The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[peterhrt]

I think for some reason did he rated Hammond and Headley lower than other critics?? I am asking this as those two not only missed to be in his "6 Giants of the Wisden Century" in 1963; but they also missed out on the 12 man shortlist; which Johnny Tyldesly, Bart King and even Bernard Bosenquet made.

In this exercise Cardus referred to Bosanquet as an "unfulfilled pioneer" and put King in the same bracket. Cardus was a Lancashire supporter and a fan of Johnny Tyldesley whom he knew well. He named quite a few others who missed out, including Macartney, but not Hammond or Headley.

When Bradman retired in 1949, there was a debate about whether he was the greatest-ever batsman. Far more of a debate than there is today. Some thought he was what we would now call a flat track bully. Those arguing against Bradman named five batsmen they thought were at least his equal. Not everyone named all five but they were Grace, Ranji, Trumper, Hobbs and Macartney. All were attacking players in their youth, adept on difficult pitches.

Where Macartney differed from the others was that he always played the same way, rather than slowing down with age. In first-class cricket in England, he scored 10% faster than Bradman, 20% faster than Hammond, and nearly 60% faster than Headley. It was the type of batting, with shots all round the wicket, that went down very well with writers and spectators of the time.

Taking opinions across the spectrum around 1950, Macartney was probably rated about equal with Hammond and above Headley. Now he is largely forgotten and ranked below both.

 

[kyear2]

I reckon most people would leave out at least 1 of these seven.

A lot of people would pick someone you haven't mentioned at all.

I reckon most people would leave out at least 1 of these seven.

A lot of people would pick someone you haven't mentioned at all.

Didn't say unanimous, I said consensus.

None of those are controversial. All 7 have made each team we've made and by impressive margins each time. They also win head to head and other related comps.

You're free to tell me which I'm wrong about. I would say 5 of them are close to if not unanimous.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Didn't say unanimous, I said consensus.

None of those are controversial. All 7 have made each team we've made and by impressive margins each time. They also win head to head and other related comps.

You're free to tell me which I'm wrong about. I would say 5 of them are close to if not unanimous.

I don't have McGrath in my team.

 

[Coronis]

Macartney was first picked as a bowling all-rounder who could bat anywhere in the order. Got his chance as regular number 3 when players stayed at home in 1912 following a dispute with the board. It was a very wet English summer and Macartney batted well on the rain-damaged surfaces.

Had mental issues after the break, thought to be war-related. It didn't affect his batting, which went from strength to strength, other than leading him to miss matches, including the entire 1924-25 series with a nervous breakdown.

Very highly rated by English critics, many of whom placed him in the top tier. In 1950 Cardus included him in his World XI of the 20th century, ahead of the likes of Hammond and Headley.

Sounds like Sobers or Smith

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Didn't say unanimous, I said consensus.

None of those are controversial. All 7 have made each team we've made and by impressive margins each time. They also win head to head and other related comps.

You're free to tell me which I'm wrong about. I would say 5 of them are close to if not unanimous.

Yeah I think Bolo is right that most people would have one or two personal picks outside of that template but I agree that within Cricketweb Groupthink you've got the consensus right.

I imagine other cricket communities would have different core picks though.

 

[kyear2]

In this exercise Cardus referred to Bosanquet as an "unfulfilled pioneer" and put King in the same bracket. Cardus was a Lancashire supporter and a fan of Johnny Tyldesley whom he knew well. He named quite a few others who missed out, including Macartney, but not Hammond or Headley.

When Bradman retired in 1949, there was a debate about whether he was the greatest-ever batsman. Far more of a debate than there is today. Some thought he was what we would now call a flat track bully. Those arguing against Bradman named five batsmen they thought were at least his equal. Not everyone named all five but they were Grace, Ranji, Trumper, Hobbs and Macartney. All were attacking players in their youth, adept on difficult pitches.

Where Macartney differed from the others was that he always played the same way, rather than slowing down with age. In first-class cricket in England, he scored 10% faster than Bradman, 20% faster than Hammond, and nearly 60% faster than Headley. It was the type of batting, with shots all round the wicket, that went down very well with writers and spectators of the time.

