The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Chrish]

Honestly, I wouldn't have rated Barry Richards that highly if he hadn't

a) Performed better than Greenidge while they played together (though it can be argued Greenidge took those games more lightly than Barry did + Greenidge was in the early part of his career and not as good yet as he would become in the 80s); and
b) Killed it in WSC

Things like dominating the Lillee led Western Australia attack and having a delightful way of going about his runmaking are just cherries on top.

c) SA team was killing it before their isolation and then they start competing with strong established sides right from the readmission. None of this “our players are young and inexperienced” nonsense.

So, what this tells me is the quality of their domestic cricket was extremely high during those 20 years; that they recovered instantly despite 20+ years of no spotlight or isolation. So, there is no reason to believe that players who missed out during those years would have been sub-standard as compared to international guys.

Still, I do think there is a risk of rose-tinted glasses when we imagine “could have, would have, should have been” scenarios. So, it’s fair not to include these players in Xi in favor of guys with more tests.

 

[Bolo.]

I think if Procter had managed at least one fifty in his 7 tests I'd find it easier to believe he was an ATG all rounder denied the chance to show it.

His bowling record is obviously amazing even in his 7 tests but yeah finding out these 5 consecutive tons were in the B comp is very interesting

Using a peerless test career as evidence a player will struggle at test level is a... unique way to approach things. He wasn't a 25 average bat in the same way he wasn't a 15 average bowler- both are anomalous.

His career would have normalised for both disciplines with more matches. Combine his world xi outings with his test career and he ends on something like 17/33 - starting to get closer to his FC numbers.

Anyway, he's very slightly proven- he suceeded against the 4 strongest teams of his era over a long time period, and two of the strongest FC competitions. But even if you regard him as unproven, he's a safer bet than most because he has three disciplines to turn to. Hardly had a bad game, and never a less than great series in test/world xi because he was always turning at least one of his skills on. Nominally any conditions suit him, and although he might end up getting rubberised in a place like India in all three departments, this demonstrably happened to plenty of top players.

 

[Red]

The "What may have been but wasn't quite or never was" XI

Barry Richards
Sid Barnes
Archie Jackson
Graeme Pollock
Brad Hodge
Basil D'Oliveira
Mike Procter
Harold Larwood
Darren Berry +
Shane Bond
Bart King

 

[Red]

For the record، I seriously doubt Love, Bevan and co were significantly better than Khawaja for the same reasons. For all I know Love could've been Khawaja 2.0

Love was significantly better than Khawaja.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Martin Love reminds me of Rob Key for some reason.

 

[Coronis]

The "What may have been but wasn't quite or never was" XI

Barry Richards
Sid Barnes
Archie Jackson
Graeme Pollock
Brad Hodge
Basil D'Oliveira
Mike Procter
Harold Larwood
Darren Berry +
Shane Bond
Bart King

Dunno if d’oliveira belongs here.

 

[a massive zebra]

Lol @ Bart King batting at 11. He was a better batsman than Larwood, to be fair.

 

[Slifer]

My could've been xi

Richards
Barnes
Headley
Pollock
C Davis
Vinod Kambli
Procter
Berry+
Bishop
Bond
Reid

 

[Starfighter]

Dunno if d’oliveira belongs here.

Well he did make his test debut aged a little bit short of 35 and his first-class debut only couple of years before. And that's according to his birth date on cricinfo of 1931. He may have been even older than that.

 

[ataraxia]

Well he did make his test debut aged a little bit short of 35 and his first-class debut only couple of years before. And that's according to his birth date on cricinfo of 1931. He may have been even older than that.

Grimmett then? Could've played Tests from 17 to 50 IMO, had it not been for O'Reilly, Mailey, Bradman, consistent performance, NZ's non-Test playing ability and so on.

 

[stephen]

All rounders definitely find the transition from first class to test cricket more difficult than specialists.

One example in recent times was James Hopes in ODIs. Hopes was a gun for Queensland - best bowler and quite often their best batsman. But with the step up to ODIs he was little more than a containing bowler and never managed to shine with the bat.

There have been many examples of bowlers who are great batsmen at domestic/ grade level who are relative bunnies at the top level (Ryan Harris springs to mind as a recent example).

Fact is that most all rounders at domestic level aren't good enough at their weaker skill to be considered a genuine all rounder at test level.

