The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[kyear2]

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/56538-cw50-2nd-edition-no-06-a.html

This guy for me, no surprise I am sure.

This game is about winning, and Marshall never lost a test series and only four games as an opening bowler. That is just amazing in my book.
If I had to do over my list it would read something like.

01) Bradman/ Sobers
03) Marshall
04) Hobbs
05) Warne
06) Richards
07) Tendulkar
08) Gilchrist
09) Headley
10) Imran
11) Lara
12) Mcgrath
13) Muralitharan
14) Kallis
15) Hammond
16) Hutton
17) Ambrose
18) Gavaskar
19) Lillee
20) Chappell
21) Miller
22) Trueman
23) Ponting
24) Verity
25) Holding

Just of the top of my head and of course subject to drastic change.

 

[Red]

There has always been a question mark (albeit a small one) hanging over Viv Richards with respect to spin bowling. So while he can throttle any pace attack, I don't think he could do the same against quality spin bowling.

Tendulkar was beautiful to watch against spin bowlers like Warne, and was equally good against fast bowlers. That's why his away record is so good. However, Tendulkar rarely, if ever, dominated a Test series. He is just not the dominating type.

Which is why Lara and Graeme Pollock are preferable to Viv Richards and Tendulkar. Both batsman had no problem smashing either a pace or spin attack, or dominating an entire Test series with the bat.

Viv being Viv is enough for me. He was completely awesome. Best batsman I've seen.

 

[Coronis]

I'm currently on a Procter craze. Have him in my first XI. Amazing first class record. If only I had a time machine, and could go back and get rid of apartheid.

21936 runs @ 36.01 with 48 centuries, 6 in successive innings.
1417 wickets @ 19.53 with 70 5 fors.

Of the great all rounders (Miller, Sobers, Procter, Imran, Hadlee, Botham, Dev and Kallis), Procter is the best batsman besides Sobers/Kallis and Miller, and a clear second in the bowling behind Hadlee. This is just based on their first class stats of course, but every indication shows that he would've been one of, if not the greatest test all rounder of all time.

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Bradman*
Pollock
Richards
Sobers
Gilchrist+
Procter
Warne
Marshall/Murali
McGrath

Not sure whether to have two spinners in Warne and Murali, or have a Procter/Marshall/McGrath pace attack, with Warne and Sobers of course. Thoughts?

 

[watson]

I'm currently on a Procter craze. Have him in my first XI. Amazing first class record. If only I had a time machine, and could go back and get rid of apartheid.

21936 runs @ 36.01 with 48 centuries, 6 in successive innings.
1417 wickets @ 19.53 with 70 5 fors.

Of the great all rounders (Miller, Sobers, Procter, Imran, Hadlee, Botham, Dev and Kallis), Procter is the best batsman besides Sobers/Kallis and Miller, and a clear second in the bowling behind Hadlee. This is just based on their first class stats of course, but every indication shows that he would've been one of, if not the greatest test all rounder of all time.

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Bradman*
Pollock
Richards
Sobers
Gilchrist+
Procter
Warne
Marshall/Murali
McGrath

Not sure whether to have two spinners in Warne and Murali, or have a Procter/Marshall/McGrath pace attack, with Warne and Sobers of course. Thoughts?

In his autobiography Harold "Dickie" Bird rated Procter just behind Sobers as the greatest allround cricketer he ever saw. That's pretty good praise.

However, I've always thought Hobbs and Sutcliffe slightly over-rated due to the lack of quality fast bowlers they faced - even allowing for uncovered pitches. And therefore rate Hutton as the greatest English opening batsman.

 

[Coronis]

In his autobiography Harold "Dickie" Bird rated Procter just behind Sobers as the greatest allround cricketer he ever saw. That's pretty good praise.

However, I've always thought Hobbs and Sutcliffe slightly over-rated due to the lack of quality fast bowlers they faced - even allowing for uncovered pitches. And therefore rate Hutton as the greatest English opening batsman.

