The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Prince EWS]

I prefer making XIs which reflect a player's entire career rather than a player's county career.

I tend to go along with this except for overseas players, who should at the very least be discounted if they're underwhelming.

But if I was picking for NSW I'd go even further than that and extend the context to local players as well, which might speak to the proper emotional state for doing such a thing for one's home side.

 

[ataraxia]

I tend to go along with this except for overseas players, who should at the very least be discounted if they're underwhelming.

But if I was picking for NSW I'd go even further than that and extend the context to local players as well, which might speak to the proper emotional state for doing such a thing for one's home side.

I think overseas players should just play for their home side (or A/B/x side).

 

[Prince EWS]

I think overseas players should just play for their home side (or A/B/x side).

Yeah of course but I don't think the rules of this precluded people from being picked for multiple teams.

If we're imagining some gigantic 100+ team global domestic all-time championship then you're right but I think people were taking it a bit more case by case than that.

 

[ataraxia]

Yeah of course but I don't think the rules of this precluded people from being picked for multiple teams.

If we're imagining some gigantic 100+ team global domestic all-time championship then you're right but I think people were taking it a bit more case by case than that.

Yeah fair enough. Would be interesting to make teams for every side (certainly a lot here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCCI_domestic_teams)

 

[jimmy101]

^ In a case such as that I'd opt for going with ATG Duleep Trophy sides. Otherwise, yeah, would be a challenge and a half.

As for Pakistan? Crikey. Perhaps just slimming it down to "Domestic" & "Services" teams?

 

[GoodAreasShane]

I was half planning to make an all time South Australian team, but I'm honestly not sure how to approach that. Not sure if I should go with the best cricketers to ever play for SA, or the cricketers who have the best record for the state

Thoughts?

 

[Prince EWS]

I was half planning to make an all time South Australian team, but I'm honestly not sure how to approach that. Not sure if I should go with the best cricketers to ever play for SA, or the cricketers who have the best record for the state

Thoughts?

Do one of each IMO.

 

[jimmy101]

Tough one. Maybe both? One side with the best of the best, the other with FC records as the determining factor.

 

[honestbharani]

I was half planning to make an all time South Australian team, but I'm honestly not sure how to approach that. Not sure if I should go with the best cricketers to ever play for SA, or the cricketers who have the best record for the state

Thoughts?

Whatever helps you put Sobers and Bradman in the same team.

 

[Bolo.]

Better average than Lloyd, Greenidge, etc

But with Cullinan doesn't the story go Warne basically sent him to therapy and he was meant to be the great white hope for SA batting prior to it. I dunno the full details

Regardless nearly every top 6 Warne came up against had a couple of great bats minimum. England during 97-02 the notable exception I suppose

But, Anwar, Inzy, Younis, Yousuf

Jayasuriya, Sanga, Mahela, Aravinda

Lara, Hooper, Richardson, Chanderpaul

Kirsten, Kallis, Cullinan

Fleming, Astle, McMillan a step down I'll grant you.

Obviously India were stacked

All these blokes have records on par with Alvin Kallicharan, Clive Lloyd and Desmond Haynes. That 90% stat is damn disingenuous

Take the discussion to this thread rather.

Cullinan had a lot of hopes riding on him. Was kinda thought of as the greatest young talent since Pollock. His career is considered a bit of a disappointment, which including/excluding aus doesnt change.

90% is not disingenuous. You are picking 3 bats per side over a period of 30 years. If anything, 90% undersells it.

This said, I have no idea how warne would have gone against the WIs. I wouldnt want to bet against his bowling or their batting.

 

[mr_mister]

It's more like 15 years not 30 lol. Warnes career wasn't 30 years. And I didn't name every decent bat from the era anyway

90% tells a story that every match on average Warne only had to worry about 1 batsman being of that Lloyd- Haynes class. Less than 1 if we're only talking top 6 not the full XI

I'd say on average he had to face at least 2 great bats every game. Sometimes less sometimes more

 

[stephen]

That thing is that when Warne played against great batsmen he didn't bowl to them that often since McGrath usually snagged them before they faced him. /troll

 

[honestbharani]

Take the discussion to this thread rather.

