The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[honestbharani]

who do the indian fans put as the atg keeper, engineer, dhoni, or someone else?

Dhoni... but mainly because it is slim pickins'.

 

[CapeTown Guy]

The only thing that Ntini did better than Tayfield or Faulkner was play more tests, hardly surprising considering the different eras. Both were superior bowlers, and batsmen too, for that matter. Both spinners too, actually adding something useful to the attack of SA instead of dropping yet another pacer in there.

Agree with this. Don't get me wrong, Ntini was a fine bowler, an excellent one even, but in the bigger scheme of things SA has had better fast bowlers.

 

[Red]

We're supposed to pick all time great teams, how am I supposed to pick that and then not include Ntini who had an out and out greater career than Tayfield and Faulkner?

From your posting pattern I can tell you go for lots of historical players who you've never seen or very little. That's fine but to then try and down play genuinely great cricketers with extended, great careers is just plain ridiculous.

Not entirely sure if you're trolling or not, but anyway...

Ntini was a good pacer, but he sits behind Donald, S.Pollock, Steyn, Procter, Adcock, P. Pollock, F. DeVilliers and probably a few other quicks. Ntini doesn't get close to a SA all time team.

Tayfield and Faulkner were both highest quality spinners. Faulkner also was a batsman who averaged 40. Anyone with an interest in cricket history and selecting true all time teams will pick one or both of these men in a SA all time team.

 

[NUFAN]

Not entirely sure if you're trolling or not, but anyway...

Ntini was a good pacer, but he sits behind Donald, S.Pollock, Steyn, Procter, Adcock, P. Pollock, F. DeVilliers and probably a few other quicks. Ntini doesn't get close to a SA all time team.

Tayfield and Faulkner were both highest quality spinners. Faulkner also was a batsman who averaged 40. Anyone with an interest in cricket history and selecting true all time teams will pick one or both of these men in a SA all time team.

Just on Fanie de Villiers, I always think of his SCG Test first when thinking about his career, as most Aussies would I guess. However, have a look at him in this Test.

 

[CapeTown Guy]

Rudi Steyn, John Commins, Clive Eksteen! Those were the days...

Fanie was very good yes, a great foil for Donald for a while. To be fair, I'd probably rank Ntini just ahead of him in the SA AT discussion

 

[marc71178]

Alec Stewart still being vastly overrated as a keeper batsman I see. How can he make someone's all time England side when he shouldn't have even been doing it in his own era as there was a vastly better option available?

 

[listento_me]

Not entirely sure if you're trolling or not, but anyway...

Ntini was a good pacer, but he sits behind Donald, S.Pollock, Steyn, Procter, Adcock, P. Pollock, F. DeVilliers and probably a few other quicks. Ntini doesn't get close to a SA all time team.

Tayfield and Faulkner were both highest quality spinners. Faulkner also was a batsman who averaged 40. Anyone with an interest in cricket history and selecting true all time teams will pick one or both of these men in a SA all time team.

Pollock, Steyn and Donald yes but you're stretching it with some of those names. Fan played 18 tests, you're not going to be an atg after 18 tests. And then the elder Pollock, 28 tests...cmon man.

Like I said, simply naming some black and white players because you think you'll smart to some on here isn't what making an atg team is about. But whatever floats your boat. Like I said, show me the teams you have made.

 

[listento_me]

Alec Stewart still being vastly overrated as a keeper batsman I see. How can he make someone's all time England side when he shouldn't have even been doing it in his own era as there was a vastly better option available?

England have had 66 wicket keepers in their history only 2 have had more test dismissals than Stewart. Plus while batting as keeper he has 6 centuries, I think only Prior has more. Plus, Stewart was sort of yo-yod up and down the order but if he could have consistently gotten the gig at a single position, he would have made it his own. You can't deny Stewarts place as an English great. Plus he adds depth to my team.

I can see Knott or Prior getting in there too but other than that, there's not much else to speak about in terms of England and keepers, who could also carry the bat. On top of the numbers, I think there's also the maturity and brains of Stewart which can be important for nay team.

