The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[steve132]

Missing a class spinner and Bradman but they're up there very close to the WI.

Tayfield was definitely a class spinner by any standard.

 

[jimmy101]

Richards
Smith *
Kallis
Pollock
DeVilliers +
Faulkner
Procter
Pollock
Steyn
Tayfield
Donald

Can't argue with the top five, but are six bowling options really necessary?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Can't argue with the top five, but are six bowling options really necessary?

I think it's more a case of SA having plenty of ATG all-rounders throughout their history compared to not a lot of ATG batsmen, and several of their best batsmen happened to be all-rounders. You could replace an all-rounder with a batsman and probably not make the team any stronger.

also it's 7 bowling options with Kallis

 

[kyear2]

Missing a class spinner and Bradman but they're up there very close to the WI.

While I do concede that Australia does have a slight advantage over the other 2 teams mentioned. I also believe that any test series between any two of the three would be highly competitive with no one team dominating the others.

Using the teams as listed in my signature btw.

Believe the series would be bowler dominated, just look at those 3 attacks, and one special spell or innings could determine the outcome.

 

[Bolo.]

RSA bowling is really hard to balance. Tayfield, Faulkner and Procter are way more spin options than you would need most of the time. But it's hard to leave out Tayfield because you want an atg spinner, and as an offie, he makes Procter a bit redundant. Procter arguably makes the team as a quick without factoring in his spin or batting, and as a package he's the best player (at least when you consider that Kallis will barely bowl at all). Faulkner is arguably borderline as a bat alone, and the only leggie.

I'd probably leave both Faulkner and Tayfield out on some tracks, and play all three on others.

 

[Chrish]

What's interesting is SA had some players who didn't play a single test but otherwise could have been ATGs in other era.. Vince van der Bijl and Clive Rice immediately come to mind. I am sure there are more. I know "could have, would have, should have" is a mental masturbation scenario but these players' performances stack up pretty well against international players whenever they played in county or other leagues.

Anyways as Kyear points out, one can argue which team is better and that's fair (that's why we have a forum after all), but no team is consistently dominating the other in a test series. So, they belong to the same tier as far as I am concerned.

 

[TheJediBrah]

While I do concede that Australia does have a slight advantage over the other 2 teams mentioned. I also believe that any test series between any two of the three would be highly competitive with no one team dominating the others.

Using the teams as listed in my signature btw.

Believe the series would be bowler dominated, just look at those 3 attacks, and one special spell or innings could determine the outcome.

Australia probably has the edge due to Bradman alone. Not sure if it means they'd dominate but it's almost like them getting to have 12 players.

 

[ataraxia]

Richards
Smith*
Amla
Pollock
Kallis - 5
Nourse
de Villiers +
Procter - 3
Tayfield - 4
Steyn - 1
Donald - 2

Two out of Amla, Nourse, and Faulkner. This would probably be my normal XI but in Asia Faulkner would be included (better than including a bad spinner to accompany Tayfield IMO).

I prefer ABDV to keep over the other options for his batting (averages 58 as keeper) and to open another spot up.

 

[Bolo.]

Richards
Smith*
Amla
Pollock
Kallis - 5
Nourse
de Villiers +
Procter - 3
Tayfield - 4
Steyn - 1
Donald - 2

Two out of Amla, Nourse, and Faulkner. This would probably be my normal XI but in Asia Faulkner would be included (better than including a bad spinner to accompany Tayfield IMO).

I prefer ABDV to keep over the other options for his batting (averages 58 as keeper) and to open another spot up.

Was Faulkner was a better spinner than Procter? Era, pitches and type of cricket make it hard to judge.

 

[trundler]

Procter and Faulkner had very similar roles as all rounders so I'll take the better test batsman. Unless you think Procter makes it as a frontline bowler. Was Procter closer to Hadlee or Miller? Find it very hard to believe that he was Hadlee with the ball and Miller with the bat.

 

[Bolo.]

Procter and Faulkner had very similar roles as all rounders so I'll take the better test batsman. Unless you think Procter makes it as a frontline bowler. Was Procter closer to Hadlee or Miller? Find it very hard to believe that he was Hadlee with the ball and Miller with the bat.

Neither of them make it as frontline spinners, and while Faulkner was a better bat, the fact that Procter was an atg quick changes the equation somewhat.

