The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Red]

I think most people agree at this point of the thread that the general consensus of the Australian, WIs and English teams would be (post if you don't):

Australia
V.Trumper
B.Simpson
D.Bradman
G.Chappell
K.Miller
A.Border/ N.Harvey/R.Ponting
A.Gilchrist
S.Warne
D.Lillee
B.O'Reilly
G.McGrath

West Indies
G.Greenidge
C.Hunte/ R.Fredericks
G.Headley
V.Richards
G.Sobers
B.Lara/ E.Weekes/ F.Worrell
J.Dujon/ J.Hendricks/ C.Walcott
M.Marshall
M.Holding
C.Ambrose
L.Gibbs/A.Roberts

England
J.Hobbs
L.Hutton
K.Barrington
P.May/D.Compton
W.Hammond
I.Botham
A.Knott
F.Trueman
H.Larwood/J.Snow
D.Underwood/J.Laker
S.Barnes


It's very difficult to compare these three teams and say categorically which is the best. Simply considering batting and bowling averages is interesting, but entirely insufficient as a means of comparison. For example, the Australian team has Trumper as an opener. While most of us agree he is worthy of a place, his overall career batting average is only 39. So, Australia would seemingly be better served by having Lawry or Hayden there, but as cricket aficionados, we all agree Trumper is the better batsman. Likewise, England has SF Barnes from the very early era, when many bowlers had very low averages. Australia would be better served by selecting Spofforth and Turner to match Barnes' low bowling average, but most of us prefer McGrath and Lillee, for a few reasons. So statistically, it's kind of futile, and if we want to be statistically narrow-minded, we might as well simply select the player with the highest average in each position.

Key Factors....

Batting line ups

Largely comparable. Australia have the sturdy reliable Simpson to open, alongside the dynamic Trumper, and then have the obvious, distinct advantage at number 3. Following is the class of Greg Chappell at four, then the dashing all-rounder Miller at 5 and one of Harvey, Ponting and Border at six. Miller's numbers are not as solid with the bat as his contemporaries, so this may be viewed as a weakness, but he does have an x-factor. His inclusion provides great balance to the team as it allows two high class leggies to play. Having the Don at three and Gilly at seven nullifies any slight loss sustained by having Miller at 5 over Ponting, Harvey or Border.

The West Indies have the middle order batting line up you'd pay double entry fee to watch. Headley, Richards, Sobers and Lara are like a wet dream for batting appreciators. So much power, so much swagger, so much win. They could take a game away from the opposition very very quickly. The openers are proven and high quality, Greenidge somewhat underrated imo. Dujon or Walcott as the keeper at seven provides more batting power.

England have the greatest openers of all the teams. This is their batting strength. Hobbs is generally regarded as the greatest batsman between Grace and Bradman. Hutton more dour, but utterly reliable and capable of high scores. Oppositions would want to get at least one of these early, or things could go on and on. With Barrington to follow at three, there is no problem "seeing the shine off". Following Barrington comes one of Compton or May (both of whom I dont know heaps about tbh), then the brilliance of Hammond at five. Hammond is a brilliant, and underrated batsman imo. I think you can mount a very good case for him being the second best batsman ever, and he is at least in the top 5. Following Hammond is Botham, whose inclusion some disagree on, but I think his influence and dynamism is necessary in this team. I also think his bowling is vital to this team's balance. He certainly could mix it with the best and come out on top.


Please add to the conversation, should you wish to....

 

[Jager]

Struggle to get anything out of that sort of analysis.

And how is it true that the Windies had less success when they had a four pronged pace attack?

I was just showing that as individuals in one on one comparisons, Australia has a stronger batting lineup.

I can't find the study I read, but it showed that when Garner, Holding, Roberts and Croft played as a quartet (and also when Marshall/Clarke joined the fray) it was noticeably less successful than when WI played with a frontline spinner.

 

[watson]

RE: MONKS TEAMS

I think that a lot depends on the track.

Any grass at all and Marshall-Holding-Ambrose would be unstoppable. Bradman or Hobbs, it doesn't matter, the Aussie or England batting orders would get mowed down faster than their West Indian counterparts. Even though Lillee and Trueman et al would also be creating havoc.

