The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[smash84]

I am with Mick Jager

 

[kyear2]

Did Hammond ever actually bat at three though, and if Hutton and Sutcliffe bats together for any period of time, what would that look like?

 

[kyear2]

We need to stop just looking at averages, one painfully slow anchor in the top three is quite enough, two is just over kill.

 

[watson]

We need to stop just looking at averages, one painfully slow anchor in the top three is quite enough, two is just over kill.

For that reason - Hutton should bat at No.5 and anchor the middle order.

Attacking batsman can then play at No.4 and No.6 as they should.

 

[Red]

Hammond batted at 3 or 4 the majority of the time. His batting average at number 3 is 75 (52 inns), so I think he should bat there for sure.

Hutton was an opener. Very rarely batted in the middle order. Not sure you can justify picking him there. It would be like an Australian XI picking Hayden at 5. No justification for it.

So Hobbs is a must for opening according to nearly everyone who selects a team. Evidently one the the greatest batsmen ever.

For me, top three must be:

Hobbs
Sutcliffe OR Hutton
Hammond

For positions 4 and 5 Compton must be considered. Played 108 innings at either 4 or 5 and averaged 54 there. Also has the flair to keep things going. I've swayed back and forth here on the other middle order bat, but I feel Barrington deserves a place, particularly when combined with Compton, Hammond and Botham, who I'll have at 6. Barrington for the anchor role at 4, and Compton at 5...

Hobbs
Sutcliffe OR Hutton
Hammond
Barrington
Compton
Botham
Knott

Botham is at 6 because he provides genuine match winning potential, either with brutal batting or skilful swing bowling. Cannot leave him out.

For my keeper I choose Alan Knott, a favourite of mine, high class keeper, decent bat, and I've heard he basically lived on a diet of milk and fruit. That kind of quirkiness is gold in the dressing rooms...

That leaves four spots for bowlers. This is where I am most unsure. SF Barnes is a must. I feel Trueman probably is as well. Jim Laker is my first choice as a spinner, so the last spot must go to a quick, as Barnes is something between a quick and a spinner. Statham over Willis, Bedser and Snow for me.

Jack Hobbs
Sutcliffe or Hutton
Wally Hammond
Ken Barrington
Dennis Compton
Ian Botham
Alan Knott
Fred Trueman
Brian Statham
Jim Laker
SF Barnes

 

[ankitj]

What do people think of George Lohmann in ENG XI?

 

[watson]

The thing about Mailey, as gun as he was and as much as I adore him, he leaked runs. Gun strike rate but I'd prefer Grimmett to wear down the opposition, then get his man

The object of a Test match is to capture 20 wickets, therefore the bowlers Strike Rate is more significant than the Economy Rate or Average;

Mailey
Strike Rate against England = 60.4


Grimmett
Strike Rate against England = 86.4


That Strike Rate of Mailey against the best available opposition makes him equivalent to a top-notch fast bowler in wicket taking potential. There are very few spin bowlers that can boast that.

And importantly, it wasn't as if Mailey was just bowling out just tail-enders. Like Grimmett he was able to shift top-order batsman. His three favourite victims were;

1. Woolley (x9)
2. Hobbs (x9)
3. Sutcliffe (x8)

And here is a synopsis of their wickets;

http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerWicketAnalysisGraph.asp?PlayerID=1063

http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerWicketAnalysisGraph.asp?PlayerID=0664

 

[LongHopCassidy]

That 9-121 was from the 1920/21 Ashes series (5 Tests). He went on to capture 36 wickets at an average of only 26.27 runs, and at a Strike Rate of an incredible 40.6 deliveries per wicket.

I'm not sure if there are better stat's for a leggie, or any type if spinner for that matter, during a Test match series. But if there are, I'd sure like to see them (against top notch opponents of course).

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Sadly Warnie has him beat on all counts in the 2005 Ashes. 40 wickets at 19.92 with a strike rate of 37.9.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Also, this return from Harbhajan (32 at 17.03 with a strike rate of 33.4 for the cbf-to-click) in the 2001 Border-Gavaskar are pretty bloody impressive for a 3 Test series.

 

[watson]

Sadly Warnie has him beat on all counts in the 2005 Ashes. 40 wickets at 19.92 with a strike rate of 37.9.

Like I said - IMO Mailey was the best till Warne came along.

 

[Jager]

Like I said - IMO Mailey was the best till Warne came along.