Cullinan had a lot of hopes riding on him. Was kinda thought of as the greatest young talent since Pollock. His career is considered a bit of a disappointment, which including/excluding aus doesnt change.

90% is not disingenuous. You are picking 3 bats per side over a period of 30 years. If anything, 90% undersells it.

This said, I have no idea how warne would have gone against the WIs. I wouldnt want to bet against his bowling or their batting.

Yep.

It's more like 15 years not 30 lol. Warnes career wasn't 30 years. And I didn't name every decent bat from the era anyway

90% tells a story that every match on average Warne only had to worry about 1 batsman being of that Lloyd- Haynes class. Less than 1 if we're only talking top 6 not the full XI

I'd say on average he had to face at least 2 great bats every game. Sometimes less sometimes more

No, Warney played with players who debuted in the 80s, 90s and the noughties. It is 30 years worth of players even if he only played 15 years. But just going by your numbers, assuming about 15 batsmen playing for each team over the period of Warney's career (which is very very less) and including England, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe (Also including Andy Flower as one of the greats), gives us something like 135 odd batsmen, of whom, even applying your very loose definition of great (and trust me, the Windies 80s batting line up was much better than at least half of the blokes you listed) gives something like 25 out of those being great. It comes out that it is only 18% of the batsmen he would have bowled at, not including keepers and bowlers. Now if we include the keepers, the numbers would go even further down. So yeah, again, the Windies 80s batting line up is easily better than 90% of the guys Warne would have bowled at.

 

[mr_mister]

Okay, I appreciate your estimate that he only faced around different 15 batsmen per team over his career, it probably was a bit more, especially for England, but if we're going to include Bangas and Zim in this 135 count who he barely played against I hope Crowe, Gooch, ABDV, KP and Amla are included in the greats list.

Because I feel you set the bar and the loose definition of 'great' by claiming the West Indies batting lineup was full of greats. Viv yes. Greenidge one of the best openers no question. I don't see what evidence you can use to say Kallicharan, Lloyd or Hayne's batting record sets them clearly above the list of batsmen who faced Warne at least once and averaged in the 40s over their careers, which I assume is well over 25. But let's forget about the players he faced only a handful of times.


say for example Pakistan used 15, or even 20 different batsman in the 4-5 series(I have no idea) Warne featured in against them, the constants over his career were mainly Inzy, Younis and Yousuf. Before Younis and Yousuf they had Anwar and Malik.

Say they used this lineup over a 3 test series

Anwar
scrubs a,b,c
scrubs d,e,f
Inzy
Yousuf
scrubs g,h,i

subbing out the bad players for new scrubs each failure(which is an extreme example i know), theyd still be a team of 50% great, or very good players each test which is what I'm mainly trying to say. He didn't have long periods of bowling to barren lineups with only 1 out the 6 batsman being of high quality. The only time this happened in big clumps were some ashes series i'd say. But in he barely featured in '98, '02 had Vaughan and Tresco, '05 KP, etc etc

 

[honestbharani]

Okay, I appreciate your estimate that he only faced around different 15 batsmen per team over his career, it probably was a bit more, especially for England, but if we're going to include Bangas and Zim in this 135 count who he barely played against I hope Crowe, Gooch, ABDV, KP and Amla are included in the greats list.

Because I feel you set the bar and the loose definition of 'great' by claiming the West Indies batting lineup was full of greats. Viv yes. Greenidge one of the best openers no question. I don't see what evidence you can use to say Kallicharan, Lloyd or Hayne's batting record sets them clearly above the list of batsmen who faced Warne at least once and averaged in the 40s over their careers, which I assume is well over 25. But let's forget about the players he faced only a handful of times.


say for example Pakistan used 15, or even 20 different batsman in the 4-5 series(I have no idea) Warne featured in against them, the constants over his career were mainly Inzy, Younis and Yousuf. Before Younis and Yousuf they had Anwar and Malik.

