The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[ataraxia]

Well Ken Barrington's record is just as good as any of those guys.

To refer to Herbert Sutcliffe as Bert is slightly confusing because he was never known as Bert but there was a Bert Sutcliffe who played for New Zealand.

Sorry yeah, confused Herbert and Bert in my mind.

Barrington's record is terrific but I couldn't find a space for him with 8 commendable batsmen already. Either him or Woolley would be my reserve batsman/ar.

 

[ataraxia]

I don't think that Laker is good enough to go ahead of Verity and Underwood (or Rhodes).

Larwood's bowling average in Tests is over 28, which was quite high in that era. His first-class average is very nice but I'd still prefer Richardson or Anderson, though I might reconsider Richardson looking at his figures.

 

[mr_mister]

Larwood's average has to be looked at in context.

He played 15 of his 20 tests (he had a 21st but didn't bowl) against Australia, and I think 11 of those 15 were in matches against Bradman.

He didn't get many opportunities to get cheap wickets against weaker lineups

 

[ataraxia]

Larwood's average has to be looked at in context.

He played 15 of his 20 tests (he had a 21st but didn't bowl) against Australia, and I think 11 of those 15 were in matches against Bradman.

He didn't get many opportunities to get cheap wickets against weaker lineups

His last 5 tests were in the Bodyline series. His average before that series was almost 35. That is not deserving of a place in this XI, even being against Bradman and Ponsford for a significant amount of those Tests.

 

[mr_mister]

Including against Bradman having the single greatest test batting series in history during 1930

But really the whole point of rating Larwood is because in bodyline he managed to make the Don human and have a minimal impact(by Bradman standards) on the series. And he was pretty much the only bowler to ever do so. It was the only series Bradman ever played in that he scored under 400 runs and the only series where he didn't get at least 2 centuries

 

[ataraxia]

So have a gazillion short very slightly forward square legs? He did manage to make him human in his batting but it's outlawed now. Sure, psychology plays a role but against every other country someone like Anderson would be a better pick IMO.

 

[mr_mister]

If you actually look at the overall record for bowlers on both sides for the 4 ashes series Larwood played in you'll find he fared better than most. They were unprecedented batting friendly conditions(Fingleton described pitches of the era as doped up featherbeds). I'm sure he averaged better than Grimmett across these 4 series

 

[Red]

So have a gazillion short very slightly forward square legs? He did manage to make him human in his batting but it's outlawed now. Sure, psychology plays a role but against every other country someone like Anderson would be a better pick IMO.

Larwood's skills weren't limited to short pitched bowing.

 

[ataraxia]

Larwood's skills weren't limited to short pitched bowing.

I know they weren't, but before that series (his last), he averaged almost 35 in Tests.

 

[mr_mister]

I know they weren't, but before that series (his last), he averaged almost 35 in Tests.

I guess rating Larwood can be linked to how much rate Bradman and how impressive you consider it he blunted him in that one series

 

[mr_mister]

Top 10 bowlers ranked by wickets in the 4 ashes series from 1926-33

Grimmett - 70
Larwood - 64
Tate - 45
Wall - 37
White - 28
O'Reilly - 27
Geary - 23
Allen - 21
Ironmonger - 21
Hammond - 19

These same bowlers ranked by lowest averages

O'Reilly - 26.8
Larwood - 29.9
Wall - 32.2
Geary - 33.0
White - 33.1
Allen - 33.7
Ironmomger - 33.9
Tate - 36.9
Grimmett - 38.4
Hammond 46.3

And a few added names, Gregory averaged 73.3 with 6 wickets and Mailey 42.3 with 14

An easy time for bowlers it was not - yet a lot of these guys are remembered as legends - Larwood was unfortunate he played 75% of his tests in these 4 series

 

[Prince EWS]

Top 10 bowlers ranked by wickets in the 4 ashes series from 1926-33

Grimmett - 70
Larwood - 64
Tate - 45
Wall - 37
White - 28
O'Reilly - 27
Geary - 23
Allen - 21
Ironmonger - 21
Hammond - 19

These same bowlers ranked by lowest averages

O'Reilly - 26.8
Larwood - 29.9
Wall - 32.2
Geary - 33.0
White - 33.1
Allen - 33.7
Ironmomger - 33.9
Tate - 36.9
Grimmett - 38.4
Hammond 46.3

And a few added names, Gregory averaged 73.3 with 6 wickets and Mailey 42.3 with 14

An easy time for bowlers it was not - yet a lot of these guys are remembered as legends - Larwood was unfortunate he did 75% of his career test bowling in these 4 series

I find this a really interesting possible implication for my next planned massive overhaul to the standardised averages project. Gun post.