 

[Red]

Pollock, Steyn and Donald yes but you're stretching it with some of those names. Fan played 18 tests, you're not going to be an atg after 18 tests. And then the elder Pollock, 28 tests...cmon man.

Like I said, simply naming some black and white players because you think you'll smart to some on here isn't what making an atg team is about. But whatever floats your boat. Like I said, show me the teams you have made.

So you are trolling, fair enough. It's not about picking "black and white" players. It's about appreciating cricket prior to the 70s and 80s. If you dont, that's fine, but others do. I enjoy reading cricket history, and as such I'll keep speculating on who was the best from all eras. So, as you say, whatever floats your boat.

When I look at a guy like Peter Pollock, who did only play 28 tests, I also consider his first class career, and anecdotal stories about him.

You can argue all you like about whether or not Ntini should be in your team. Obviously I dont have Fanie DeVilliers or P.Pollock in mine, was just stating I think they're as good as/better than Ntini. Fact of the matter is you think Faulkner and Tayfield aren't worth being in the team, but almost every serious SA ATG side I've seen has one or both.

By "show me the teams you have made" do you mean my SA team? Sure...

Barry Richards
Graeme Smith *
Jaques Kallis
Graeme Pollock
Dudley Nourse
AB DeVilliers +
Aubrey Faulkner/Shaun Pollock
Mike Procter
Hugh Tayfield
Dale Steyn
Allan Donald

I'm happy with DeVilliers keeping given the balance he provides to the team, but if Waite or Boucher were selected one of the all rounders (Faulkner, Pollock or Procter) could be left out and you'd still have 5 bowlers including Kallis.

 

[Burgey]

@Burgey - No Kallis in that SA XI? Or have I missed something. Big fan of Cullinan though, always felt he got a hard time (Warne issues aside), and by about the turn of the century, when JK was just a batting alrounder and not yet the run machine he became, he was probably SA's best bat.

Oh Jesus, terrible oversight on my part. Yeah of course he would be in there. Would bat four and push McMillan out of my side.

There's probably a heap of blokes I've overlooked from all the sides.

 

[Coronis]

Pollock, Steyn and Donald yes but you're stretching it with some of those names. Fan played 18 tests, you're not going to be an atg after 18 tests. And then the elder Pollock, 28 tests...cmon man.

Like I said, simply naming some black and white players because you think you'll smart to some on here isn't what making an atg team is about. But whatever floats your boat. Like I said, show me the teams you have made.

I don't think anyone said Fanie is an ATG, but neither is Ntini, not by a fair stretch. Pollock only played 28 tests due to apartheid, not in his control obviously, and Ntini's career was only 2 years longer than his, not Pollock's fault less tests were played in those days either. Your obvious modern bias towards players who have played more tests doesn't dismiss their quality. I'd add Philander to the list of Red Hill's list of better pacers for SA.

England have had 66 wicket keepers in their history only 2 have had more test dismissals than Stewart. Plus while batting as keeper he has 6 centuries, I think only Prior has more. Plus, Stewart was sort of yo-yod up and down the order but if he could have consistently gotten the gig at a single position, he would have made it his own. You can't deny Stewarts place as an English great. Plus he adds depth to my team.

I can see Knott or Prior getting in there too but other than that, there's not much else to speak about in terms of England and keepers, who could also carry the bat. On top of the numbers, I think there's also the maturity and brains of Stewart which can be important for nay team.

Les Ames.

 

[Red]

Godfrey Evans.

 

[CapeTown Guy]

Pollock, Steyn and Donald yes but you're stretching it with some of those names. Fan played 18 tests, you're not going to be an atg after 18 tests. And then the elder Pollock, 28 tests...cmon man.

Like I said, simply naming some black and white players because you think you'll smart to some on here isn't what making an atg team is about. But whatever floats your boat. Like I said, show me the teams you have made.