Procter could be both worse than Hadlee with the ball and Miller with the bat and still better than either. Seeing as this argument violates my firm principle of Hadlee = God, I wouldn't be the one to make it, even if I believed it.

 

[Coronis]

Procter and Faulkner had very similar roles as all rounders so I'll take the better test batsman. Unless you think Procter makes it as a frontline bowler. Was Procter closer to Hadlee or Miller? Find it very hard to believe that he was Hadlee with the ball and Miller with the bat.

Probably closer to Miller, seeing as his batting was ridiculously superior to Hadlee’s. I’d liken him closer to Imran tbh, though a better bat.

 

[Days of Grace]

I think it's more a case of SA having plenty of ATG all-rounders throughout their history compared to not a lot of ATG batsmen, and several of their best batsmen happened to be all-rounders. You could replace an all-rounder with a batsman and probably not make the team any stronger.

also it's 7 bowling options with Kallis

Agreed. Faulkner is up there with the best middle order bats that South Africa have produced. Never mind his bowling.

 

[Coronis]

Just for comparison in first class.

Imran
17771 runs @ 36.79 with 30 centuries, 1287 wickets @ 22.32 with 70 5 wicket hauls (3.4 wpm)
Procter
21936 runs @ 36.01 with 48 centuries, 1417 wickets @ 19.53 with 70 5 wicket hauls (3.5 wpm)

Interestingly, despite playing 85 fewer innings Imran had 99 not outs to Procter’s 58.

 

[mr_mister]

I find Faulkner as a bat hard to rate

Ignoring that one off test he played in 1924, from 1906-1912 he

Averaged about 21 for his first 8 tests
Averaged around 19 for his last 6 tests

But for a middle period from 1910-1911 over 10 tests he averaged about 67. Only one not out in this period too. Only had two tests where he didn't at least pass 50, but in those two he got a 49* in one and a 47 in the other

In fact for 20 innings over this period he had 15 scores over 40.

Where did this consistency disappear to and where was it before?

 

[jimmy101]

Dunno. I'd like to see Faulkner's stats for both matches played on matting wickets & turf pitches.

 

[stephen]

While I do concede that Australia does have a slight advantage over the other 2 teams mentioned. I also believe that any test series between any two of the three would be highly competitive with no one team dominating the others.

Using the teams as listed in my signature btw.

Believe the series would be bowler dominated, just look at those 3 attacks, and one special spell or innings could determine the outcome.

Australia has the best batsman (by a huge distance), the best keeper-batsman (by a large distance) and a better spinner than any side not named Sri Lanka. That automatically gives them a huge advantage. On top of that Smith is arguably the second best batsman and is at least in the same class as the best batsmen of the other nations.

The thing is that sport is played out on the field and Australia could be thumped 5-0 even with all their advantages, but it's hard to come to any conclusion other than Australia being the best by a considerable margin due to the Bradman-Gilchrist-Warne trio.

 

[ataraxia]

Neither of them make it as frontline spinners, and while Faulkner was a better bat, the fact that Procter was an atg quick changes the equation somewhat.

Procter could be both worse than Hadlee with the ball and Miller with the bat and still better than either. Seeing as this argument violates my firm principle of Hadlee = God, I wouldn't be the one to make it, even if I believed it.

I have Procter in as a quick who can bat rather well but in subcontinental conditions he could bowl spin, yes. Anyone know when he switched from pace to spin?

 

[ankitj]

Tayfield was definitely a class spinner by any standard.

Yeah Tayfield is pretty good. Averaging <26 and >4.5 wpm in an era of boring draws is pretty good. Overall Warne is better but SA doesn't have that big a handicap in spin department as say WI. De Villiers could keep which will neutralize Gilchrist in the batting department although I don't know what added load of keeping does to his batting. Even if we don't do that, we have someone like Lindsay who is pretty good with bat. SA can also post an XI that bats down to #9 and has at least 6 quality bowling options, an area where Australia will struggle. SA may also have better openers.

At the end it will come down to Bradman making Australia undoubtedly better.

 

[jimmy101]

Yeah when other sides can boast players like ABdV, Sanga, Les Ames, Flower & Dhoni the whole assertion of Australia having the best WK/batsman by large margin doesn't really hold much water.