The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[capt_Luffy]

Yeah, I can see the appeal. I just don't think it's the best way for Aus to utilise their lavish resources.

Yeah, I kinda get that, but I like it that way.

 

[howitzer]

My problem with Miller is that with the ball he was a specialist opening bowler who generally didn't bowl much outside that (there were exceptions). Which of McGrath and Lillee would you take the new ball off to make the most of Miller's bowling, given you're making a big sacrifice with the bat?

 

[capt_Luffy]

My problem with Miller is that with the ball he was a specialist opening bowler who generally didn't bowl much outside that (there were exceptions). Which of McGrath and Lillee would you take the new ball off to make the most of Miller's bowling, given you're making a big sacrifice with the bat?

No, I would rather give him the ball first change.

 

[kyear2]

I sway every way on these XIs but the selection of Miller as a genuine 3rd quick who bats top 6 allows you to pick Warne and OReilly. Imagine the potential carnage and spin aggression.

Obviously if you don’t want two spinners you trade Miller for Border/Harvey/Smith, pick Davo/Cummins/Lindwall instead of OReilly, and away you go, but having Bradman and Gilchrist available has always meant this XI makes sense to me.

Yeah, don't think there are many surfaces outside of the SC where two spinners are warranted tbh. That being added to Miller not being a great batsman while being a reluctant bowler doesn't make him the most exciting choice.

Cummins being a specialist 3rd bowler and useful bat, and the stability of Border / explosion of Punter in the lower middle order just seems too tempting to turn down.

Faulkner definely also not needed with Kallis there. Not over Nourse

 

[kyear2]

It always feels to me like it's weakening a strength to strengthen something that's already strong.

Yeah.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah, I can see the appeal. I just don't think it's the best way for Aus to utilise their lavish resources.

Agreed.

 

[kyear2]

My problem with Miller is that with the ball he was a specialist opening bowler who generally didn't bowl much outside that (there were exceptions). Which of McGrath and Lillee would you take the new ball off to make the most of Miller's bowling, given you're making a big sacrifice with the bat?

Exactly, his successes came primarily with short bursts with the new ball, a new ball he isn't getting here.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Exactly, his successes came primarily with short bursts with the new ball, a new ball he isn't getting here.

And again, my problem really is Botham is more unsuitable to bat at 6 for England, but you totally vibe with it.

 

[Red]

There’s no reason Miller couldn’t bowl first change as well as any of the other bowlers who get picked in these teams as a third quick but usually opened the bowling in real tests.

 

[kyear2]

There’s no reason Miller couldn’t bowl first change as well as any of the other bowlers who get picked in these teams as a third quick but usually opened the bowling in real tests.

That's not really the question though.

The question is whether he's a better bolwers than Cummins, a better batsman than Border or Ponting, and how many surfaces would two leg spinners be an advantage.

 

[capt_Luffy]

That's not really the question though.

The question is whether he's a better bolwers than Cummins, a better batsman than Border or Ponting, and how many surfaces would two leg spinners be an advantage.

The question is not really that. The question is which team combination is more beneficiary. He does not have to bowl better than Cummins or bat better than Ponting to overall bring more to the table than either in a team....

 

[kyear2]

The question is not really that. The question is which team combination is more beneficiary. He does not have to bowl better than Cummins or bat better than Ponting to overall bring more to the table than either in a team....

Really thought?

This isn't about Miller or hating on Miller...

But how?

You're taking the hit from the drop off in batting.

The counter being to play a second specialist spinner with limited benefits on most surfaces.

So the down grade of batting, which is also very arguably a down grade of pace bowling, where's the advantage?

Especially since a calling card of all 4 bolwers are their ability to bowl long spells, while again ... The use of two spinners outside of SC is at the very least, limited.

We're just doing variety for the sake of it at this point.

You have a tear away fast bolwer, ideal metronome who can bowl in the wind, an ideal 3rd bowler who actually plays the role, and one of the two greatest spinners ever.

Paired to Border who's Australia's greatest captain and the ideal no. 6 batsman who's the stopgap to any potential collapse.

That's it.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Really thought?

This isn't about Miller or hating on Miller...

But how?

You're taking the hit from the drop off from in batting.

The counter being to play a second specialist spinner with limited benefits in most surfaces.

So the down grade of batting, which is also very arguably a down grade of pace bowling, where's the advantage?

