The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Red]

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.

Nah, this was known at the time, and spoken about a bit in the media.

Warne was, from a marketers perspective, the dream cricketer. He was also the incumbent, which meant MacGill only got to play when Warne was injured or banned, or if the track was a raging turner.

I recall a Sydney test when selectors picked Watson at 6 as an all-rounder, third seamer, so that Warne and MacGill could play together. Could have been done more, especially with Gilchrist in the team. But, we were thrashing teams anyhow.

Had MacGill not been around at the same time as Warne, he'd have a far greater legacy. As it is, he is remembered as the second stringer to a legend. He deserves far more than that imo.

 

[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?

No I wouldn't because there are a number of other factors involved. Warne had an impact on the art of leg-spin bowling, and it's profile within Test cricket that MacGill could not match.

The same applies to Mailey. His ability to spin batsman out relatively quickly, and at an average (V England) similar to Grimmett is only half the story.

A king without a crown

By RC Robertson Glasgow

Biographies and essays have been written about celebrities, fools, crooks, bores, and exhibitionists; but, so far as I know, no one has written a short book (he'd never stand for a long one) on Arthur A. Mailey, one of the great personalities of the last fifty or sixty years.

That he played cricket, as a leg-break-***-googly bowler for New South Wales and Australia, is merely incidental. As a Test Match bowler, he ranks among the great. But, as a man, he already stands, for those who have had the wonderful luck to know him, among the immortals........

I fear we may not see Arthur Mailey over here in the 1964 summer. He is 75 years old, and has retired from the work of commentary and drawing. But, wherever he is, he will, I know, be encouraging the young and hopeful, and helping the old and despairing. Anyhow, for me, Arthur Mailey is the greatest man I've ever met in cricket. A king without a crown.

A king without a crown | Cricket Features | The Cricketer | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Dan]

But then you could look at Grimmett in the same way - his variations and the new angle he brought to leg spin bowling was just as reforming as Mailey.

He purportedly never bowled a wide or no ball in 73,987 FC deliveries. Pretty special. Plus he averaged 6 wickets per Test, and was the first to reach 200 Test wickets.

 

[Red]

He purportedly never bowled a wide or no ball in 73,987 FC deliveries.

Incredible if true.

 

[watson]

But then you could look at Grimmett in the same way - his variations and the new angle he brought to leg spin bowling was just as reforming as Mailey.

He purportedly never bowled a wide or no ball in 73,987 FC deliveries. Pretty special. Plus he averaged 6 wickets per Test, and was the first to reach 200 Test wickets.

Now we're getting silly. That has to be a statistical impossibility. Surely?

 

[Jager]

The article on Grimmett here from Wisden Cricket Monthly is one of my favourite pieces of writing

Clarrie Grimmett | Australia Cricket | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[fredfertang]

Not that it is of any great relevance but I suspect that Mailey might have bowled a little differently had he been the spinner in a side whose quick bowlers were, at best, Tim Wall and Ernie McCormick, rather than Ted MacDonald and Jack Gregory

 

[Dan]

Now we're getting silly. That has to be a statistical impossibility. Surely?

Clarrie Grimmett: The best ever spinner born in NZ on 25 December 1891 | The Roar

Referenced there, presumably from Mallett's book.

Additionally, I just found this paragraph, written by Grimmett's partner in crime, Bill O'Reilly.

Unlike Arthur Mailey, the first of the Australian spin trilogy of the inter-wars era, Grimmett never insisted on spin as his chief means of destruction. To him it was no more than an important adjunct to unerring length and tantalising direction. Grimmett seldom beat a batsman by spin alone. Mailey often did. I cannot remember Grimmett bowling a long-hop, whereas Mailey averaged one an over. So much, in fact, did inaccuracy become a feature of Mailey's success that he himself came to believe that it was an essential ingredient. Such wantonness was anathema to Grimmett, who believed that a bowler should bowl as well as he possibly could every time he turned his arm over. And Grimmett was perhaps the best and most consistently active cricket thinker I ever met.

 

[watson]

Clarrie Grimmett: The best ever spinner born in NZ on 25 December 1891 | The Roar

Referenced there, presumably from Mallett's book.

Additionally, I just found this paragraph, written by Grimmett's partner in crime, Bill O'Reilly.