On a turning wicket I think that the Aussie and England teams would have the edge over the West Indians as O'Reilly and Warne, or Laker and Barnes would be incredibly difficult to play. There are no left-handers in the England line-up to counteract the leg-spin; so Australia by a whisker.

On a flat track I'm also not sure. Again I think that the Australian or England teams are more likely to beat the West Indians because their attacks are more diverse and imaginative. But if Hobbs/Hutton, Bradman/Chappell, or Headley/Richards get entrenched then a string of draws seems most likely.

However, if a Triangular Test Series were to be played on a number of different types of wickets, and I had to bet a $1000, then I would put my money on England as I would be presumerably getting the best odds.

Trueman-Snow--Barnes-Laker-Botham would be quite a handful, and breaking through a top order consisting of Hobbs-Hutton-Barrington/Hammond would take some doing and shouldn't be underestimated.

Lastly, I think that Larwood should be the 12th man rather than Underwood or Compton. On a green wicket an attack consisting of Larwood-Trueman-Snow-Barnes-Botham gives England a fighting chance against the West Indian and Aussie pace trio's. Especially if the batting is made stronger by replacing Botham with a specialist batsman who can handle pace. I think that 3 fast bowlers, plus Barnes, on a seaming wicket is plenty to get the job done and Botham would be overkill.

 

[watson]

Struggle to get anything out of that sort of analysis.

And how is it true that the Windies had less success when they had a four pronged pace attack?

From 1974-2001 the Windies had more success when they played 3 fast bowlers and another type of bowler - according to the following study;

...The second surprise is that in tests in which West Indies had fielded 4 pace bowlers, out of the selected 8, their win percentage is below 50. This indicates that the best combination was three top pace bowlers and one bowler of different type, a spinner or even a medium pace swing bowler, to maintain balance....

It Figures | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Red]

I actually just forgot Larwood, I'll edit to add him to the England team.


Interesting thoughts on the bowlers. I know the WIs quicks have a certain aura, but I wonder whether there is much separating Marshall, Ambrose and Holding from Lillee, McGrath and Miller. I'd favour the WIs, but only very slightly.

I think if these teams were to play a lot of tests against each other (god, how good would that be), we'd find-

England would be slightly dour, and I think they'd draw a lot of their tests. If they are batting first, and the wicket wasn't too juicy, they would could bat other teams out of the game with some big scores, but then struggle to bowl out the other batting line ups twice.

Australia would be the most consistent winners, with the advantage of Bradman, reliability of Chappell and Border/Harvey, the x-factor of Miller and Gilly in batting the diversity of the bowling attack (plenty of ability to bowl out sides on day 5 with two leggies), and a high class pace attack.

The West Indies would win quite a few too, and the ones they win would be won very quickly. Potentially by late on day 3, or early on day 4. I see their pace-men ripping through batting line-ups, Sobers, Viv and Lara going "calypso" with the bat, and the opposition crumbling under sustained assault with both bat and ball.

 

[Red]

Any agreement on an Indian team? Badly let down by bowling.


1. V.Merchant
2. S.Gavaskar
3. R.Dravid
4. S.Tendulkar
5. V.Hazare
6. S.Ganguly
7. F.Engineer
8. K.Dev
9. A.Kumble
10. E.Prassana
11. B.Bedi

Srinath or Z.Khan, or the three spinners?

I've included Ganguly at 6. I'm not sure he's the best there, and I never liked him much, but he's a leftie, and he can bowl a few medium pacers if they're desperate for that sort of thing.

Someone with more knowledge of Indian cricket history will be able to improve on this side!

 

[bagapath]

Any agreement on an Indian team? Badly let down by bowling.


1. V.Merchant
2. S.Gavaskar
3. R.Dravid
4. S.Tendulkar
5. V.Hazare
6. S.Ganguly
7. F.Engineer
8. K.Dev
9. A.Kumble
10. E.Prassana
11. B.Bedi

Srinath or Z.Khan, or the three spinners?

