The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Red]

It's really hard to compare eras in ODIs. Wonder if it's reasonable to include Jos Butler in the team now also, given his phenomenal record?

Bairstow
Trescothick
Root
Pietersen
Flintoff
Buttler +
Stokes
Botham
DeFreitas
Swann
Gough

Bowling attack of Gough, Botham, Flintoff, DeFreitas, Swann and Stokes would be handy. Could mount a case for dropping one of either DeFreitas or Stokes for Collingwood for added batting and fielding.

Knight and Fairbrother were a couple of other batsmen who were really good in their era but will be pushed out in the modern era.

 

[Zinzan]

Yup Buttler has to make that side. His ODI numbers are mental, average 38 SR 118. If you want to include Bairstow as a batter alone, that'd be fine too given his amazing record.. but Buttler is a must as WK & lower order bat to finish off an innings.

 

[AndrewB]

It's really hard to compare eras in ODIs. Wonder if it's reasonable to include Jos Butler in the team now also, given his phenomenal record?

Bairstow
Trescothick
Root
Pietersen
Flintoff
Buttler +
Stokes
Botham
DeFreitas
Swann
Gough

Bowling attack of Gough, Botham, Flintoff, DeFreitas, Swann and Stokes would be handy. Could mount a case for dropping one of either DeFreitas or Stokes for Collingwood for added batting and fielding.

Going by their overall records in ODIs, bringing in Collingwood for Stokes would improve the bowling and make the batting worse.

You could make a case for bringing in another specialist pace bowler - say Mullally or Willis - for one of the all-rounders.

 

[the big bambino]

If you are attributing his success to pitch conditions, wouldn't it stand to reason that some of Grimmett or O'Reilly's success could be attributed to conditions as well? A country isn't going to produce a glue pot for one match and no other spin friendly pitches in the same era.

AUS haven't produced a gluepot in my lifetime, and nothing I'd regard as spin friendly (as opposed to unfavorable to quicks/balanced) in a generation.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm just saying that it will influence a small sample size. The only time Australian wickets favoured bowers was after rain. O'Reilly and Grimmett succeeded in Australia on pitches that were plumb and fast. They weren't slow or turners which what you are imagining and therefore comparable with India. O'Reilly is on record saying pitches in Australia were fast. Hammond too, especially Melbourne. it is why England biased their bowling to pace out on tour here. It is why their pace men were much more successful than their spinners.

So Australia didn't produce spin friendly pitches at any time since the the first war really. Certainly not consistently. I can only think of SCG for a brief while in the mid to late 80s. Tiger and Grimmett succeeded in plumb, fast conditions. They also succeeded in very other country they toured. You can't explain away their success on conditions. (In fact O'Reilly reckoned he could have taken 12 wickets on some of the English turners in the mid 50s without taking off his coat). They succeeded in spite of them. They didn't play on your typical modern sub con bunsens ... ever. Anyway back to the games. a little later I'll try and abbreviate Starfighter's manuscript into a readable response.

 

[Starfighter]

Has it taken you two weeks to think of a response? My breath is bated (slightly).

 

[Zinzan]

Trescothick
Bairstow
Root
Morgan*
Stokes 6
Buttler+
Flintoff 3
Botham 4
Swann 5
Gough 1
Mullally 2

Initially chose Pietersen over Morgan, but changed upon realising in the last half of his career KP averaged around 30, plus I wanted Morgan as skipper.

Close thing either way overall, KP 41 @ 86 & Morgan 38 @ 90

 

[Bolo]

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm just saying that it will influence a small sample size. The only time Australian wickets favoured bowers was after rain. O'Reilly and Grimmett succeeded in Australia on pitches that were plumb and fast. They weren't slow or turners which what you are imagining and therefore comparable with India. O'Reilly is on record saying pitches in Australia were fast. Hammond too, especially Melbourne. it is why England biased their bowling to pace out on tour here. It is why their pace men were much more successful than their spinners.

So Australia didn't produce spin friendly pitches at any time since the the first war really. Certainly not consistently. I can only think of SCG for a brief while in the mid to late 80s. Tiger and Grimmett succeeded in plumb, fast conditions. They also succeeded in very other country they toured. You can't explain away their success on conditions. (In fact O'Reilly reckoned he could have taken 12 wickets on some of the English turners in the mid 50s without taking off his coat). They succeeded in spite of them. They didn't play on your typical modern sub con bunsens ... ever. Anyway back to the games. a little later I'll try and abbreviate Starfighter's manuscript into a readable response.

It sounds like you are describing modern AUS pitches. But with the difference that they were uncovered and easier for spinners when there was rain.

Doesn't this lead to a conclusion that on average conditions were easier for spinners then?

Nobody is arguing that it was only AUS conditions that were good for spin. I doubt you will find anyone willing to claim English conditions were not good for spin in the 1st half of cricket's lifespan. O'Reilly played in England too. It doesnt make any sense to use the fact that he played part of his matches in easy conditions as evidence that, on balance, his career was not played in easy conditions.

 

[the big bambino]

Has it taken you two weeks to think of a response? My breath is bated (slightly).

No, just having a life means I can’t give internet warriors the attention they crave.

 

[Bolo]

No love for Allan lamb in the ODI teams? I feel like he's probably England's best bat ever if you adjust for era.

 

[the big bambino]

It sounds like you are describing modern AUS pitches. But with the difference that they were uncovered and easier for spinners when there was rain.