Disagree

Standardised bowling averages - Australian leg-spinners
WJ O'Reilly: 22.66 (rank 4)
SK Warne: 26.69 (rank 10)
CV Grimmett: 25.63 (rank 12)
R Benaud: 29.23 (rank 31)
AA Mailey: 35.49 (rank 114)

 

[watson]

Disagree

Standardised bowling averages - Australian leg-spinners
WJ O'Reilly: 22.66 (rank 4)
SK Warne: 26.69 (rank 10)
CV Grimmett: 25.63 (rank 12)
R Benaud: 29.23 (rank 31)
AA Mailey: 35.49 (rank 114)

I wouldn't classify Bill O'Reilly as your classic leg-break googly bowler because he bowled at a brisk medium pace. His grip was also unique, as was the way he spun the ball. Perhaps I should have included O'Reilly in my thoughts, but I didn't.

The point of the exercise is to challenge the natural assumption that Grimmett is the obvious No.2 bowler of his type after Warne. Again, bowling averages are used to support the case for the skills of Grimmett and Benaud. But as I said in my previous post, Strike Rates are more important in Test cricket unless the corresponding average of the bowler is prohibitively bad. Mailey's average is not prohibitively bad, and he strikes about 30% more often than Grimmett (against England, the best side at the time).

 

[Flametree]

The object of a Test match is to capture 20 wickets, therefore the bowlers Strike Rate is more significant than the Economy Rate or Average;
/QUOTE]

I don't buy this.

If strike rate is the be-all of test bowlers, you'll presumably pick MacGill ahead of Warne?

 

[Jager]

SR is important, sure, but in a test Grimmett's not going to give away free runs and release pressure like Mailey - perhaps it will take a little longer, but it will cost 10 runs less!

 

[watson]

The object of a Test match is to capture 20 wickets, therefore the bowlers Strike Rate is more significant than the Economy Rate or Average;
/QUOTE]

I don't buy this.

If strike rate is the be-all of test bowlers, you'll presumably pick MacGill ahead of Warne?

Where to place MacGill in the patheon of spin bowlers is a very interesting question.

His numbers are pretty good and we only imagine how history would view him if Warne hadn't got in the way of his career;

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[watson]

SR is important, sure, but in a test Grimmett's not going to give away free runs and release pressure like Mailey - perhaps it will take a little longer, but it will cost 10 runs less!

No it wouldn't because the batsman's out sooner

Now I'm confused

 

[Red]

No it wouldn't because the batsman's out sooner

Now I'm confused

Grimmett-
Average- 24.21 runs per wicket
Strike Rate- 67.1 balls per wicket.
Econ- 2.16

Mailey
Average- 33.91 runs per wicket
Strike Rate- 61.8 balls per wicket
Econ- 3.29


Grimmett takes a wicket every 11.1 overs.
Mailey takes a wicket every 10.3 overs.

 

[watson]

Here's a turn up for the books;

According to Stat's Guru Warne and MacGill played together in 16 Test matches. Here are the stat's for those 16 matches;

MacGill
Wickets = 82
Average = 22.10
Strike Rate = 41.7
5w = 5
10w = 1

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Warne
Wickets = 74
Average = 29.56
Strike Rate = 56.6
5w = 6
10w = 2

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

It appears that MacGill out-bowled Warne when they appeared together. Unless I'm missing something.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Yeah, not surprising, he always did well whenever in partnership with Warne. You could argue that they saw the chance to take more risks from MacGill, I guess.

 

[watson]

Grimmett-
Average- 24.21 runs per wicket
Strike Rate- 67.1 balls per wicket.
Econ- 2.16

Mailey
Average- 33.91 runs per wicket
Strike Rate- 61.8 balls per wicket
Econ- 3.29


Grimmett takes a wicket every 11.1 overs.
Mailey takes a wicket every 10.3 overs.

Grimmett's numbers look better than they really are because he cleaned up during his 15 Tests against the lesser teams of his era - WI and SA. On the other hand, Mailey only had 3 Tests against SA to boost his stat's.

Against England when he had Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond et al to contend with Grimmett was a lot less impressive;

Grimmett
Average against England = 32.44
SR against England = 86.4


Mailey
Average against England = 34.12
SR against England = 60.4

Therefore, their averages are similar when playing against decent opposition (England) - less than 2 runs difference.

But Mailey romps it home with regards to Strike Rate! Add that fact to his impact on the art of leg-spin bowling, and his ability to radically transform an entire Ashes series (1921) and he is the greater bowler of the two IMO.