The Roar doesn't appear to reference those 73,987 deliveries. I'm not saying that Grimmett never bowled a wide or no-ball, but commonsense suggests that to be highly unlikely. It's just stretching the ability of humanity too far.

I respect O'Reilly's opinion, but again, 'I cannot remember Grimmett bowling a long-hop, whereas Mailey averaged one an over' sounds like wishful thinking to me. If Mailey really bowled a long-hop every over then he wouldn't have made it to the Australian Test squad. I don't recall even Peter Sleep or Bob Holland bowling long-hops regularly. Therefore, I don't see why such a practiced bowler as Mailey should be any different.

Again, those averages per wicket against England are similar - 32.44 V 34.12

 

[SJS]

Not that it is of any great relevance but I suspect that Mailey might have bowled a little differently had he been the spinner in a side whose quick bowlers were, at best, Tim Wall and Ernie McCormick, rather than Ted MacDonald and Jack Gregory

I was going to say something on those lines but decided against it :o))

 

[Dan]

Most of these statistics are taken from Ashley Mallett’s excellent biography ‘Scarlet: Clarrie Grimmett- Test Cricketer’.

As a measure of his control, Grimmett bowled 73,987 balls in first class cricket. He never bowled a wide or a no-ball.

Guessing that's where it came from.

I'm always going to maintain Grimmett was far, far superior. He had additional control and could build pressure to help O'Reilly take wickets galore, and he still averaged 6 per match himself.

Worth noting, additionally, that the 1930s were generally characterised by flatter pitches than Mailey's slightly-earlier era.

 

[Jager]

Guessing that's where it came from.

I'm always going to maintain Grimmett was far, far superior. He had additional control and could build pressure to help O'Reilly take wickets galore, and he still averaged 6 per match himself.

Worth noting, additionally, that the 1930s were generally characterised by flatter pitches than Mailey's slightly-earlier era.

Awta very strongly

 

[watson]

Guessing that's where it came from.

I'm always going to maintain Grimmett was far, far superior. He had additional control and could build pressure to help O'Reilly take wickets galore, and he still averaged 6 per match himself.

Worth noting, additionally, that the 1930s were generally characterised by flatter pitches than Mailey's slightly-earlier era.

'Far far superior' - No. That's hyperbole (or as our Prime Minister says, "hyper-bowl")

Superior - Perhaps or yes.

 

[kyear2]

So, back to picking an opening partner for Hobbs, Sutcliffe or Hutton?

 

[watson]

Sutcliffe with Hutton at No.5 as the defensive 'glue' in the middle-order - I reckon.

If Hutton in the middle-order is too unpalatable then Hobbs and Hutton to open with Sutcliffe omitted. This is because Hutton is comfortably the better batsman (faced LIndwall and Miller) despite Sutcliffe's average.

 

[SJS]

Making up All Time Great Teams is a fun exercise and best done in bars. It is not something one can get passionate about. I wrote this about making an all time team, here on CC, way back in December 2005 . . .

I follow a simple system. Other than Hobbs, Bradman, Sobers and SF Barnes, I vote for different people every time this sxcercise comes up and it does once a quarter or so

Trumper, Hutton, Barry Richards, Sutcliffe, Gavaskar as openers.

Headley, Hammond, Viv Richards, Tendulkar, Lara, Ranji, Compton, Weekes, Worrell etc for middle order

Evans, Oldfield, Taylor, Ames, Knott etc for keeper

Miller, Imran, Hadlee, Marshall as bowling all rounders

Lillee, Lindwall, Larwood, Trueman, Roberts, Holding etc as fast bowlers

Grimmett, Orielly, Laker, Verity as spinners

You always get a good team

How does it matter. They are all great players. How can we really evaluate one against the other ? You can support any one of them and if you know your cricket find enough to support your case.

Simple ​

Since then, to cater to younger tastes I have added Lara, Tendulkar, Gilchrist, Warne and Murali to the list . . . . to cater to younger tastes

 

[watson]

Making up All Time Great Teams is a fun exercise and best done in bars. It is not something one can get passionate about. I wrote this about making an all time team, here on CC, way back in December 2005 . . .

I follow a simple system. Other than Hobbs, Bradman, Sobers and SF Barnes, I vote for different people every time this sxcercise comes up and it does once a quarter or so

Trumper, Hutton, Barry Richards, Sutcliffe, Gavaskar as openers.

