The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Bolo.]

I reckon the impact of a good slip cordon gets overestimated through double counting a bit... watch a dire cordon shell 4 in a row and it feels self evident that it is game defining, but in reality a great outfit would have likely dropped 1, and the other three are likely the same bat- the difference might only be a single wicket.

 

[stephen]

I do remember a big part of the intimidation aura that Australia had circa 2006 in ODIs was that they would set up the infield with Ponting/Symonds/Clarke/Hussey which would save a lot of runs based on the fear factor batsmen would have that they would be run out if they couldn't get it into the outfield.

Fielding matters and it helps when your best batsman is also a gun fielder ala Ponting.

Ponting and Symonds are the two greatest and most versatile forerunners I've seen and of the two Symonds was fractionally more versatile, while Ponting was fractionally better. They both had a great arm, hit the stumps (unlike say Warner who creates chances but never hits) and took huge numbers of ridiculous catches. It possibly oversells McGrath's ODI bowling having those two in the team.

 

[honestbharani]

Lol... while that Aussie fielding line up was gun, it is nowhere near whatever you are making it out to be. It was more the genius of bowlers like McGrath and Bracker (who was an ODI bowling god circa that time) that prevented sides from being able to beat them. For comparison, RSA had just as intimidating a quartet in the 90s... Fielding can amplify the threat of the bowling attack but to call it any kind of "intimidating" factor is childish.

 

[Flem274*]

barring dropping several series in a row or some other disaster, i don't see how anyone could deny bj watling his spot in nzs side.

baz the better gloveman, but watling is good with the gloves and just a ridiculous man for the war with the bat.

he was already my choice but i think that should be mainstream now. never would have picked the shuffling marshall-esque opener from 2009 would manage this.

 

[marc71178]

This is particularly true every time you respond to an Indian in this forum.

Far from it. If I see a **** post then I comment on it, regardless of who has posted the post. It’s just coincidence that a number of the worst posters on here are Indian. There’s a also a large number of **** Australian posters, **** West Indian posters, **** English posters and *****. They all get called out as and when necessary.

 

[marc71178]

So says a guy who has made his religious duty to comment on every thread mentioning Ashwin and Jadeja.
Are you a mod of this forum ? Stop behaving as one.
I am bringing this to attention of CW mods that this guy has long history of commenting on my posting style . I believe this constitutes harassment of poster . I request you to issue him instruction to stop this behaviour . If he comments on my posting style next time , I will go personal with him next time . He has problem with most of the Indian posters on this forum .

ok

 

[Red]

Mark Taylor?

Mark Taylor was a better slipper than all of them except possibly Mark Waugh.

A lot of those other blokes you’ve listed were elite all round fielders, so Waugh would have been a great fine leg/ cover/ wherever as well as being elite in close. But for a fat **** who couldn’t otherwise move let alone field, Taylor was incredible in slips.

Yeh, I just overlooked Tubs. Was exceptional.

 

[Red]

Yeah same. Was incredible. Hard to believe he has such a Gumby batting record when his hand-eye coordination is obviously so ****ing good

He looked awesome he when he was batting as well, tbf. Only being a meh to decent Test batsman always seemed to be in his head.

Fair few similarities between Hooper and Mark Waugh, elegant batsmen who looked like they should average closer to 50 than they did, handy off spinners, elite catchers.

 

[kyear2]

Fair few similarities between Hooper and Mark Waugh, elegant batsmen who looked like they should average closer to 50 than they did, handy off spinners, elite catchers.

The similarities are actually uncanny.

 

[jimmy101]

Yeah I could watch both of those blokes bat all day.

 

[honestbharani]

I would add Graeme Hick to that group but he was obviously not at the same level as a batter as the other two. But definitely good to watch when he got going and an excellent second slipper and catcher.

 

[ataraxia]

NZ:

GM Turner (cs Latham)
CS Dempster (cs Latham)
KS Williamson* (cs Sutcliffe)
MD Crowe (cs Donnelly)
LRPL Taylor (cs Donnelly)
BJ Watling + (cs McCullum)
CL Cairns - 5 (cs de Grandhomme)
RJ Hadlee - 1 (cs Cowie)
DL Vettori - 4 (cs Bracewell)
SE Bond - 3 (cs Wagner)
TA Boult - 1 (cs Cowie)

 

[jimmy101]

Jack Alabaster is a name that gets overlooked a fair bit when it comes to the finest NZ spinners.

 

[ataraxia]

Jack Alabaster is a name that gets overlooked a fair bit when it comes to the finest NZ spinners.

Still only about 5th IMO behind Boock and Alex Downes (who also is overlooked frequently)

 

[ataraxia]

Wow actually Tom Burtt's figures are incredible. Interesting.

 

[jimmy101]

Yeah, Boock was pretty decent, although I have to admit I don't really know much about Downes.

John Reid might make a case as a spin bowling all-rounder, though it could be said that he wasn't a genuine spinner like Vettori.

 

[ataraxia]

Reid's a thought. I don't really know much about any of these guys save for Vettori TBH.

Ranking NZ spinners by type:

Left arm:
Vettori
Burtt
Boock

Off-spin:
Bracewell
Downes
Reid

Leg-spin:
Alabaster
Bill Merritt

Interesting that there haven't been many great NZ leg-spinners compared to the other types.

 

[CricAddict]

Reid's a thought. I don't really know much about any of these guys save for Vettori TBH.

Ranking NZ spinners by type:

Left arm:
Vettori
Burtt
Boock

Off-spin:
Bracewell
Downes
Reid

Leg-spin:
Alabaster
Bill Merritt

Interesting that there haven't been many great NZ leg-spinners compared to the other types.

I just scrolled down fast and the highlighted one seemed like buttock.

 

[ataraxia]

WI:

Greenidge (cs Hunte)
Worrell* - 6 (cs Fredericks)
Headley (cs Weekes)
Lara (cs Weekes)
Richards (cs Weekes)
Sobers - 5 (cs Gomez)
Walcott + (cs Dujon)
Marshall - 1(cs Constantine)
Holding - 4 (cs Roberts)
Ambrose - 2 (cs Roberts)
Garner - 3 (cs Roberts)

Effectively unbeatable by any other WI combination, but makes the second XI look crap. Annoying that Worrell can open to some extent.

 

[bagapath]

WI:

Greenidge (cs Hunte)
Worrell* - 6 (cs Fredericks)
Headley (cs Weekes)
Lara (cs Weekes)
Richards (cs Weekes)
Sobers - 5 (cs Gomez)
Walcott + (cs Dujon)
Marshall - 1(cs Constantine)
Holding - 4 (cs Roberts)
Ambrose - 2 (cs Roberts)
Garner - 3 (cs Roberts)

Effectively unbeatable, but makes the second XI look crap. Annoying that Worrell can open to some extent.

Second XI doesnt look bad at all

Hunte
Haynes
Kanhai
Weekes
Llloyd (C)
Chanderpaul
Dujon (wk)
Roberts
Hall
Croft
Walsh