• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

GoodAreasShane

GoodAreasShane

Cricketer Of The Year
What might have been XI (15 tests or less)

Barry Richards
Sid Barnes
Archie Jackson
Charlie Davis
Clive Rice
Mike Procter
Darren Berry
Vintcent van der Bijl
Tony Gray
Mark Cameron
Brett Schultz

#bowldeep
 
Last edited:
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Bolo. said:
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.
Click to expand...
With this sentence you've shown that you really didn't get the point at all. It was deliberately an extreme example.
GoodAreasShane said:
What might have been XI (15 tests or less)

Barry Richards
Sid Barnes
Archie Jackson
Charlie Davis
Fawad Alam
Mike Procter
Darren Berry
Vintcent van der Bijl
Tony Gray
Mark Cameron
Brett Schultz

Yeah, I know Alam has a remote chance of getting himself off this list, but it would be surprising
Click to expand...
of course

edit: what happened to Fawad Alam? Why is he a might have been?
 
GoodAreasShane

GoodAreasShane

Cricketer Of The Year
TheJediBrah said:
With this sentence you've shown that you really didn't get the point at all. It was deliberately an extreme example.

of course

edit: what happened to Fawad Alam? Why is he a might have been?
Click to expand...
Because his FC record is genuinely immense, yet he was continually overlooked in favour of guys averaging a good 10 to 15 runs less, even in Pakistan nobody seems entirely sure why?

And I am assuming you never actually saw Cameron bowl? The talk would make more sense for those who have. Cribb was a fan long before I even knew this place existed ftr
 
Last edited:
stephen

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Proctor's best skill was his bowling. Watson's best skill was his batting. Watson averaged 43 with the bat at first class level (I think it was closer to 50 for Queensland), yet he averaged 35 with the bat at test level over a decent sample size.

Proctor averaged 19 with the ball at first class level. Who's to say he wouldn't have averaged closer to 25 with the ball at international level over a decent sample size? And his lesser skill was not quite good enough to hold down a spot in a test side even if he maintained his first class average (and history suggests that he'd probably average closer to 30 than 36 with the bat in tests).

That would put him realistically as less than Pollock with both ball and bat.

Conversely, if he'd kept everything at his first class stats level he'd be the GOAT all rounder. I don't think he would have because tests are much more difficult than first class cricket, but suggesting that at test level he might not have excelled as much as he did in domestic cricket isn't unreasonable.

Honestly I'd expect his career to have looked a lot more like Pollock's career
(ATG in one discipline, handy in the other) than Watson's (underperforming in his main discipline and handy in his secondary discipline). But the truth is that there's no way of knowing. It's impossible to say with any certainty.

And I probably picked a poor example in Harris, I had a better impression of him as a first class batsman than his stats warranted. Possibly because he was better with the bat for Queensland when he was picked than he looked for the first half of his test career.
 
Red

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
a massive zebra said:
Lol @ Bart King batting at 11. He was a better batsman than Larwood, to be fair.
Click to expand...
Why the "Lol @"? Sort of wanky behaviour innit?

If you know or think he's better than Larwood, fine. Larwood was a good batsman though, and tbh I know little of how good a batsman King was. But sure, big yourself up with your superior knowledge of Philadelphian cricketers from 100 years ago.

Such a weird flex
 
Red

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
stephen said:
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.
Click to expand...
lol
 
B

Bolo.

International Captain
stephen said:
Proctor's best skill was his bowling. Watson's best skill was his batting. Watson averaged 43 with the bat at first class level (I think it was closer to 50 for Queensland), yet he averaged 35 with the bat at test level over a decent sample size.

Proctor averaged 19 with the ball at first class level. Who's to say he wouldn't have averaged closer to 25 with the ball at international level over a decent sample size? And his lesser skill was not quite good enough to hold down a spot in a test side even if he maintained his first class average (and history suggests that he'd probably average closer to 30 than 36 with the bat in tests).

That would put him realistically as less than Pollock with both ball and bat.

Conversely, if he'd kept everything at his first class stats level he'd be the GOAT all rounder. I don't think he would have because tests are much more difficult than first class cricket, but suggesting that at test level he might not have excelled as much as he did in domestic cricket isn't unreasonable.

Honestly I'd expect his career to have looked a lot more like Pollock's career
(ATG in one discipline, handy in the other) than Watson's (underperforming in his main discipline and handy in his secondary discipline). But the truth is that there's no way of knowing. It's impossible to say with any certainty.

And I probably picked a poor example in Harris, I had a better impression of him as a first class batsman than his stats warranted. Possibly because he was better with the bat for Queensland when he was picked than he looked for the first half of his test career.
Click to expand...
Watson's issue as an allrounder wasn't that he underperformed at test level, but that he wasnt one at any level. He played as a bat and part timer (albeit a bloody good one). Comparing his 210 wickets to Procter's 21000 runs is silly.


Procter would probably have ended up like Pollock in the sense that he would have been an atg bowler and more than handy bat- genuine ARs dont exist at top level cricket. But he could have underperformed relative to FC to a similar extent as Watson and still ended up a better player than Pollock.
 
bagapath

bagapath

International Captain
bishop had a full fledged test career. 150+ wickets is good enough by any yardstick. in fact, bishop played more matches than grimmett, and played more matches and claimed more wickets than o'reilley. two bonafide greats of the game. it is true that he deserved to have played in more tests. but by no means should he be bunched with the unfortunate ones like barry richards or shane bond.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top