I’m not. Modern Australian pitches are slow in comparison. Interwar they were plumb and fast. Yes rain made batting harder just as pitches that get wet now are. Neither circumstance occurred or occurs regularly enough to explain a bowlers success. So you can’t use them to explain away tiger and grum’s success. Therefore ...

Doesn't this lead to a conclusion that on average conditions were easier for spinners then?

... No. I’ve already shown you that spinner averages then were little different to now and in some cases inferior.

Nobody is arguing that it was only AUS conditions that were good for spin. I doubt you will find anyone willing to claim English conditions were not good for spin in the 1st half of cricket's lifespan. O'Reilly played in England too. It doesnt make any sense to use the fact that he played part of his matches in easy conditions as evidence that, on balance, his career was not played in easy conditions.

Actually nobody should be arguing they were and to repeat by the end of the first war those favourable conditions no longer applied. Pitch preparation was better. Tiger and grum were much more likely to strike an oval type pitch not an uneven sticky wicket so prevalent in the 1800s. You have misplaced the prevailing conditions by some 30 years.

Why doesn’t it make any sense to make the argument contained in your last sentence. Does Steyn only play on pace friendly wickets because that is often what he gets in SA? In fact I think it is straining credulity to suggest someone only played in easy conditions bcos it can be shown he occasionally did.

 

[Bolo]

I’m not. Modern Australian pitches are slow in comparison. Interwar they were plumb and fast. Yes rain made batting harder just as pitches that get wet now are. Neither circumstance occurred or occurs regularly enough to explain a bowlers success. So you can’t use them to explain away tiger and grum’s success. Therefore ...



... No. I’ve already shown you that spinner averages then were little different to now and in some cases inferior.



Actually nobody should be arguing they were and to repeat by the end of the first war those favourable conditions no longer applied. Pitch preparation was better. Tiger and grum were much more likely to strike an oval type pitch not an uneven sticky wicket so prevalent in the 1800s. You have misplaced the prevailing conditions by some 30 years.

Why doesn’t it make any sense to make the argument contained in your last sentence. Does Steyn only play on pace friendly wickets because that is often what he gets in SA? In fact I think it is straining credulity to suggest someone only played in easy conditions bcos it can be shown he occasionally did.

No, you haven't shown anything of the case for spinner averages. You have taken a mediocre bunch of spinners and compared them to a great bunch. What is the point of this comparison? This doesn't address the fact that there were a lot of spinners that produced great stats in previous eras and there were almost none recently. It also doesn't address the specific case of AUS bowlers having better averages.

Rain only occured enough to affect the career of one player you feel like discounting? Okay. Uncovered pitches were a factor in the careers of any spinner who played in the era. If rain alone wasn't sufficient for accounting for differences in averages by era, then there was something else as well.

Modern AUS pitches are not slow. It's a pretty accepted truth that they got to their quickest in the late 70s (the start of the modern era) and have been quicker since than before. The fact that pitches have slowed very recently doesn't change the entire history of the game.

You can never take uniform conditions for a player. There's a reason we look at more than just raw averages. Yes, you can downgrade someone like Steyn on the basis of easy home conditions. You can also upgrade him on the fact that he had the most difficult away conditions in nearly a hundred years, and on the basis that the home conditions he had to work with were the most difficult in the modern era for the majority of his career. There isn't a similar argument for O'Reilly.

 

[Zinzan]

No love for Allan lamb in the ODI teams? I feel like he's probably England's best bat ever if you adjust for era.

I seriously considered both Lamb & Gower.

 

[Days of Grace]

Trescothick
Knight
Trott
Root
Pietersen
Buttler+
Flintoff
Botham
Swann
Gough
Anderson

 

[srbhkshk]

I think there's a reasonable argument that apart from Flintoff , Botham and Pietersen, their current bat till 11 side is their ATG XI.

 

[Zinzan]

I think there's a reasonable argument that apart from Flintoff , Botham and Pietersen, their current bat till 11 side is their ATG XI.

Not quite, Gough & Swann are clearly better than any of their current bowlers imo, & I don't think Roy has done enough quite yet to be rated ahead of Trescothick has he? Considering the different era and all.

 

[Red]

Botham probably should have been the most valuable ODI player of all time and his fairly poor record in the format always surprises me.

 

[Zinzan]

Botham probably should have been the most valuable ODI player of all time and his fairly poor record in the format always surprises me.

Agree, I reluctantly picked Botham in my side, but mainly due to his bowling.

 

[srbhkshk]

Not quite, Gough & Swann are clearly better than any of their current bowlers imo, & I don't think Roy has done enough quite yet to be rated ahead of Trescothick has he? Considering the different era and all.

Yeah - but the current results are the best they have ever been getting, so it makes sense that they'd rather take people who are weaker as pure bowlers / batsman but can bat a bit / strike faster. Trescothick will probably still make it, but think it's just a matter of Roy/Hales getting the body of work behind them.

 

[bagapath]

The almost great XI 1968-2018

Justin Langer
Saeed Anwar
Richie Richardson
Damien Martyn
Graham Thorpe
Tony Grieg *
Ridley Jacobs +
Saqlain Mushtaq
Jeff Thomson
Ian Bishop
Bob Willis

 

[Bolo]

The almost great XI 1968-2018

Justin Langer
Saeed Anwar
Richie Richardson
Damien Martyn
Graham Thorpe
Tony Grieg *
Ridley Jacobs +
Saqlain Mushtaq
Jeff Thomson
Ian Bishop
Bob Willis

I like this team a lot. None of these players fly too close to the sun when we are thinking about ATGs, but that is a ridiculous lineup. That middle order in particular.