Especially since a calling card of all 4 bolwers are their ability to bowl long spells, while again ... The use of two spinners outside of SC is at the very least, limited.

We're just doing variety for the sake of it at this point.

You have a tear away fast bolwer, ideal metronome who can bowl in the wind, an ideal 3rd boller who actually plays the role, and one of the two greatest spinners ever.

Paired to Border who's Australia's greatest captain and the ideal no. 6 batsman who's the stopgap to any potential collapse.

That's it.

It has nothing to do with hating on Miller, Warne and O'Reilly simply are some of the best bowlers ever, who have proven themselves in almost every conditions they played in. I want both of them in the team since they're Australia's best after McGrath and Miller let's me have that balance.

 

[Red]

I’m not going to get into how I don’t think Miller is very much of a downgrade as a middle order batsman than others mentioned.

What I will say is this. Let’s say we’re playing a hypothetical series against England in an ATG scenario. Pure myth. The England side contains Hutton, Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Barrington etc etc. They’ve worn us down and the ball is old. Lillee and McGrath (and Miller) have bowled a lot of overs. The ball isn’t swinging at all. The pitch is wearing.

In my team, instead of (just) having Warne, you have Warne AND O’Reilly. Able to attack from both ends. The two most aggressive leggies ever. It’d be a huge challenge for batsmen instead of a time to cash in.

It’s such a myth saying “you don’t need two spinners except in Sydney or the SC”. Absolute garbage. You can have a five man bowling attack that comprises three durable and aggressive quicks PLUS the two greatest leggies ever. You’d be absurd not to. There would be no relief for the batting team.

 

[howitzer]

I’m not going to get into how I don’t think Miller is very much of a downgrade as a middle order batsman than others mentioned.

What I will say is this. Let’s say we’re playing a hypothetical series against England in an ATG scenario. Pure myth. The England side contains Hutton, Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Barrington etc etc. They’ve worn us down and the ball is old. Lillee and McGrath (and Miller) have bowled a lot of overs. The ball isn’t swinging at all. The pitch is wearing.

In my team, instead of (just) having Warne, you have Warne AND O’Reilly. Able to attack from both ends. The two most aggressive leggies ever. It’d be a huge challenge for batsmen instead of a time to cash in.

It’s such a myth saying “you don’t need two spinners except in Sydney or the SC”. Absolute garbage. You can have a five man bowling attack that comprises three durable and aggressive quicks PLUS the two greatest leggies ever. You’d be absurd not to. There would be no relief for the batting team.

This scenario is kind of why I still tend to prefer Davo over Cummins in the 4 man attack. Bloke was a proper workhorse who bowled over 50 overs a match during his peak. His overall overs per match is considerably lower due to him being utilised as a support bowler before then but he definitely could get through them.

 

[Red]

This scenario is kind of why I still tend to prefer Davo over Cummins in the 4 man attack. Bloke was a proper workhorse who bowled over 50 overs a match during his peak. His overall overs per match is considerably lower due to him being utilised as a support bowler before then but he definitely could get through them.

It’s also a myth that Miller couldn’t bowl long spells. He was perfectly capable of doing so. Bradman was quoted as saying it was better to use him in short bursts during the 1948 Ashes as the team contained Ern Toshack and Bill Johnston, who were actual workhorses, as well as Lindwall’s pace and Ian Johnson’s offies and Loxton’s mediums. Bradman used him as a strike bowler because it gave him the best results. But as seen below, he was very capable of long spells that took wickets, even at 37:

“Miller was rising 37 and hoping not to do much bowling. But his pal Lindwall pulled out of the second Test at Lord's, and his replacement Pat Crawford broke down in his fifth over. Miller shouldered the burden, bowling 34.1 overs in the first innings and 36 in the second, and took five wickets both times to set up Australia's 181-run victory, their only one of that Jim Laker-dominated series. Miller had scored 109 in the 1953 Lord's Test, and remains one of only three players - Garry Sobers and Vinoo Mankad are the others - to have his name on both the batting and bowling honours boards in the visitors' dressing room there.” Cricinfo

 

[reyrey]

In my team, instead of (just) having Warne, you have Warne AND O’Reilly. Able to attack from both ends. The two most aggressive leggies ever. It’d be a huge challenge for batsmen instead of a time to cash in.

Warne and O'Reilly are very different kind of leggies too. One's tall, sends it down a lot quicker and favoured balling a lot of googlies. Even if a batsman got on top of one them, the other will provide a different set of challenges.