In other words, your opinion would also be something like: Pfft Bradman, 52 Tests, cmon, give me Michael Clarke any day of the week. That's how it comes across at least

 

[marc71178]

England have had 66 wicket keepers in their history only 2 have had more test dismissals than Stewart. Plus while batting as keeper he has 6 centuries, I think only Prior has more. Plus, Stewart was sort of yo-yod up and down the order but if he could have consistently gotten the gig at a single position, he would have made it his own. You can't deny Stewarts place as an English great. Plus he adds depth to my team.

I can see Knott or Prior getting in there too but other than that, there's not much else to speak about in terms of England and keepers, who could also carry the bat. On top of the numbers, I think there's also the maturity and brains of Stewart which can be important for nay team.

I don't care how many dismissals he has - the fact remains that he wasn't even the best keeper-batsman of his generation and should never have been given the gloves except in the event of an injury. That does not make him anywhere near the all time team. As a keeper, his batting was mediocre and the number of centuries is more a product of the amount of games he played rather then his actual ability as a keeper-batsman.

As for discussing him having maturity and brains - this is the guy who keeps calling for people like Roy, Ansari and Batty to get in the Test side...

 

[fredfertang]

I don't care how many dismissals he has - the fact remains that he wasn't even the best keeper-batsman of his generation and should never have been given the gloves except in the event of an injury. That does not make him anywhere near the all time team. As a keeper, his batting was mediocre and the number of centuries is more a product of the amount of games he played rather then his actual ability as a keeper-batsman.

As for discussing him having maturity and brains - this is the guy who keeps calling for people like Roy, Ansari and Batty to get in the Test side...

I thought Stewart was a half decent keeper myself, but he was nowhere near as good a gloveman as Jack Russell and certainly doesn't belong in any discussion about an all-time England XI - sort of bloke you'd want at your side if you were cornered in a dark alley by a couple of guys out to rob you though - has loyalty and courage in spades

 

[mr_mister]

Did Stewart offer enough over Russell with the bat to justify how much better Russell was as a keeper? Probably

 

[the big bambino]

I don't care how many dismissals he has - the fact remains ...

Doesn't care for the facts.

Contradicts himself the very next breath.

 

[morgieb]

Did Stewart offer enough over Russell with the bat to justify how much better Russell was as a keeper? Probably

I think the big issue was just how good Stewart was as an opener. He invariably couldn't do both, and Russell > whoever England's other opener was as a package.

 

[Red]

England have had 66 wicket keepers in their history only 2 have had more test dismissals than Stewart. Plus while batting as keeper he has 6 centuries, I think only Prior has more. Plus, Stewart was sort of yo-yod up and down the order but if he could have consistently gotten the gig at a single position, he would have made it his own. You can't deny Stewarts place as an English great. Plus he adds depth to my team.

I can see Knott or Prior getting in there too but other than that, there's not much else to speak about in terms of England and keepers, who could also carry the bat. On top of the numbers, I think there's also the maturity and brains of Stewart which can be important for nay team.

See, the English selectors screwed Stewart's careers over. As a batsman, he was very very good in the top order, either opening or at number 3. Had an average of around 45 in those positions (mostly without the gloves). He was very assured against pace bowling. It was when the selectors made him take the gloves and bat at 5, 6, or 7 that his batting output dropped, batting further down the order than suited his game.

If he'd just been allowed to open or bat at three for his whole career, without being made to keep wickets, he would have ended his career as an opener with a batting average of close to 50 and be remembered as a great (all my opinion but I think it's true). The fact that he's remembered as a bits and pieces player, handy with the bat and handy with the gloves, is an indicator of how English selection at that time got a lot wrong. He would have ranked with Gooch and Cook as the great English openers of the last couple decades.

 

[watson]

Apparently Gooch and the selectors were adamant that England needed 5 bowlers to take on the Windies during the 90s - so Stewart got stuck with the gloves and Russell was ignored more often than he should have been.

Along with the myopic treatment of John Snow these three selection blunders rank among the worse by English selectors.