The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Thala_0710]

In 2010 freelance journalist Richard Sydenham assembled 100 all-time World XIs chosen by 100 cricketers from all over the world past and present. He asked selectors who were still alive to exclude players from the 19th century. Some insisted on only picking players they had seen. The book was entitled In A League Of Their Own and was reviewed by Cricket Web at the time. The following were chosen in most teams:

Sobers 71, Viv Richards 64, Warne 61, Gavaskar 58, Bradman 53, Lillee 53, Tendulkar 42, Marshall 35, Knott 34, Wasim Akram 27, Gilchrist 26, Greenidge 26, Lara 25, Hutton 21, Imran Khan 21, Hadlee 19, Botham 18, Barry Richards 17, Border 16, Hobbs 14, Lindwall 14, Miller 13, Greg Chappell 12, Javed Miandad 12, Lance Gibbs 11, Laker 11, Barnes 10, Compton 10, Evans 10, Holding 10, Graeme Pollock 10.

Among modern cricketers who received fewer votes than might be expected were McGrath (8), Murali (7) and Ambrose (4).

Surprised Murali isn't in the list

 

[peterhrt]

Surprised Murali isn't in the list

He appeared in 7 teams, McGrath in 8.

Laker actually received 12 votes so makes the 2nd XI instead of Gibbs.

Murali was picked by Colin Croft, Ntini, Ranatunga, Saqlain Mushtaq, Trescothick, Wasim Akram and Zaheer Abbas.

 

[kyear2]

Unlike you I don't consider who makes other people's atg xi as an important criteria for greatness. So this question is irrelevant to me.

You rate Barry Richards as greater than gavaskar (and many other modern atgs with full careers) pretty much entirely on the basis of how writers/other players rated him. But you dismiss this criteria when it's brought up for other players. Lots of other posters have already asked you this before and you just respond with waffle. It makes no sense. If you just say you personally prefer these players instead of trying to justify it with nonsensical and inconsistent metrics nobody would care.

First let me clarify. I rate him a hair above Sunny, and that's based purely on what I think is the most important aspect of a opening batsman's job.

I also don't rate Barry purely on how writers or other players rated him, though admittedly way more the latter. It's based on when I started watching him (more on the why later), what he did and how he did it. I use the writers and the XIs because for some it lends credibility.

What did solidify my opinion, really to the point that, for the first time I'm actually happy with the overall balance and personnel of my XI, are the numbers presented by pererhrt and Coronis, especially the former. He was superb against the best of the very best.

It's very similar to my selection of Wasim. It started with is there a reason he's being selected, then I watched and contextualized. There's also a genius about both players and they both bringing something to the table that no one else does.

And most importantly I'm not trying to justify anything. Like above I would explain why I prefer him, but I don't have to justify any opinion I have.

I prefer him because, damn could he bat. Period. There's very few batsmen who could make Lillee, especially in his prime, look ordinary, he was one of the 3.

 

[kyear2]

The only all time team Barry Richards should objectively make is an all time World Series cricket XI.

Yet he's made more than a couple.

 

[kyear2]

First let me clarify. I rate him a hair above Sunny, and that's based purely on what I think is the most important aspect of a opening batsman's job.

I also don't rate Barry purely on how writers or other players rated him, though admittedly way more the latter. It's based on when I started watching him (more on the why later), what he did and how he did it. I use the writers and the XIs because for some it lends credibility.

What did solidify my opinion, really to the point that, for the first time I'm actually happy with the overall balance and personnel of my XI, are the numbers presented by pererhrt and Coronis, especially the former. He was superb against the best of the very best.

It's very similar to my selection of Wasim. It started with is there a reason he's being selected, then I watched and contextualized. There's also a genius about both players and they both bringing something to the table that no one else does.

And most importantly I'm not trying to justify anything. Like above I would explain why I prefer him, but I don't have to justify any opinion I have.

I prefer him because, damn could he bat. Period. There's very few batsmen who could make Lillee, especially in his prime, look ordinary, he was one of the 3.

As it's the ATG thread.

What, in my opinion makes my AT complete is how everyone compliments each other and everyone fits into a role.

The openers, one the perfect anchor, the other capable of scoring a hundred before lunch, both had the techniques to blunt the opposition on spicy surfaces. They both proved themselves vs the best fast men of their day and for different reasons made us wonder what could have been.

One drop requires no explanation. The GOAT

At four comes arguably the greatest ever player of fast bowling, and one that could take the game away from the opposition in session. He was also one of the greatest practitioners at 3rd that I've seen. He's followed by the calming influence of the team, the one to temper a collapse should one occur, but also capable of continuing the carnage if required, and all aided by an immaculate technique and ridiculous consistency.

The all rounder similarly needs no explanation. Bat, bowl and catch everything at 2nd. For the former and latter he was superb, the other, merely good. The perfect cricketer. The 2nd all rounder holds the gloves and utilized them masterfully to spin and pace. He's also a cheat code coming in at 7, especially in this line up.

And oh the attack. The openers are the perfect combination. Short, express and skiddy who could swing it both ways, matched with tall, disarming bounce and unmatched accuracy paired with precise seam movement. One tested your will the other your technique.

What came next was no easier. The most dangerous proponent of the old ball, pace and swing, conventional and reverse, and both ways, almost seemingly at will. And from the other side of the wicket. Also capable of crucial knocks when required. And the there's the master of leg spin, he commanded flight, drift and dip, and of course the leggie. But added to all of this was that he never stopped attacking and dominated many a 5th day.

Is it perfect, no. It would be magnificent if Wasim could bat like Imran or Richards catch like Barlow, but both were more than good enough.

But there's aggression and defence, guys to bowl into and against the wind, a tail that bats to 10 and almost as brilliant a cordon as one can get.