-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread
- Thread starter Red
- Start date
the big bambino
International Captain
Liked just bcos of FR Foster and Tom Richardson
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
I just revisited Ashley Mallett's All Time XI (actually a 20th Century XI) for reference as I could remember him picking one but had forgotten the exact make up of the team. His team was:
Len Hutton
Barry Richards
Don Bradman (c)
Victor Trumper
Keith Miller (v-c)
Garry Sobers
Alan Knott
Ray Lindwall
Jim Laker
Jeff Thompson
Bill O'Reilly
Neil Harvey (12th Man)
Similar to Bradman's XI, it is heavily Australian and with what seem to be a few personal favourites as well. But anyway, another one for the collection to discuss.
Len Hutton
Barry Richards
Don Bradman (c)
Victor Trumper
Keith Miller (v-c)
Garry Sobers
Alan Knott
Ray Lindwall
Jim Laker
Jeff Thompson
Bill O'Reilly
Neil Harvey (12th Man)
Similar to Bradman's XI, it is heavily Australian and with what seem to be a few personal favourites as well. But anyway, another one for the collection to discuss.
Coronis
International Coach
Batting looks a tad weak. Love the idea of Trumper in the middle order - played better there than opening. Thommo obviously a fave. All in all a decent XI though.
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
His rationale for Thommo was that with Lindwall, Miller and Sobers in the side, the team could afford a pure "shock" bowler and he narrowed it down to Tyson, Hall or Thommo with Thommo winning the spot. With regard to Trumper in the middle-order, he makes the point that versatility was very important to him and he liked the idea that Vic could move up to open if circumstances required it.
It was 2001 I think. And yeah, he does note that those two bowlers were very close to selection. He considers Ray Lindwall the greatest of all fast bowlers, with Wasim second and Marshall third - those three seemed well ahead with Lillee the best of the rest. As for Warne, Mallett wanted a leggie and an offie, so said that while both Warne and Grimmett could be argue better bowlers than Laker, neither of them made the side because the greatest of all leggies is O'Reilly.
kyear2
International Coach
Are they really that many truly legitimate candidates for an ATG XI thought.
Sir Jack Hobbs
Sir Leonard Hutton | Sunil Gavaskar
Sir Donald Bradman
Sir I.V.A. Richards | Greg Chappell
Sachin Tendulkar | Brian Lara
Sir Garfield Sobers
Adam Gilchrist | Allan Knott
Malcolm Marshall
Shane Warne | Muttiah Muralitharan
Dale Steyn | Dennis Lillee
Glenn McGrath | Sir Richard Hadlee
Other players that could warrant consideration.
Herbert Sutcliffe* | George Headley | Kumar Sangakkara | Graeme Pollock | Walter Hammond | Jacques Kallis* | Imran Khan* | Sydney Barnes | Curtly Ambrose | Wasim Akram | William O'Reilly* |
* Kallis and O'Reilly closest to and deserves to be in the top group. They are however never mentioned in such XI's.
Sir Jack Hobbs
Sir Leonard Hutton | Sunil Gavaskar
Sir Donald Bradman
Sir I.V.A. Richards | Greg Chappell
Sachin Tendulkar | Brian Lara
Sir Garfield Sobers
Adam Gilchrist | Allan Knott
Malcolm Marshall
Shane Warne | Muttiah Muralitharan
Dale Steyn | Dennis Lillee
Glenn McGrath | Sir Richard Hadlee
Other players that could warrant consideration.
Herbert Sutcliffe* | George Headley | Kumar Sangakkara | Graeme Pollock | Walter Hammond | Jacques Kallis* | Imran Khan* | Sydney Barnes | Curtly Ambrose | Wasim Akram | William O'Reilly* |
* Kallis and O'Reilly closest to and deserves to be in the top group. They are however never mentioned in such XI's.
Last edited:
kyear2
International Coach
How many teams have either, honestly. Plus it's my opinion in conjunction with my observations of overall consensus selections.