Say they used this lineup over a 3 test series

Anwar
scrubs a,b,c
scrubs d,e,f
Inzy
Yousuf
scrubs g,h,i

subbing out the bad players for new scrubs each failure(which is an extreme example i know), theyd still be a team of 50% great, or very good players each test which is what I'm mainly trying to say. He didn't have long periods of bowling to barren lineups with only 1 out the 6 batsman being of high quality. The only time this happened in big clumps were some ashes series i'd say. But in he barely featured in '98, '02 had Vaughan and Tresco, '05 KP, etc etc

Without going into a detailed explanation, I meant the Windies batting line up of the 80s was great. Not that the players individually were great. And your answer lies in your own post. A team of Anwar + Inzy + Yousuf plus 3 scrubs against a line up of Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, Logie, Lloyd and Kallicharan. Again, the answer is obvious. My point is that it is not some kind of given that the Windies will collapse to Warne just because they never had an ATG spinner in their line up. I believe it was that post by Stephen that spawned this entire discussion. And to me, instead of looking at whether the Windies were susceptible to collapsing to spin, it was better to look at whether Warne was susceptible to not being very good against a great batting line up.

If you want me to chew out more numbers and tell you my justification for the 90%, you gotta wait till my evening or night. At work now.

 

[mr_mister]

Okay I think we can call a truce on this

 

[stephen]

Funnily enough I want even implying Warne would do anything out of the ordinary, only that the West Indies would suffer in modern conditions having to play a spinner due to over rate problems.

Some days the Windies would bowl 70 overs. That wouldn't fly today. No side in the world today doesn't have at lesser one spinner who bowls 25+ overs per innings. Warne lets Australia do that with an ATG bowler. It's a huge benefit to have that, much as I love Holding and Garner as the 3rd and 4th quicks in the WI XI.

And if you play Hooper/Atherton your batting lineup is weakened and it's already slightly inferior to your opposition.

 

[h_hurricane]

Funnily enough I want even implying Warne would do anything out of the ordinary, only that the West Indies would suffer in modern conditions having to play a spinner due to over rate problems.

Some days the Windies would bowl 70 overs. That wouldn't fly today. No side in the world today doesn't have at lesser one spinner who bowls 25+ overs per innings. Warne lets Australia do that with an ATG bowler. It's a huge benefit to have that, much as I love Holding and Garner as the 3rd and 4th quicks in the WI XI.

And if you play Hooper/Atherton your batting lineup is weakened and it's already slightly inferior to your opposition.

If you saw the recent India- Bangladesh test, there were around 75-80 overs bowled per day when India was bowling. Ashwin and Jadeja hardly bowled in the match.

Viv could roll over for 3-5 overs if need arose. WI team would still prefer quality over quantity. If Lloyd gets banned, Richards would take over.

 

[Slifer]

I'm curious as to how many overs the WI teams of the 90s usually bowled in a day?? I ask because throughout the 90s and even with the 90 over rate rule, they still regularly churned out an all pace attack.

 

[honestbharani]

Funnily enough I want even implying Warne would do anything out of the ordinary, only that the West Indies would suffer in modern conditions having to play a spinner due to over rate problems.

Some days the Windies would bowl 70 overs. That wouldn't fly today. No side in the world today doesn't have at lesser one spinner who bowls 25+ overs per innings. Warne lets Australia do that with an ATG bowler. It's a huge benefit to have that, much as I love Holding and Garner as the 3rd and 4th quicks in the WI XI.

And if you play Hooper/Atherton your batting lineup is weakened and it's already slightly inferior to your opposition.

It is true but you did use the word "quality" spinner to go through the overs. Hence the discussion on what would be Warne's "quality" against this batting line up. And over rates not a problem if you can bowl out sides in 120 overs. Richards himself is good for 10 overs a day and maybe Hooper over Logie won't be such a big step down in quality as far as batting goes. Also, the Windies bowled that way then coz those were the rules. I am sure they will be able to adapt to present day rules just ifine, coz otherwise the argument is the same as Bradman would have struggled in Asia in turning conditions.