Taking opinions across the spectrum around 1950, Macartney was probably rated about equal with Hammond and above Headley. Now he is largely forgotten and ranked below both.

Excellent as always.

So the contemporary opinion by some at that time was that Hobbs was possibly on par with the Don?

Are they articles that you can provide links to?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Excellent as always.

So the contemporary opinion at that time was that Hobbs was better?

Are they articles that you can provide links to?

I think he said that among the faction who didn't rate Don the undisputed best; they used to name Grace, Ranji, Trumper, Hobbs and MaCartney as his equals. Given they're only the detractors, still in the minority even when he just retired and most believe them to be his equals not greater.... That's some typical Don ****

 

[kyear2]

I think he said that among the faction who didn't rate Don the undisputed best; they used to name Grace, Ranji, Trumper, Hobbs and MaCartney as his equals. Given they're only the detractors, still in the minority even when he just retired and most believe them to be his equals not greater.... That's some typical Don ****

Yeah, not unanimous obviously. But would be interested in seeing the arguments.

Bradman was somewhat of a "flat track bully" , but would be difficult to explain anyway the average disparity. Would be an interesting read.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah I think Bolo is right that most people would have one or two personal picks outside of that template but I agree that within Cricketweb Groupthink you've got the consensus right.

I imagine other cricket communities would have different core picks though.

Yes obviously some would have differing opinions, and wouldn't go as far as to use the word group think personally.

But even if not those 7, as I said there's a 5 for sure that are all but unanimous if not. Don't think that would change within differing communities.

Hobbs, the Master and Wisden top 5 player of the century. I've seen different selections, but those are efforts to include more contemporary players.

Bradman, no discussion

Sobers, no discussion.

Gilchrist, unchallenged as the best wicket keeper batsman ever, only challenge is if a pure keeper is preferred in Knott.

Marshall, even if he's not seen as the best, no one has him below the top 3 and not a liability with the bat.

_

Tendulkar, basically holds all the records to pair with a well rounded record, agreed he may not be seen the same outside of CW, but a good bet he would be.

McGrath, him and Sachin would have the weakest claims and really don't see him on many ATG teams so he may be seen the same outside of CW. Here is has been a lock though.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yes obviously some would have differing opinions, and wouldn't go as far as to use the word group think personally.

But even if not those 7, as I said there's a 5 for sure that are all but unanimous if not. Don't think that would change within differing communities.

Hobbs, the Master and Wisden top 5 player of the century. I've seen different selections, but those are efforts to include more contemporary players.

Bradman, no discussion

Sobers, no discussion.

Gilchrist, unchallenged as the best wicket keeper batsman ever, only challenge is if a pure keeper is preferred in Knott.

Marshall, even if he's not seen as the best, no one has him below the top 3 and not a liability with the bat.

_

Tendulkar, basically holds all the records to pair with a well rounded record, agreed he may not be seen the same outside of CW, but a good bet he would be.

McGrath, him and Sachin would have the weakest claims and really don't see him on many ATG teams so he may be seen the same outside of CW. Here is has been a lock though.

Having Sangakkara in a team ahead of Gilchrist is very feasible

 

[kyear2]

Having Sangakkara in a team ahead of Gilchrist is very feasible

I was thinking that when I typed it out, but even though it's feasible, you literally never see it.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I was thinking that when I typed it out, but even though it's feasible, you literally never see it.

I used to do that, but later decided Gilly is more suited to bat lower down the order.

 

[Bolo.]

Didn't say unanimous, I said consensus.

None of those are controversial. All 7 have made each team we've made and by impressive margins each time. They also win head to head and other related comps.

You're free to tell me which I'm wrong about. I would say 5 of them are close to if not unanimous.

The thing about these all time.teams is that they practically and mostly pick themselves

It's a statement like this that bothers me. I vehemently disagree with it- I don't pick them all, and don't think it's even close.

I agree that your main seven are likely the most common picks on CW in general. But, my personal picks aside, I find the idea of concensus picks to be problematic when there is no consensus on them as a group.

And there are a lot more viable options than the guys you include for your last 4.

The way you present it is that everyone has to agree with it. In reality, most CWers will agree with most of it, but almost nobody will agree with all of it.

 

[peterhrt]

So the contemporary opinion by some at that time was that Hobbs was possibly on par with the Don?
Are they articles that you can provide links to?