Fair enough, Australia didn't have many quality fast bowlers in those days iirc (please someone correct me if I'm wrong). To be honest my XI has changed quite a lot. The only shoe-ins for me are Hobbs, Bradman, Sobers, Gilchrist, Warne. (Sorry Viv)

 

[L Trumper]

There has always been a question mark (albeit a small one) hanging over Viv Richards with respect to spin bowling. So while he can throttle any pace attack, I don't think he could do the same against quality spin bowling.

Tendulkar was beautiful to watch against spin bowlers like Warne, and was equally good against fast bowlers. That's why his away record is so good. However, Tendulkar rarely, if ever, dominated a Test series. He is just not the dominating type.

Which is why Lara and Graeme Pollock are preferable to Viv Richards and Tendulkar. Both batsman had no problem smashing either a pace or spin attack, or dominating an entire Test series with the bat.

With Bradman in the side , I'm not sure anyone else will dominate any given series. For all the talk about Tendulkar not dominating a series, you have to remember India will mostly play 3 test series. I am pretty sure he played about just 3-4 five match series in his career. Besides I don't really think Pollock is as good a batsman as Sachin is.

As brilliant as Lara is he is no Viv. Viv struggling against spin, when did that happen? He was excellent, he may not be as good as Lara against spin, then again Lara is no Viv against pace. Besides Lara always struggled against likes of Akram, Waqar, Donald through out his career. Viv never had a bogey bowler in his playing days.

 

[JBMAC]

With Bradman in the side , I'm not sure anyone else will dominate any given series. For all the talk about Tendulkar not dominating a series, you have to remember India will mostly play 3 test series. I am pretty sure he played about just 3-4 five match series in his career. Besides I don't really think Pollock is as good a batsman as Sachin is.

As brilliant as Lara is he is no Viv. Viv struggling against spin, when did that happen? He was excellent, he may not be as good as Lara against spin, then again Lara is no Viv against pace. Besides Lara always struggled against likes of Akram, Waqar, Donald through out his career. Viv never had a bogey bowler in his playing days.

I don't think you can make a fair comparison on that highlighted area above.We never really got to see Pollock's longevity in the game.SaME AS Barry Richards.And don't throw stats at me to vindicate your statement.We just did not see enough

 

[L Trumper]

I don't think you can make a fair comparison on that highlighted area above.We never really got to see Pollock's longevity in the game.SaME AS Barry Richards.And don't throw stats at me to vindicate your statement.We just did not see enough

Yep! That is my point regarding selecting a test XI. Since we did not see Pollock as much as we like to see, might as well go for some one who we know performed very well long time. By the way when I said Sachin is better, not in strict batsman-ship terms, rather he did enough to justify his place in a test XI ahead of Pollock whose career cut short in his prime. If we are talking all types, then might as well select WG Grace ahead of every body in that list. But Since it is supposed to be test XI, I am going for full test careers.

 

[Cricketismylife]

I love Lara and he was one of my favourite batsman ever to watch and my favourite series ever was the 213 and 153 one against Australia which was legendary batting.

However, I still feel that hes been overrated since he retired. He's an all time great but we cant forget that for such a champion batsman there were many series where he was ordinary and definitely had technical issues against pace bowling.

Bowlers like Mcgrath generally had the wood over him, and I can remember just before that Australia series West Indies lost 5-0 to SA and Lara was virtually a non factor. In his last 3 series against England from 2000 to 2004 he really struggled with the moving ball, but rectified his stats with that 400* against England.

This as well as longevity is probably why I rate Sachin a bit higher than Lara. The main credit Lara has over Sachin, was where Sachin struggled with Murali in tests, Lara was able to dominate him. The hardest challenge on a consistent basis was to face Muralitharan at home.

 

[Slifer]

From my years of watching Lara, I would also say that the bowlers who caused him nightmares were the express type who moved the ball around. Bowlers like : Donald, Akram, Waqar, Bond etc. But with all due respect, Sachin (average wise) wasnt all that sucessful vs the above same bowlers either.

