The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[harsh.ag]

Actually I just prefer Murali as a bowler over Warne. Not much difference, I just think he will take more wickets than Warne on average. Plus, I am pretty sure they will be the first ones to say that the other is the best, so it doesn't make sense to niggle too much. Additionally, I think Warne's great cricketing mind is slightly exaggerated to be honest.

I guess I haven't seen Hutton, so cannot be sure. Barry and Gavaskar were fantastic. Doesn't matter. Pick any two of them.

 

[kyear2]

Well for me Hobbs is an automatic, and with out question the greatest opener ever, Barry just didn't play enough tests for 1st team consideration, though from second on he is a serious contender. Gavaskar for me is just below Hutton as Hutton over came more and was succesful againts better bowling and on more difficult pitches.

 

[harsh.ag]

And to be fair to Murali, how do you expect any bowler to bowl to his potential when he is being called willy-nilly by the umpires for chucking - referring to the Australian performance. And Murali's record of India was ruined in only his last series, before that he averaged in the mid 30s there. On the other hand, Warne did badly there during his pomp. And Warne has got so many wickets against the English, who we all know have been horrible players of spin during this era. Yes, I know Murali has his stats inflated by minnows too. I am just saying when it comes to spin bowling, the English were comparable to the minnows. Check out Murali's record against England, comparable to his record against the minnows.

 

[harsh.ag]

My only problem with choosing a batsman like Hobbs is that I can never be sure how he would perform in the sub-continent, where most of his countrymen have failed miserably. I know it's not his fault that he didn't get the opportunity, but it's not my fault either No problems with Hutton.

I also think that there can be a big bias in favor of batsmen who play well in seaming conditions, and I don't think it makes sense. A match can be held anywhere, against any kind of opposition bowling.

 

[Jager]

I also think that there can be a big bias in favor of batsmen who play well in seaming conditions, and I don't think it makes sense. A match can be held anywhere, against any kind of opposition bowling.

This is true - so many people seem to think that playing the seaming/swinging ball is far more important than playing spin, but I disagree completely

 

[smash84]

Sir Len Hutton brioike Bradman's record with possibly the second greatest spinner ever bowling 87 overs. He was possibly the only batsman who conquered and properly and positivly played Ramadin and Valentine during their peak.
Persons point to Warne's record in India as Murali being better everywhere. A closer look shows that they both struggled in India with Warne averaging 43 compared to Murali's average of 45 and Murali also struggled in Australia averaging 75 (2 series). Even where Murali performed best at home averaging 19 (compared to 27 overseas), Warne's average was similar at 20.
So Warne was equally good everywhere plus was the better batsman, good slip fielder and that great cricketing mind.
Similarily Imran also performed much better at home than away (19 compared to 25) and particularily strugged averaging over 28 in India and Australia. Still makes my team though primarily on his captaincy and importance to Pakistan cricket and he was a great bowler as well.
Just my two cents worth.

Except for the 1987 tour to India which had some of the flattest pitches ever Imran in his earlier tours had a very good record in India. I don't think struggling is exactly the word that I will use for Imran's bowling in India.

The only place that he had a bit of difficulty was probably Australia and that too I would say he was unlucky to be injured in the 1983-84 tour. When he toured there in 1989-90 he was almost 38 and pretty much over with his bowling career.

 

[smash84]

This is true - so many people seem to think that playing the seaming/swinging ball is far more important than playing spin, but I disagree completely

evidence does point towards this hypothesis I suppose, especially when looking at test matches

 

[ankitj]

Trivializing Muralitharan's staggering record should really stop. Bugs me no end. Choose Warne for all the reasons - aesthetics, attitude, bowling record, whatever - but don't belittle Murali's achievements. It's extra-ordinarily daft to (1) argue that Murali wasn't / wouldn't be successful away from home, and (2) completely ignore what he achieved at home. 800 ****ing wickets in 133 tests takes some doing.

 

[harsh.ag]

evidence does point towards this hypothesis I suppose, especially when looking at test matches

Smali, of course every batsman should know how to handle pace bowling in seaming conditions. Since we all accept that, why don't we accept they should also know how to handle spin bowling on spin friendly pitches?

 

[kyear2]

One feature that all great teams have in common is that they all have great fast bowlers, as great as the Indian Quartet was they were never seen as a dominant team, and true spinning conditions only really exists in two countries compared to the other six Test Plaing Nations. Additionally most teams pick 3 fast bowlers and one spinner in seam or neutral conditions and some even think that the Indian team serves it's batsmen a disadvantage by grooming them on spinning pitches and they are ill- prepared when they travel outside of the S.C. Spinners have their role and are very important to their teams, but the fast men still rule the roost.