A few quotes over the years. There was nothing like the unanimity about Bradman in relation to others that there seems to be now.

JM Kilburn on Hobbs 1934: No batsman yet seen has evolved such mastery over all the vagaries of bowler and wicket...With Grace and Trumper and Ranji he stands incomparable.

EW Swanton 1962: He [Hobbs] was acknowledged the perfect player, on all wickets against all types of bowling. As to the relative merits of WG, Jack Hobbs and Don Bradman, it is of course fruitless to argue.

Wisden on Hobbs' death in 1963:

Sandham: Jack was the finest batsman in my experience on all sorts of wickets, especially the bad ones.

Strudwick: On any type of wicket he was the best batsman in my experience.

Sutcliffe: He was the most brilliant exponent of all time, and quite the best batsman of my generation on all types of wickets. On good wickets I do believe that pride of place should be given to Sir Don Bradman.

On another occasion Sutcliffe said Hammond was a more complete batsman than Bradman.

Fender: Jack was the greatest batsman the world has ever known, not merely in his generation but in any generation.

Rowland Bowen 1970: In one way, this manner of run-getting, he [Bradman] appears supreme, but few competent judges allow him to be equal to Victor Trumper, many would place Hobbs above him, and none would remove WG from the topmost pedestal of all. Which all goes to say that one must not judge a cricketer on his figures alone.

In 1981 John Arlott wrote a biography of Hobbs. He claimed that Hobbs was the greatest batsman to that point. Statistician Roy Webber made the same claim in the 1960s.

Monty Noble and Jack Fingleton both said that Trumper was the greatest batsman. Fingleton wrote a biography of Trumper. He did have a grudge against Bradman.

Noble on Trumper and Hobbs 1925: My admiration for him [Hobbs] is very great. I would like to be able to bracket him with Victor Trumper, not as a record breaker, but as a batsman, but it would not be honest to do so.

Simon Wilde 1998: Many who also saw Bradman swore that Trumper was the more accomplished batsman, even though Bradman was by far the heavier run-scorer.

Several critics actually thought him [Bradman] technically inferior to one or two contemporaries. His unwillingness to modify his approach on sticky wickets attracted particular opprobrium...and had led to claims that on all types of pitch, there had been more complete batsmen, such as Trumper and Hobbs.

Wisden on Macartney 1959: Except Victor Trumper at his best, no Australian batsman has ever demoralised our bowlers to the same extent.

Tom Goddard on Hammond 1964: He was the greatest batsman of them all, ahead of Bradman and the rest.

 

[Coronis]

A few quotes over the years. There was nothing like the unanimity about Bradman in relation to others that there seems to be now.

JM Kilburn on Hobbs 1934: No batsman yet seen has evolved such mastery over all the vagaries of bowler and wicket...With Grace and Trumper and Ranji he stands incomparable.

EW Swanton 1962: He [Hobbs] was acknowledged the perfect player, on all wickets against all types of bowling. As to the relative merits of WG, Jack Hobbs and Don Bradman, it is of course fruitless to argue.

Wisden on Hobbs' death in 1963:

Sandham: Jack was the finest batsman in my experience on all sorts of wickets, especially the bad ones.

Strudwick: On any type of wicket he was the best batsman in my experience.

Sutcliffe: He was the most brilliant exponent of all time, and quite the best batsman of my generation on all types of wickets. On good wickets I do believe that pride of place should be given to Sir Don Bradman.

On another occasion Sutcliffe said Hammond was a more complete batsman than Bradman.

Fender: Jack was the greatest batsman the world has ever known, not merely in his generation but in any generation.

Rowland Bowen 1970: In one way, this manner of run-getting, he [Bradman] appears supreme, but few competent judges allow him to be equal to Victor Trumper, many would place Hobbs above him, and none would remove WG from the topmost pedestal of all. Which all goes to say that one must not judge a cricketer on his figures alone.

In 1981 John Arlott wrote a biography of Hobbs. He claimed that Hobbs was the greatest batsman to that point. Statistician Roy Webber made the same claim in the 1960s.

Monty Noble and Jack Fingleton both said that Trumper was the greatest batsman. Fingleton wrote a biography of Trumper. He did have a grudge against Bradman.