 

[L Trumper]

I love Lara and he was one of my favourite batsman ever to watch and my favourite series ever was the 213 and 153 one against Australia which was legendary batting.

However, I still feel that hes been overrated since he retired. He's an all time great but we cant forget that for such a champion batsman there were many series where he was ordinary and definitely had technical issues against pace bowling.

Bowlers like Mcgrath generally had the wood over him, and I can remember just before that Australia series West Indies lost 5-0 to SA and Lara was virtually a non factor. In his last 3 series against England from 2000 to 2004 he really struggled with the moving ball, but rectified his stats with that 400* against England.

This as well as longevity is probably why I rate Sachin a bit higher than Lara. The main credit Lara has over Sachin, was where Sachin struggled with Murali in tests, Lara was able to dominate him. The hardest challenge on a consistent basis was to face Muralitharan at home.

Although I broadly agree, McGrath didn't really got the better of Lara. He might have gotten Lara out lots of times, but I am pretty sure against AUS teams with McGrath in them Lara has arguably the best record of any batsmen.


As Slifer mentioned, and I previously alluded Donald, Akram, Waqar were the kind of bowlers Lara struggled against the most. Sachin also struggled against them but he was at least able to score a century or two.

 

[Slifer]

True that which is y i place Sachin slightly above Lara

 

[Red]

Stacked batting XI that doesn't lose too much on bowling-

Hobbs
Gavaskar
Bradman
Tendulkar
Richards
Sobers
Kallis
Gilchrist
Miller
Imran
Hadlee

 

[kyear2]

Verity was a pretty good bat as well.

 

[watson]

Verity's not really an allrounder though.

Actually, if you think about it - 150 years of Test match cricket has not revealed a single spin bowler who is in the same match-winning class as an Imran, Hadlee or Botham. That is, a bowler like Jim Laker who can also rattle off a century against a good attack.

(Note: Wilfred Rhodes was not a true allrounder in that he rarely batted and bowled to his full capability in the same match)

 

[Slifer]

Verity's not really an allrounder though.

Actually, if you think about it - 150 years of Test match cricket has not revealed a single spin bowler who is in the same match-winning class as an Imran, Hadlee or Botham. That is, a bowler like Jim Laker who can also rattle off a century against a good attack.

(Note: Wilfred Rhodes was not a true allrounder in that he rarely batted and bowled to his full capability in the same match)

Yeah I find that to b most peculiar. Because u would think that spinners generally place less strain on their bodies. That being saaid Mustaq Mohammed wasnt all that bad pretty decent spinner and a good batsman from all reports.

 

[NUFAN]

Verity's not really an allrounder though.

Actually, if you think about it - 150 years of Test match cricket has not revealed a single spin bowler who is in the same match-winning class as an Imran, Hadlee or Botham. That is, a bowler like Jim Laker who can also rattle off a century against a good attack.

(Note: Wilfred Rhodes was not a true allrounder in that he rarely batted and bowled to his full capability in the same match)

 

[SJS]

Verity's not really an allrounder though.

Actually, if you think about it - 150 years of Test match cricket has not revealed a single spin bowler who is in the same match-winning class as an Imran, Hadlee or Botham. That is, a bowler like Jim Laker who can also rattle off a century against a good attack.

(Note: Wilfred Rhodes was not a true allrounder in that he rarely batted and bowled to his full capability in the same match)

Vino Mankad, Aubrey Faulkner, FS Jackson and Richie Benaud come to mind . . .

 

[watson]

Vino Mankad, Aubrey Faulkner, FS Jackson and Richie Benaud come to mind . . .

I'm being picky here. I don't think that any of those players are in the same class as Imran, Hadlee, or even Botham. I'll also throw in Miller, Procter and Kapil Dev. By and large, all the really great allrounders bowl fast for some reason. No offence to Richie.

(OK, I'm technically wrong, but I'm sure people know what I mean)

 

[NUFAN]

Does anyone have some statz of how many Test wickets Sobers took while bowling spin vs pace?