 

[watson]

One feature that all great teams have in common is that they all have great fast bowlers, as great as the Indian Quartet was they were never seen as a dominant team, and true spinning conditions only really exists in two countries compared to the other six Test Plaing Nations. Additionally most teams pick 3 fast bowlers and one spinner in seam or neutral conditions and some even think that the Indian team serves it's batsmen a disadvantage by grooming them on spinning pitches and they are ill- prepared when they travel outside of the S.C. Spinners have their role and are very important to their teams, but the fast men still rule the roost.

What I find intesting is that we are generally more tolerant toward a spin bowlers stat's than we are tolerant toward a pace bowlers stat's. For example;

Derek Underwood:
Average = 25.83
Strike rate = 73.6
Average V WI = 43.57
Strike Rate V WI = 102.0

Mike Hendrick:
Average = 25.83
Strike rate = 71.3
Average V WI = 55.0
Strike Rate V WI = 113.0

So, despite the fact that their bowling average is exactly the same to two decimal places, and both their records against the West Indies are rubbish, Underwood is often selected in an ATG England team without too much thought, but Hendrick doesn't get a seconds look in.

 

[fredfertang]

Difference was that Deadly was a matchwinner - with the best will in the world Hendo was a back-up seamer, albeit a good 'un

 

[watson]

Difference was that Deadly was a matchwinner - with the best will in the world Hendo was a back-up seamer, albeit a good 'un

A match winner on rain affected wickets. But how many of those are there in modern cricket? Not many.

Plus he was rarely a match winner against the West Indies judging by those numbers.

I'm not saying that Underwood shouldn't be considered as an ATG, but I do find it interesting that we seem to cut spin bowlers more slack on the whole.

 

[fredfertang]

He was undoubtedly a creature of his time, and I'm not sure I'd describe him as an ATG anyway, but he was also very good at tying up an end if conditions were against him - very few batsmen would take liberties with him

 

[benchmark00]

A match winner on rain affected wickets. But how many of those are there in modern cricket? Not many.

Plus he was rarely a match winner against the West Indies judging by those numbers.

I'm not saying that Underwood shouldn't be considered as an ATG, but I do find it interesting that we seem to cut spin bowlers more slack on the whole.

Tangy,

This probably should be in a new thread, but can you explain to your fans out there what is actually meant by the term uncovered wickets? The repercussions of this and at what point was a pitch perceived to be unplayable? Tell us all you know, Tang.

 

[watson]

He was undoubtedly a creature of his time, and I'm not sure I'd describe him as an ATG anyway, but he was also very good at tying up an end if conditions were against him - very few batsmen would take liberties with him

Underwood:
Economy Rate = 2.10

Hendrick:
Econmomy Rate = 2.17

With a difference of only 0.07 it looks as though batsman didn't 'take liberties' with Hendricks either.

 

[fredfertang]

Underwood:
Economy Rate = 2.10

Hendrick:
Econmomy Rate = 2.17

With a difference of only 0.07 it looks as though batsman didn't 'take liberties' with Hendricks either.

Miserly Derbyshire line and length bowler - there's been a long line of them

 

[harsh.ag]

Underwood wasn't really 'deadly' as they claimed though. Very good on rain-affected surfaces, yes. Played more of a holding role otherwise. In an England ATXI, I would have Laker and Verity in ahead of him. Rhodes just behind.

When it comes down to ATG teams, I think a general attacking approach is the best way to go, though not at the expense of technique and reliability. So, even though Compton, May and Gower may seem much more congenial to the attacking approach style, I still would place Barrington before them. The difference of around 11-12 runs in average is just too huge to ignore. In bowling, however, even though Snow, Bedser and Statham have better stats, Larwood is preferred by me because he could be extremely attacking and effective at the same time.

 

[harsh.ag]

Could anybody solve for me this SA pace head scratcher: If I assume that I am picking Procter, Donald, Tayfield and Faulkner, then I have:

Richards | Mitchell | Kallis | Pollock | Nourse | De Villiers +| Faulkner | Procter | ________ | Tayfield | Donald

Who would you pick out of Shaun Pollock, Peter Pollock, Dale Steyn and Neil Adcock? I can't decide. What I do know is that Shaun's batting should not be taken into consideration here, because when you have Procter coming in at number 8, then batting is really not a concern. Just solely on pace bowling credentials and looking at the balance of the team.

 

[kyear2]

Steyn for sure, quickly approaching ATG status and can seemingly swing it at will. S/R is just rediculous.