 

[ataraxia]

Top 10 bowlers ranked by wickets in the 4 ashes series from 1926-33

Grimmett - 70
Larwood - 64
Tate - 45
Wall - 37
White - 28
O'Reilly - 27
Geary - 23
Allen - 21
Ironmonger - 21
Hammond - 19

These same bowlers ranked by lowest averages

O'Reilly - 26.8
Larwood - 29.9
Wall - 32.2
Geary - 33.0
White - 33.1
Allen - 33.7
Ironmomger - 33.9
Tate - 36.9
Grimmett - 38.4
Hammond 46.3

And a few added names, Gregory averaged 73.3 with 6 wickets and Mailey 42.3 with 14

An easy time for bowlers it was not - yet a lot of these guys are remembered as legends

Fair enough considering that Grimmett average (and everyone's averages besides O'Reilly to be fair). IMO it's better to consider this without the 1932/33 series though.

 

[mr_mister]

Fair enough considering that Grimmett average. IMO it's better to consider this without the 1932/33 series though.

Well without that series Larwood looks crap sure. And my argument collapses. If you take that away from him he doesn't have much to boast about - but the series did happen

 

[Coronis]

Have to go with Red Hill's team. The top 5 in Coronis's team would be glacial slow.

As would his. Despite his reputation, Compton’s strike rate was about 41, compared to Barrington’s... 41.

 

[ataraxia]

Well without that series Larwood looks crap sure. And my argument collapses. If you take that away from him he doesn't have much to boast about - but the series did happen

But it wouldn't happen now with the new laws. That's like including the best bowlers of the underarm era in all-time XIs.

 

[mr_mister]

But it wouldn't happen now with the new laws. That's like including the best bowlers of the underarm era in all-time XIs.

Under the modern lbw laws it's often speculated Herb Sutcliffe would have struggled - yet he's an opener in your England XI. It gets too nitpicky imo to disqualify series for these reasons. If it was played under the laws of the time it should be valid

I personally think nearly all pre 1890 bowling is hard to rate - Grace's FC bowling record kinda blurs the entire thing for me. But from the golden age onward I think it's all valid

 

[ataraxia]

Under the modern lbw laws it's often speculated Herb Sutcliffe would have struggled - yet he's an opener in your England XI. It gets too nitpicky imo to disqualify series for these reasons. If it was played under the laws of the time it should be valid

I personally think nearly all pre 1890 bowling is hard to rate - Grace's FC bowling record kinda blurs the entire thing for me. But from the golden age onward I think it's all valid

I think that kind of defeats the point but it's fine for you to have that opinion.

I didn't know about that law change but IMO Sutcliffe would have adapted his batting style. He probably has a bad record post-1935 in FC cricket but by then he was in his forties and not only would have been better in general but in a better frame to adapt if a younger him was faced with that law change to come into a hypothetical XI or something like that.

Grace takes a position in an English XI for me as a batter and a captain. The bowling is just an add-on for me. He was the foremost personality and IMO the foremost player in the cricket before Bradman.

 

[mr_mister]

Fair enough - I think more than his record pre and post rule change the assumption comes more from the style he was known for, which apparently was based on pad-heavy defense unlike say Hobbs who was more of a glorious stroke maker. And I assumed you were only including Grace for his batting not his bowling which I won't object to. I was just raising the point because his bowling record makes me question the 19th century bowling status quo - his record is nearly as good as the Demon Spofforth who was meant to be a once in a generation bowler

I just find starting from 1890 gives a clearer picture - with maybe Barnes the first true bonafide ATG paceman. Lohmann and Richardson not far behind.

 

[ataraxia]

From what I know of them they tended to rely on pushes in the gaps as run-scoring options. 19th century bowling was on terrible wickets often to my knowledge so good decision.

A World XI:

1 Hobbs
2 Grace *
3 Bradman
4 Tendulkar
5 Richards
6 Sobers
7 Kapil
8 Gilchrist +
9 Hadlee
10 Imran
11 Warne

#batdeep

Unhappy with including Kapil Dev, floated up Hammond, Botham, and Kallis but none of them really seem to fit. I like the idea of Gilly at 8 for real deepness in World XIs. Just a test of an XI.