I've included Ganguly at 6. I'm not sure he's the best there, and I never liked him much, but he's a leftie, and he can bowl a few medium pacers if they're desperate for that sort of thing.

Someone with more knowledge of Indian cricket history will be able to improve on this side!

i dont think sehwag is an all-time great. and obviously, merchant was. still i am not going to choose a genius who got to play only 10 tests over someone who has played close to 100 and averaged 50+ with 20+ centuries to his credit.

the bowling is spin heavy, but india has always been. i went for the two best strike bowlers this country has produced - chandra and gupte. both happen to be leggies. thought of dropping subhash in favor of bedi, but that would make the selection of mankad redundant. so am going with both leg spinners in the xi.


gavaskar (c)
sehwag
dravid
tendulkar
hazare
mankad
dhoni (wk)
kapil dev
srinath
gupte
chandrasekar

 

[vic_orthdox]

From 1974-2001 the Windies had more success when they played 3 fast bowlers and another type of bowler - according to the following study;

See, I think that overlooks guys like Patterson, Clarke, Winston and Kenny Benjamin, all who bowled at good pace and played in those sides while the Windies were a quality side.

There would have been quite a few times when these guys were making up part of a four prong pace attack also, even though they weren't all time greats, and pushing the side towards a win.

 

[harsh.ag]

Am I the only one here who thinks that Sobers would be a viable slow bowling option, and thus there is no need for Gibbs/Ramadhin at the expense of Garner/Roberts.

My India XI: Gavaskar | Sehwag | Dravid | Tendulkar | Hazare | Mankad | Dhoni +| Kapil | Z Khan | Kumble | Prasanna |

Sehwag is definitely one of the best openers I have seen. Can change the course of a match in one session. Mankad is a good all rounder to have as it allows for a leg-off-leftarm spin combination. As romantic is the figure of Chandrasekhar, Kumble is the best bowler of that mold India has produced, and with apologies to Sir Garry Sobers who thought of Gupte as the best leggie, Prasanna would make this attack much more complete. Dhoni over Engineer only because of his captaincy. His attitude is one of the best we ever had, and that perhaps cannot be easily understood by cricket fans of other nations, but India has lost far too many tests because of the wrong strategies and attitudes, and it doesn't feel that way under Dhoni (discounting the last 2 away series).

 

[watson]

i dont think sehwag is an all-time great. and obviously, merchant was. still i am not going to choose a genius who got to play only 10 tests over someone who has played close to 100 and averaged 50+ with 20+ centuries to his credit.

the bowling is spin heavy, but india has always been. i went for the two best strike bowlers this country has produced - chandra and gupte. both happen to be leggies. thought of dropping subhash in favor of bedi, but that would make the selection of mankad redundant. so am going with both leg spinners in the xi.


gavaskar (c)
sehwag
dravid
tendulkar
hazare
mankad
dhoni (wk)
kapil dev
srinath
gupte
chandrasekar

I think that's possibly the best Indian side I've seen. Normally Prassana and/or Bedi make the team, but when you lack a Malcolm Marshall or Dennis Lillee then you need all the Strike Power you can get. Gupte and Chandra is an excellent idea. Faultless top 6 too. An in-form younger Sehwag up against Marshall would be some sight!

 

[watson]

See, I think that overlooks guys like Patterson, Clarke, Winston and Kenny Benjamin, all who bowled at good pace and played in those sides while the Windies were a quality side.

There would have been quite a few times when these guys were making up part of a four prong pace attack also, even though they weren't all time greats, and pushing the side towards a win.

I think that you're probably right, but let's not forget Roger Harper; 25 tests, 46 wickets at 28.06.

 

[vic_orthdox]

True, although he did play some games as a fifth bowler.

 

[Dan]

Mohammad Nissar and Amar Singh deserve to be in the bowling debate.

 

[NUFAN]

I'm not so keen on Gupte, Chandra and Mankad all taking the ball across RH bats. I would be picking someone who spins the ball the other way such as Prasanna, most likely instead of Gupte.

 

[fredfertang]

Mohammad Nissar and Amar Singh deserve to be in the bowling debate.

