The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[capt_Luffy]

Head to head

Simpson
Hayden
Bradman
Smith
Chappell
Border
Gilchrist
Warne
Cummins
Lillee
McGrath

Greenidge
Worrell
Headley
Richards
Lara
Sobers
Dujon
Marshall
Holding / Gibbs
Garner
Ambrose

Richards
Smith
Kallis
Pollock
Nourse
de Villiers / Faulkner
de Kock
Procter
Steyn
Tayfield
Donald

Hobbs
Hutton
Hammond
Root
Barrington
Botham
Knott
Verity
Trueman
Anderson
Barnes

I could be wrong, but England just looks weaker.

Yeah, because Botham isn't making it. Add a proper batsman like Ranji or Compton, move Hutton to 3 and add Grace or Sutcliffe and Laker ahead of Verity for more fire power. If you want to keep Botham, then you need Rhodes as the spinner to strengthen the batting.

 

[capt_Luffy]

35 against them is how much vs Maco, Garner and co?

It doesn't works like that, sorry. Give him a modern bat, helmet and chest guard and I will see how much short bowling will trouble him.

 

[capt_Luffy]

And you're a batsman short. Plus with Warne, as needed may not be that often.

You already have Simpson and Border than can fill in as your 5th bowler.

With Bradman and Gilchrist and Lindwall in the lower order, not much of a problem.

 

[kyear2]

With Bradman and Gilchrist in the team, I would make Miller bat at 6 and go with a 5 man attack. As I said, he will be my 3rd pacer only when Warne and O'Reilly will be together.

I get the consensus and I can see why, but I also think it boils down to how highly someone rates Grace, Ranji and especially Barnes. Imo, SA bowling is ahead as, Steyn=Barnes, Donald=Trueman, Pollock>Anderson, Procter>Laker, Faulkner=Grace, and Kallis>Hammond. But also, English batting is more ahead as among the Top 6 bats of both teams, England have all 6 imo and one of them isn't even making their team.

I don't think nay of that is true tbh.

Steyn is ahead of Barnes, unless we are factoring in minnow SA. Donald travelled better than Trueman, Procter is better than Anderson and Tayfield and Verity is a wash, as is Kallis and Hammond.

How many English batsmen are we rating ahead of Richards, Kallis and Pollock, probably only the two openers. And Hobbs was at his peak pre war and Hutton didn't exactly stam his dominance on attacks.

I don't see it.

 

[kyear2]

It doesn't works like that, sorry. Give him a modern bat, helmet and chest guard and I will see how much short bowling will trouble him.

Modern equipment.dodnt make batsmen better, they just get hit more safely..

All of the 80's hospital visits came after the advent of helmets.

 

[Qlder]

And you're a batsman short. Plus with Warne, as needed may not be that often.

You already have Simpson and Border than can fill in as your 5th bowler.

They're in the discussion but Simpson and Border don't make a lot of people's Aussie ATG XI

And you're not a batsman short with middle order of Bradman, Chappell, Waugh and Miller, then Gilchrist to follow at #7

 

[kyear2]

Yeah, because Botham isn't making it. Add a proper batsman like Ranji or Compton, move Hutton to 3 and add Grace or Sutcliffe and Laker ahead of Verity for more fire power. If you want to keep Botham, then you need Rhodes as the spinner to strengthen the batting.

A top 4 of Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hutton and Hammond and the chance of victory is already greatly reduced. And that's not to add that only one of them faced anything resembling modern pace attacks.

Do we really believe that it's a coincidence that 2 of the 4 great openers came before the war, and the 3rd immediately after?
Even Sunny's top two averaging years came in 71 vs possibly the worst test attack post war and during WSC. It's got harder at the top .....

Just my opinion though, and as I said, Hutton did face modern attacks.

 

[kyear2]

They're in the discussion but Simpson and Border don't make a lot of people's Aussie ATG XI

And you're not a batsman short with middle order of Bradman, Chappell, Waugh and Miller, then Gilchrist to follow at #7

Takes one ball to get Bradman, what happens next?
Even in Gilly's peak, Australia mostly avoided playing a batsman short.. And in this instance you're up against a middle order of Headley, Richards, Lara and Sobers, to whom you just gave the batting advantage.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I don't think nay of that is true tbh.

Steyn is ahead of Barnes, unless we are factoring in minnow SA. Donald travelled better than Trueman, Procter is better than Anderson and Tayfield and Verity is a wash, as is Kallis and Hammond.

How many English batsmen are we rating ahead of Richards, Kallis and Pollock, probably only the two openers. And Hobbs was at his peak pre war and Hutton didn't exactly stam his dominance on attacks.

I don't see it.

Disagree on Steyn being ahead of Barnes. A 7 WPM is too superior to look past personally.
6 batsmen. Hobbs, Hutton, Grace, Sutcliffe, Hammond and Ranji.