 

[howitzer]

It’s also a myth that Miller couldn’t bowl long spells. He was perfectly capable of doing so. Bradman was quoted as saying it was better to use him in short bursts during the 1948 Ashes as the team contained Ern Toshack and Bill Johnston, who were actual workhorses, as well as Lindwall’s pace and Ian Johnson’s offies and Loxton’s mediums. Bradman used him as a strike bowler because it gave him the best results. But as seen below, he was very capable of long spells that took wickets, even at 37:

“Miller was rising 37 and hoping not to do much bowling. But his pal Lindwall pulled out of the second Test at Lord's, and his replacement Pat Crawford broke down in his fifth over. Miller shouldered the burden, bowling 34.1 overs in the first innings and 36 in the second, and took five wickets both times to set up Australia's 181-run victory, their only one of that Jim Laker-dominated series. Miller had scored 109 in the 1953 Lord's Test, and remains one of only three players - Garry Sobers and Vinoo Mankad are the others - to have his name on both the batting and bowling honours boards in the visitors' dressing room there.” Cricinfo

Such a shame that. I've spoken to people who actually watched him play in the mid-50s and he was clearly something pretty special. One of the first names I think of when I think of 'What-ifs'

 

[kyear2]

I’m not going to get into how I don’t think Miller is very much of a downgrade as a middle order batsman than others mentioned.

What I will say is this. Let’s say we’re playing a hypothetical series against England in an ATG scenario. Pure myth. The England side contains Hutton, Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Barrington etc etc. They’ve worn us down and the ball is old. Lillee and McGrath (and Miller) have bowled a lot of overs. The ball isn’t swinging at all. The pitch is wearing.

In my team, instead of (just) having Warne, you have Warne AND O’Reilly. Able to attack from both ends. The two most aggressive leggies ever. It’d be a huge challenge for batsmen instead of a time to cash in.

It’s such a myth saying “you don’t need two spinners except in Sydney or the SC”. Absolute garbage. You can have a five man bowling attack that comprises three durable and aggressive quicks PLUS the two greatest leggies ever. You’d be absurd not to. There would be no relief for the batting team.

To your first point. Yes he is a drop off from Border, almost half of his hundreds came in one series. Over 15 tests he averaged 24 in England. But as you said wouldn't stress on that right now.

McGrath made his mark over the 2nd half of his career on such pitches, Cummins and Lindwall has some experience and success on roads as well, it happens, those are the matches that draws are made of, even with said spinners. Think Hutton broke Bradman's record on such a pitch vs O'Reilly.

So why select a bowling attack for a forgone draw, while weakening your batting in the process? Can't say it's for India, Sachin and co would destroy Warne and don't see O'Reilly being much more successful.

Australia had McGill, who was arguably better than Lee, how many matches did Australia play both spinners outside of decidably spinning conditions.

India themselves don't so it that often away from the sc, the modern game is skewed towards fast bowling success. Border and Simpson is more than useful enough as second spinners in helpful conditions, and you have your full batting compliment.

It's always plugged how the Don and Gilly gives Australia a batting advantage, but having Miller at 5/ 6 somewhat neutralizes that strength. Not to mention Haydos at the top isn't that top tier level either.

Spinners less frequently make a drastic impact on games before the 3rd and 4th innings. So assume Miller os blowing that much more overs, potentially impacting his batting even more?

We're not playing on uncovered pitches and their main competition will be the West Indies and South Africa, including in those two countries.

This isn't even factoring in that while pace bowlers tend to impact the performances of great batsmen more than the reverse.

It's the exact opposite for great spinners, especially in neutral or (which is the norm) unhelpful conditions. Murali was roughed up by Lara, India and Australia. Warne by Lara and India.

So, be it unnecessarily weakening the batting, and arguably the fast bowling, to the less universally effective choice of playing two spinners in all conditions, the strategy doesn't make sense to be.

I know that not the popular opinion, but it's what I believe. He's not in the realm of an ATG batsman and all of the pacers I've mentioned are rated higher than he is, some appreciably so

 

[kyear2]

Warne and O'Reilly are very different kind of leggies too. One's tall, sends it down a lot quicker and favoured balling a lot of googlies. Even if a batsman got on top of one them, the other will provide a different set of challenges.

Yeah, Gilly is an automatic pick based on how he kept to Warne, O'Reilly though is a totally different proposition.