Not to say that's the case with Proctor but the best we can say is that we don't know. He may have ended up as a Pollock- level all rounder or maybe as a Watson level all rounder. It's difficult to say.

 

[Gowza]

Wayne Daniel and Sylvester Clarke a shout for the could’ve been xi, Tony Gray also.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Love was significantly better than Khawaja.

yeah not this again. Not that I can blame the ignorant youth from being sceptical of how strong the Shield was in the 90s/00s. It was an absurdly strong domestic competition.

 

[Burgey]

My could've been xi

Richards
Barnes
Headley
Pollock
C Davis
Vinod Kambli
Procter
Berry+
Bishop
Bond
Reid

Collie Smith worth a shout here too.

 

[Slifer]

Wayne Daniel and Sylvester Clarke a shout for the could’ve been xi, Tony Gray also.

Good call. Forgot all about them. Could've been wi players. Man so many:

Collie Smith, Ezra Moseley, Wayne Daniels, Sylvester Clarke, Franklyn Stephenson, Manny Martingdale, Tony Gray, Charles Davis, Allan Rae etc.

 

[Bolo.]

All rounders definitely find the transition from first class to test cricket more difficult than specialists.

One example in recent times was James Hopes in ODIs. Hopes was a gun for Queensland - best bowler and quite often their best batsman. But with the step up to ODIs he was little more than a containing bowler and never managed to shine with the bat.

There have been many examples of bowlers who are great batsmen at domestic/ grade level who are relative bunnies at the top level (Ryan Harris springs to mind as a recent example).

Fact is that most all rounders at domestic level aren't good enough at their weaker skill to be considered a genuine all rounder at test level.

Not to say that's the case with Proctor but the best we can say is that we don't know. He may have ended up as a Pollock- level all rounder or maybe as a Watson level all rounder. It's difficult to say.

Genuine all rounders dont exist at test level, except in weaker teams.

Allrounders struggle to step up when their stronger discipline gets exposed at a higher level. If their stronger discipline gets them into the team, they will typically be handy in the weaker one. See your Ryan Harris example, who averaged more with the bat in tests.

Procter might have only ended up as good as pollock. Pretty unlikely, seeing as he was better bowler, better bat, and could bowl spin. But not implausible.

Love the Watson suggestion. If Procter played as many tests he would have needed to pick up about 1 wicket every two games at an average of something like 80 to have the same career numbers.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Genuine all rounders dont exist at test level, except in weaker teams.

Allrounders struggle to step up when their stronger discipline gets exposed at a higher level. If their stronger discipline gets them into the team, they will typically be handy in the weaker one. See your Ryan Harris example, who averaged more with the bat in tests.

Procter might have only ended up as good as pollock. Pretty unlikely, seeing as he was better bowler, better bat, and could bowl spin. But not implausible.

Love the Watson suggestion. If Procter played as many tests he would have needed to pick up about 1 wicket every two games at an average of something like 80 to have the same career numbers.

If you pick the right 7 or 8 Test period of Watson's career he might have averaged 45 with the bat and 15 with the ball who knows. You're missing stephen's point, he's not saying that Proctor was likely only as good a bowler as Watson, he's using it as an extreme example to demonstrate the fallibility of judging a player on a small sample.

 

[mr_mister]

For a 24 test period from 2009 to 2011

Watson scored 1873 runs @ 43.7
and took 42 wickets @ 25.5

 

[Bolo.]

If you pick the right 7 or 8 Test period of Watson's career he might have averaged 45 with the bat and 15 with the ball who knows. You're missing stephen's point, he's not saying that Proctor was likely only as good a bowler as Watson, he's using it as an extreme example to demonstrate the fallibility of judging a player on a small sample.

He doesnt really have a point so as list of incorrect statements, but if he does, it isnt the one you are making.

Nobody is arguing that you can extrapolate from 7 tests to a full career. My previous post was making exactly this point. But you can extrapolate from Procters 41 wickets (or more extremely than I did, 70 if including ROW games) to Watsons 75 pretty easily.

 

[stephen]

Yeah Watson wasn't bad at all. He was very good. But he wasn't an ATG and that's my point. Certainly world class but not a world beater. Not saying that Proctor is anything like Watson as a player, only saying that stepping up to test level may have given him a career like Watson's - a lot of promise but the feeling that they didn't quite live up to their talent. Or it could have been like Pollock, who was an ATG with his primary skill and more than useful with his secondary skill.