Headley, Hammond, Viv Richards, Tendulkar, Lara, Ranji, Compton, Weekes, Worrell etc for middle order

Evans, Oldfield, Taylor, Ames, Knott etc for keeper

Miller, Imran, Hadlee, Marshall as bowling all rounders

Lillee, Lindwall, Larwood, Trueman, Roberts, Holding etc as fast bowlers

Grimmett, Orielly, Laker, Verity as spinners

You always get a good team

How does it matter. They are all great players. How can we really evaluate one against the other ? You can support any one of them and if you know your cricket find enough to support your case.

Simple ​

Since then, to cater to younger tastes I have added Lara, Tendulkar, Gilchrist, Warne and Murali to the list . . . . to cater to younger tastes

I like those lists SJS.

I guess the main point I was trying to get across before was that we tend to make our lists too short by having preconceived ideas about certain players and excluding them from our pantheon of greats. This in turn limits our fun!

Ergo, by concluding that the records of Grimmett and Mailey are, in reality, similar we have gained another ATG leg-spinner, not lost one. No one is saying that Grimmett wasn't superb.

 

[SJS]

I like those lists SJS.

I guess the main point I was trying to get across before was that we tend to make our lists too short by having preconceived ideas about certain players and excluding them from our pantheon of greats. This in turn limits our fun!

Ergo, by concluding that the records of Grimmett and Mailey are, in reality, similar we have gained another ATG leg-spinner, not lost one. No one is saying that Grimmett wasn't superb.

Spot on my friend.

Mailey was widely considered the world's finest leg spinner till the advent of the 1930's. Then in one decade, the world saw two fantastic bowlers bowl in tandem with the old ball in an attack that had the weakest new ball attack not just in Australian but in most countries' history. Remember, even Grimmett was asked to open the Aussie attack in three Ashes innings in a row and McCabe was a regular new ball bowler! So these two, Grimmett and O'rielly, took the cricketing world by storm. But for the fact that there was an even bigger super star in the team in form of the incomparable Bradman, it is these bowlers posterity would have recalled when talking of that glorious era in Aussie cricket.

Mailey, Grimmett and O'reilly were three completely different type of bowlers. O'reilly was rightly compared by Bradman with Barnes rather than any spinner because of was not a conventional spinner. He bowled at medium pace. The Don, whose utter dislike for Grimmett is well recorded (it was mutual of course) and who was responsible for bringing an end Grum's career, is on record to say that as a pure leg spinner, Grimmett was the best of all time. But he considered O'reilly the greatest bowler, of any type, of all time. There are those who disagree but the fact remains that he held the small old Grum in very high regard, howsoever reluctantly. He does not mention Mailey anywhere.

Now, how do we ever compare players from eras long gone before us. The only way is by trying to understand from the views of their contemporaries and those who can provide first hand accounts of these greats. It may not always settle an argument (for arguments never are) but it lends better insight than we can get on our own with our umpteenth hand views with over-rated statistical tools as our main support.

I have in the past, here on CC, done similar threads on players as seen by their peers. An example is a thread A Fast Bowler's fast Bowler and a feature I did on Bedser's death Getting To Know The Gentle Giant - From Those Who Did Know Him

I will try and do one on these three leg spinners of the inter-war period. Its not a promise . . . just a declaration of intent

 

[watson]

Jack Hobbs from his 1935 autobiography: 'Sir Jack Hobbs: My Life Story';

Faulkner will go down to history as South Africa's greatest allrounder. He was a really splendid googly bowler, keeping an immaculate length, much faster than Grimmett, and perhaps the best of all the googly bowlers with the exception of Arthur Mailey.

It's also interesting is that Jack Hobbs rated Faulkner exceptionally highly.

 

[kyear2]

Sutcliffe with Hutton at No.5 as the defensive 'glue' in the middle-order - I reckon.

If Hutton in the middle-order is too unpalatable then Hobbs and Hutton to open with Sutcliffe omitted. This is because Hutton is comfortably the better batsman (faced LIndwall and Miller) despite Sutcliffe's average.

Fully agree with that, can't just shoe horn someone some place they didn't play, and Hutton was clearly the superior player.
__________________