 

[capt_Luffy]

A top 4 of Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hutton and Hammond and the chance of victory is already greatly reduced. And that's not to add that only one of them faced anything resembling modern pace attacks.

Do we really believe that it's a coincidence that 2 of the 4 great openers came before the war, and the 3rd immediately after?
Even Sunny's top two averaging years came in 71 vs possibly the worst test attack post war and during WSC. It's got harder at the top .....

Just my opinion though, and as I said, Hutton did face modern attacks.

I disagree on this then. I am not playing Sutcliffe, but Hobbs, Grace, Ranji and Root scored fast enough to not be too worried over Hutton.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Modern equipment.dodnt make batsmen better, they just get hit more safely..

All of the 80's hospital visits came after the advent of helmets.

Yeah, without grill. That's like a condom with holes.

Better equipment gives good batsmen safety and an additional courage.

 

[kyear2]

Disagree on Steyn being ahead of Barnes. A 7 WPM is too superior to look past personally.
6 batsmen. Hobbs, Hutton, Grace, Sutcliffe, Hammond and Ranji.

Pitches, level of comp. Main reason I don't even rate players pre WW1

Think that covers Grace and Ranji.

 

[kyear2]

I disagree on this then. I am not playing Sutcliffe, but Hobbs, Grace, Ranji and Root scored fast enough to not be too worried over Hutton.

Re Grace and Ranji, please name the fast bowlers either faced.

And yes, Hutton can be your anchor. Ranji's rest career ended in 1902, that wasn't even cricket.

 

[Qlder]

Pitches, level of comp. Main reason I don't even rate players pre WW1

Think that covers Grace and Ranji

I guess you don't follow the concept that "a superstar in one era would be a superstar in any era"

They'd have the benefit of all the new training techniques, equipment and be able to adapt to the new approach as to how the game is played

 

[kyear2]

I guess you don't follow the concept that "a superstar in one era would be a superstar in any era"

They'd have the benefit of all the new training techniques, equipment and be able to adapt to the new approach as to how the game is played

In the 19th century? With the level of competition? God no.
83 wickets in 7 matches @9 vs SA, not to mention the matting pitches. That's why people rate him.....

 

[Qlder]

In the 19th century? With the level of competition? God no.
83 wickets in 7 matches @9 vs SA, not to mention the matting pitches. That's why people rate him.....

Rate who, post I quoted you were talking about Grace and Ranji

 

[capt_Luffy]

In the 19th century? With the level of competition? God no.
83 wickets in 7 matches @9 vs SA, not to mention the matting pitches. That's why people rate him.....

No. Let me tell you a story of Barnes. When WI first toured England, they faced Barnes in 3 games. It were some pretty flat pitches, and Barnes was 56 back then. At the end of the tour, every WI batsmen, including Strollmeyer, Challenor, Roy Marshall and even George Headley, in a tour they also played against Larwood, Verity and Tate; said that the best bowler they faced was Barnes very comfortably.
Re Ranji and Grace; they faced Spofforth, Turner, Lohman, Lockwood and Barnes. Come to me after Richards and Tendulkar score some runs in sticky dogs.

 

[kyear2]

Rate who, post I quoted you were talking about Grace and Ranji

Oh, that was Barnes.

Same argument though, none of us even knows what his technique was, how he looked at the crease, could name the credible attacks he faced.

Barry Richards 100 times before either, I know and we all saw what he was capable of.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Oh, that was Barnes.

Same argument though, none of us even knows what his technique was, how he looked at the crease, could name the credible attacks he faced.

Barry Richards 100 times before either, I know and we all saw what he was capable of.

Graeme Hick anyone??? Or Mark Ramprakash? Or Michael Bevan? Or Sarfaraz Khan?

 

[kyear2]

No. Let me tell you a story of Barnes. When WI first toured England, they faced Barnes in 3 games. It were some pretty flat pitches, and Barnes was 56 back then. At the end of the tour, every WI batsmen, including Strollmeyer, Challenor, Roy Marshall and even George Headley, in a tour they also played against Larwood, Verity and Tate; said that the best bowler they faced was Barnes very comfortably.
Re Ranji and Grace; they faced Spofforth, Turner, Lohman, Lockwood and Barnes. Come to me after Richards and Tendulkar score some runs in sticky dogs.

First of all sticky dogs no longer exists, when they played LBWs were much harder to get, as the ball couldn't pitch outside off.
Nothing from back then resembles the game we play today.

Besides yours, how many even include Ranji and Grace in an all England far less an all World team. It's not a viable selection imho.

And re the WI, think that speaks more about Larwood and co than Barnes at 56 tbh. As I've said before, that was a very weak fast bowling era.