now acknowledged Lillee as the greatest Australian fast bowler.

Barnes, Lawry and Grout were the other three I can see mentioned who were under consideration but missed out. Bradman claimed that Grout was very close to Tallon as a gloveman, and also said that Rod Marsh's batting ability did not bridge the wicketkeeping gap.

I wonder what his opinion on Gilchrist would had been

 

[capt_Luffy]

Good to see Barnes mentioned, I assumed he had been left out due to starting pre-war. He was truly a talent as well, but sadly never fully materialised. Somewhat reminds me of Kambli.

Barnes was unlucky due to war. Kambli destroyed himself.

 

[Coronis]

Barnes was unlucky due to war. Kambli destroyed himself.

Erm. You may not have noticed what happened with Barnes after the invincibles tour.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Isn’t that how New Zealand came up with it in the first place?

Our flag was first