Sutcliffe for mine is closer to the top group than Hammond though and he and Imran along with O'Reilly and Kallis have the best arguments for inclusion in the top group.
Sutcliffe for mine is closer to the top group than Hammond though and he and Imran along with O'Reilly and Kallis have the best arguments for inclusion in the top group.
Last edited:
kyear2
International Coach
Monk is the only person on the forum that consistently leaves out Hobbs and Marshall and conversely always includes Miller.
Not a criticism, just an observation.
Last edited:
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don't know why the fact that few people pick them should affect anyone's team. If anything that makes them overlooked because most people know they're just as good as most in the first XI.
Coronis
International Coach
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
Their records against the best opposition of their time.
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
Their records against the best opposition of their time.
kyear2
International Coach
I have already conceded that Sutcliffe deserves to be in the top group, but the reality is that in direct comparison with Hobbs he always comes out second best. Hutton and Gavaskar pips him for me because they were the best openers for their teams and of their respective eras. No disrespect intended for Sutcliffe at all.
Hammond I compare to Weekes and Walcott. Exceptional records but holes in their records. A number three batsman should be capable of being defensive if required but also of being assertive and capable of destroying quality attacks. From what I have read and discerned Hammonds career strike rate was somewhere in Sutcliffe's neighborhood. Not good enough in my opinion for my first or second drop batsman.
Additionally you point out his record vs his strongest opponent, and while Australia had a strong attack, during his career it was primarily a spin attack and he was exception vs spin and medium pace. The only strong pace attack of his era was England and the West Indies. He couldn't face England, and he struggled badly vs the W. I. This is supported not only by his stats but by tour reports and anecdotal accounts. For me again that is not good enough for my first drop batsman for the ATG first XI.
This is not to say he wasn't an ATG, but like Weekes it keeps him from that very top elite tier.
Viv, Sachin, Lara, Chappell, Ponting all rate above him in this regard in my opinion. You don't have to agree.
You personally don't rate Lara or Viv, I don't question you as to why, despite the fact that both are seemingly rated above him by most historians, journalists and former players.
Hammond I compare to Weekes and Walcott. Exceptional records but holes in their records. A number three batsman should be capable of being defensive if required but also of being assertive and capable of destroying quality attacks. From what I have read and discerned Hammonds career strike rate was somewhere in Sutcliffe's neighborhood. Not good enough in my opinion for my first or second drop batsman.
Additionally you point out his record vs his strongest opponent, and while Australia had a strong attack, during his career it was primarily a spin attack and he was exception vs spin and medium pace. The only strong pace attack of his era was England and the West Indies. He couldn't face England, and he struggled badly vs the W. I. This is supported not only by his stats but by tour reports and anecdotal accounts. For me again that is not good enough for my first drop batsman for the ATG first XI.
This is not to say he wasn't an ATG, but like Weekes it keeps him from that very top elite tier.
Viv, Sachin, Lara, Chappell, Ponting all rate above him in this regard in my opinion. You don't have to agree.
You personally don't rate Lara or Viv, I don't question you as to why, despite the fact that both are seemingly rated above him by most historians, journalists and former players.
Coronis
International Coach
Well for me, Viv for the majority of his career, was not a great batsman in 74 matches from 1983 onwards, he averaged less than 45 and failed to convert a lot of starts to hundreds. Lara I've never really had a problem with, consider him right up there with the other middle order batsmen, just prefer Hammond and Tendulkar. Hammond due to his excellent fielding and good bowling along with his batting, and Tendulkar has a more complete record.
Last edited:
kyear2
International Coach
I fully agree that Hammond, due to his batting, elite slip fielding and test standard bowling was an elite cricketer. But someone who by their own statements wasn't comfortable against fast and especially short bowling (sentiments echoed by various team mates Ames, Watt and others) can't make my first team.or be in genuine contention for it. Tim Wall gave him trouble far less elite express bowlers.
Regarding Viv, 45 in that era was pretty darn good.
Regarding Viv, 45 in that era was pretty darn good.