Either or even both of them would be well worth a place

 

[kyear2]

Excellent points by rvd and Nufan with regard to the Indian bowling options. S.A not getting enough respect as I belive that they are easily better than England.

They are ten batsmen overall, and seven middle order batsmen who are legitimate challengers to be called the best after Bradman. Four of the seven middle order challengers are in the West Indian line up. Also we are picking players are at their best, and the only advantage Bradman had was that he maintained his form through out his career.
As far as bolwers go, Lillee and Holding are equal, so are Ambrose and Mcgrath and their is no competition between Miller and Marshall. Gibbs is not on the level of O'Reilly and Warne, but he is in the level right below. The openers are under rated and Walcott was a very good keeper. Great team that.

 

[Red]

Excellent points by rvd and Nufan with regard to the Indian bowling options. S.A not getting enough respect as I belive that they are easily better than England.

True, they should be included. Who do we have?

Smith
B. Richards
Kallis
G. Pollock
Nourse
Taylor
Procter
D.Lindsay
S. Pollock
H. Tayfield
A. Donald

Cracking side. Steyn not far off.

They are ten batsmen overall, and seven middle order batsmen who are legitimate challengers to be called the best after Bradman. Four of the seven middle order challengers are in the West Indian line up.

You're right, and perhaps it's interesting that we're leaving a couple out of the Australian side to accomodate Miller as an AR and the two spinners. If we didn't include Miller (heresy, I know), Aust might have...

Trumper
Simpson
Bradman
G.Chappell
Ponting or Harvey
Border
Gilchrist
Lindwall
Lillee
Warne or O'Reilly
McGrath

...and Aust would have 3 legitimate contenders (plus THE MAN AT 3) as well.

As far as bolwers go, Lillee and Holding are equal, so are Ambrose and Mcgrath and their is no competition between Miller and Marshall. Gibbs is not on the level of O'Reilly and Warne, but he is in the level right below. .

Agree with you on he comparison between the bowlers. Miller and Marshall are somewhat comparable imo, Marshall is no doubt better as a quick, but not by a maaaaaaassive stretch.

 

[watson]

I'm not so keen on Gupte, Chandra and Mankad all taking the ball across RH bats. I would be picking someone who spins the ball the other way such as Prasanna, most likely instead of Gupte.

It's true that they all bowl across the RH batsman, but the techniques are all different. Gupte was a leg-break googly bowler, Chandra bowled at medium pace, and Mankad was a left-armer. Hence the ball would be pitching on different areas of the wicket and have different trajectories. I don't think that any batsman could settle into any sort of routine easily with 2-3 of those bowlers operating.

 

[smash84]

Gibbs is not on the level of O'Reilly and Warne, but he is in the level right below. The openers are under rated and Walcott was a very good keeper. Great team that.

With Sobers in the team I don't see much utility for Gibbs.

 

[watson]

True, they should be included. Who do we have?

Smith
B. Richards
Kallis
G. Pollock
Nourse
Taylor
Procter
D.Lindsay
S. Pollock
H. Tayfield
A. Donald

Cracking side. Steyn not far off.



You're right, and perhaps it's interesting that we're leaving a couple out of the Australian side to accomodate Miller as an AR and the two spinners. If we didn't include Miller (heresy, I know), Aust might have...

Trumper
Simpson
Bradman
G.Chappell
Ponting or Harvey
Border
Gilchrist
Lindwall
Lillee
Warne or O'Reilly
McGrath

...and Aust would have 3 legitimate contenders (plus THE MAN AT 3) as well.




Agree with you on he comparison between the bowlers. Miller and Marshall are somewhat comparable imo, Marshall is no doubt better as a quick, but not by a maaaaaaassive stretch.

The Australian side looks very different without Miller and O'Reilly (I think that you have to play Warne). In return we have gained a better fast bowler in the form of Lindwall and a significantly better batsman, Ponting/Harvey. The other plus is that Simpson and Chappell are OK with the ball. So if the wicket is turning at right-angles the side can still have a spinner operating at both ends of the wicket, albeit of the same variety.

On balance - about the same strength I suppose.