The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[kyear2]

Shocking

Seriously, what's with the reactions, lol

 

[kyear2]

Questionable as well. Imran admitted to using a bottlecap in a County Game once. If he ever did such a thing in Tests, it most likely was in his 40 wickets India series. Re LBW, it's not like Australian umpires were some beacons of fair play as well. Gavaskar walked off with his partner Chauhan once given a piss poor lbw off of Lillee himself. So downplaying Imran totally makes no literal sense. Also should be mentioned, I believe Imran played in Australia a series as a frontline batsman (though that was post Lillee probs) and hardly bowled in one due to injury (Lillee played that IIRC, though can be wrong there). Once you account for home pitch and batting line-up advantage of Lillee......

The ridiculous way that everyone tries to cite a singular example of lbw decisions to counter what was the absolute worst decade of home umpiring in modern cricket history is disingenuous.

 

[kyear2]

I mean, I do think it should be mentioned most of those Tests were played in Lillee's home...... I am sure you won't disagree that being a massive advantage.

How?

Australia was considerably more bowler friendly than Pakistan in that era, wasn't it?

 

[capt_Luffy]

The ridiculous way that everyone tries to cite a singular example of lbw decisions to counter what was the absolute worst decade of home umpiring in modern cricket history is disingenuous.

So it's disingenuous to say other countries also had shitty umpires??

 

[kyear2]

Which is WRONG!!!

Wow that's indepth, that's for that insight into your mind.

Care to reference which was wrong, because pretty sure all of what I said is objectively true.

 

[capt_Luffy]

How?

Australia was considerably more bowler friendly than Pakistan in that era, wasn't it?

Like really how?? Playing at home is definitely an advantage over someone alien to the conditions. I really don't think I need to break it down to you.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Wow that's indepth, that's for that insight into your mind.

Care to reference which was wrong, because pretty sure all of what I said is objectively true.

For starters, he wasn't the best batsman of the early 70s, let alone objectively.
That 300 was quite good, but that attack looks way better on paper that reality. It was pretty debut Lillee (averaged 36 that season), retired McKenzie and 41 year old Lock; and the square boundary was 40m long.
A batsman who never played in SC being termed as all conditional is certainly interesting..... Also don't think he ever proved himself in anything but the flattest Test pitches and Shield pitches in Australia. In England, a number of batsmen have similar records, some even scored faster and he was criticised for throwing his wicket as well.
Taking Richards over Hobbs is the farthest thing from objective really.

 

[kyear2]

So it's disingenuous to say other countries also had shitty umpires??

It's this Trump equivalency argument that's disingenuous.

It's the same with the ball tampering argument.

Pakistan's umpires were the absolute worst, NZ had a series that's comparable, but wasn't endemic and systematic like theirs. Australia had their issues, but it wasn't where there was a marked difference in performance between home and away for players.


Just take a look at Javed's home performances and how often he received LBWs against him
The first was in 1985, vs SL.

 

[capt_Luffy]

It's this Trump equivalency argument that's disingenuous.

It's the same with the ball tampering argument.

Pakistan's umpires were the absolute worst, NZ had a series that's comparable, but wasn't endemic and systematic like theirs. Australia had their issues, but it wasn't where there was a marked difference in performance between home and away for players.


Just take a look at Javed's home performances and how often he received LBWs against him
The first was in 1985, vs SL.

Pakistan was the worst, don't get me wrong. But Australia, WI, NZ etc were hardly significantly better either. The home umpiring Era had some pretty bad things everywhere. It is disingenuous to hold only Pakistan accountable and not the other countries.

 

[kyear2]

For starters, he wasn't the best batsman of the early 70s, let alone objectively.
That 300 was quite good, but that attack looks way better on paper that reality. It was pretty debut Lillee (averaged 36 that season), retired McKenzie and 41 year old Lock; and the square boundary was 40m long.
A batsman who never played in SC being termed as all conditional is certainly interesting..... Also don't think he ever proved himself in anything but the flattest Test pitches and Shield pitches in Australia. In England, a number of batsmen have similar records, some even scored faster and he was criticised for throwing his wicket as well.
Taking Richards over Hobbs is the farthest thing from objective really.

By all reports, articles, peer and pundit ratings and pretty unanimously Barry Richards was the best batsman in the world till 1976, and even then it wasn't clear cut, but Viv had the edge.

There were multiple other innings where he took prime Lillee, Procter, Thompson to task also had massive performances vs Snow. Lillee at that point was still at his very quickest.

The toughest conditions to bat in the 70's vs were in England and SA, and regardless of the conditions in Australia he was easily the leading run scorer. And if it were that easy to score a triple in a day, how others did it, especially vs that attack?

Yes the spinners in India were impressive, but also please tell me the ATG batsmen struggled agast them.

I have never said that I rate Barry over Hobbs, I also don't rate pre WWI players, this isn't new, and the same way I wouldn't place Barnes in a first team... The only reason I rate Hobbs is because of how much better he was than his peers and how exceptional overall. But he's the exception.

 

[capt_Luffy]

By all reports, articles, peer and pundit ratings and pretty unanimously Barry Richards was the best batsman in the world till 1976, and even then it wasn't clear cut, but Viv had the edge.

There were multiple other innings where he took prime Lillee, Procter, Thompson to task also had massive performances vs Snow. Lillee at that point was still at his very quickest.

The toughest conditions to bat in the 70's vs were in England and SA, and regardless of the conditions in Australia he was easily the leading run scorer. And if it were that easy to score a triple in a day, how others did it, especially vs that attack?

Yes the spinners in India were impressive, but also please tell me the ATG batsmen struggled agast them.

I have never said that I rate Barry over Hobbs, I also don't rate pre WWI players, this isn't new, and the same way I wouldn't place Barnes in a first team... The only reason I rate Hobbs is because of how much better he was than his peers and how exceptional overall. But he's the exception.

In England. Graeme Pollock was better over that period.

 

[kyear2]

Pakistan was the worst, don't get me wrong. But Australia, WI, NZ etc were hardly significantly better either. The home umpiring Era had some pretty bad things everywhere. It is disingenuous to hold only Pakistan accountable and not the other countries.

Besides that one series and Fred overall, NZ wasn't that notorious. The WI had one bad match that's harped on, yes the Aus umps let Lillee do as he pleased but hey. India wasn't great either, but no where near as bad.

None of those guys had the gap in home and away performances that the Pakistani's had.

Yes they were significantly better. Look back at some of the quotes from the Indian players during that '82 tour.

 

[Van_Sri]

Caribbean Kings XI : Greenidge, Gayle, Richards, Lara, Lloyd, Sobers, Dujon, Marshall, Garner, Holding, Ambrose