Noble on Trumper and Hobbs 1925: My admiration for him [Hobbs] is very great. I would like to be able to bracket him with Victor Trumper, not as a record breaker, but as a batsman, but it would not be honest to do so.

Simon Wilde 1998: Many who also saw Bradman swore that Trumper was the more accomplished batsman, even though Bradman was by far the heavier run-scorer.

Several critics actually thought him [Bradman] technically inferior to one or two contemporaries. His unwillingness to modify his approach on sticky wickets attracted particular opprobrium...and had led to claims that on all types of pitch, there had been more complete batsmen, such as Trumper and Hobbs.

Wisden on Macartney 1959: Except Victor Trumper at his best, no Australian batsman has ever demoralised our bowlers to the same extent.

Tom Goddard on Hammond 1964: He was the greatest batsman of them all, ahead of Bradman and the rest.

Whilst he definitely struggled on “sticky” wickets, they were always a minority. Notice how a lot of the arguments are based on feel, technique and style rather than what actually matters, which is the substance or output.

Certain great athletes in all sports are heavily overrated due to this romanticism.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Whilst he definitely struggled on “sticky” wickets, they were always a minority. Notice how a lot of the arguments are based on feel, technique and style rather than what actually matters, which is the substance or output.

Certain great athletes in all sports are heavily overrated due to this romanticism.

I think romanticism is good and all; but pretty much I agree. Aesthetics is great, but Don's output has never been matched (except arguably by Grace).
And while I would die defending Trumper, he is the most romanticised cricketer of all time; by a very comfortable margin.

 

[Coronis]

Favourites XI

Sutcliffe
Grace
Sangakkara
Smith
Barrington
Procter*
Gilchrist+
Davidson
O’Reilly
Steyn
Barnes

Very unlucky not to be there: Hobbs, Kallis, Grimmett

 

[kyear2]

It's a statement like this that bothers me. I vehemently disagree with it- I don't pick them all, and don't think it's even close.

I agree that your main seven are likely the most common picks on CW in general. But, my personal picks aside, I find the idea of concensus picks to be problematic when there is no consensus on them as a group.

And there are a lot more viable options than the guys you include for your last 4.

The way you present it is that everyone has to agree with it. In reality, most CWers will agree with most of it, but almost nobody will agree with all of it.

I'm not telling you who to select. I also didn't pick the names out of a hat, I'm telling you from going through posts, polls, the last three such exercises, and general opinion from the past 5 years plus these are the guys that are generally selected. Not my favorites, the guys I would chose or trying to convince anyone to chose....

If we chose a team tomorrow I can tell you who would be in it and who wouldn't with possibly the exception of two close positions.

We just had a top 50 poll of batsmen and bowlers, I just did a best attack poll, who's the best among the next tier of batsmen poll, I've read posts dating back years to see how opinions on certain players were and have changed. I understand what's important to the forum even if I disagree.

So I'm not presenting it as if everyone has to agree, I'm presenting it based on what everyone has consistently said. The last such exercise was only 2 years ago, and while the demographics has changed, it has in a way that has shown it's preferences.

It's not arrogance or trying to dictate, it's listening.

 

[Starfighter]

Whilst he definitely struggled on “sticky” wickets, they were always a minority. Notice how a lot of the arguments are based on feel, technique and style rather than what actually matters, which is the substance or output.

Certain great athletes in all sports are heavily overrated due to this romanticism.

There's also a good helping of 'in my day' nostalgia. I was reading Dick Whitington's book on the 70/71 Ashes recently and note his constant complaints about the allegedly unenterprising batsmanship even though they weren't scoring runs significantly slower than his era. At one point he actually did note that the scoring rates per ball were actually about the same but he just handwaves it away.

 

[Coronis]

There's also a good helping of 'in my day' nostalgia. I was reading Dick Whitington's book on the 70/71 Ashes recently and note his constant complaints about the allegedly unenterprising batsmanship even though they weren't scoring runs significantly slower than his era. At one point he actually did note that the scoring rates per ball were actually about the same but he just handwaves it away.

Seriously deluded sadly. Not the batsmen’s fault the over rates (and thus runs per hour) have dropped.