The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Coronis]

Hadlee was the best bowler in the world when the world was full of champion bowlers. Please bring him in.

1960 - 1980

Bob Simpson *
Geoff Boycott (actually Gavaskar should be an automatic choice for being such a gun in the 70s but leaving him out to keep your team in tact)
Rohan Kanhai
Greame Pollock
Greg Chappell
Garfield Sobers
Alan Knott +
Michael Holding
Dennis Lillee
Andy Roberts
Bhagwath Chandrasekar

that's a beautiful. beautiful pace attack and an even more gorgeous middle order.

Surely Barrington over Kanhai. Would take Underwood over Chandra too.

 

[stephen]

This is actually correct. Sehwag's average sans Zimbabwe and Bangladesh is 49.60, Hayden's is 48.24. Surprised but then I didn't follow Sehwag's career with the same kind of eagle eyeness compared to Hayden's.

Interesting that Sehwag's average goes up without the minmows.

Except this debate is about the 00s, where the difference between their averages vs the top 8 sides is 0.12. And while Sehwag scored 400 more runs in that time, Hayden scored 26 hundreds compared to Sehwag's 22 in 4 less tests.

And re: Ambrose. Even if he was at his peak he wouldn't have made a huge difference - Hayden hardly set the world alight that series.

 

[Flem274*]

sehwag and hayden are pretty similar in that they're absolute gods in conditions they excel in and neither enjoyed the ball nipping about, especially if it wasn't coming on.

not insinuating they're flat track heroes either - sehwag destroyed spinners on turners and hayden pacers on bouncy home decks.

 

[stephen]

And honestly, yeah Hayden's average was boosted by his 380 but he was in prime form at that point in his career and was denied facing a top 8 side because Zimbabwe were touring. In fact, Heath Streak was probably more if a challenge than the Indian bowlers that toured the rest of the summer, and Hayden averaged 64 in that series.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Sure, Hayden was good but did he ever send in a 2 sentence resume for his country's head coach job ?

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'd pick Hayden in the side for those post-game nights out when you get in a bit of strife but the bloke who's mrs you were hitting on decides to leave it alone when you're backed up by a 120kg slab of prime Aussie meat

 

[cricketsavant]

I assume you'll have Walcott keeping?

Laker for Walcott and Gilchrist for Murali will make this stronger IMO.

oops, forgot to highlight, yes Walcott as keeper.

I wouldn't pick Laker for the side, Murali is a far superior spinner, why would you want Laker? Murali was also the far superior cricketer in the 2000s and no way can GIlchrist be picked above that.

I agree my keeping is probably a weakness here but Walcott is decent enough (I know, only about 15 tests but it's a part time job for him).

The more difficult choices for me were having to skip Viv in the 70s and 80s, misisng out Ponting in the 90s but hey, there's so many variables to this I might do another one.

 

[cricketsavant]

I would replace Trumper with Sydney Barnes from 1900s and then swap in a better opener, may be Gavaskar for a bowler. Also Tate seems to be a weak link. But looks like none of the greats qualifies for 20s. Checked Hammond, Grimmett and Suttcliffe (59.26% of his games in 20s).

Yeah, it is a tight one, I guess you could pick at 59% haha

As for Barnes, I wouldn't pick him as a bowler above any of the others that I have.

 

[cricketsavant]

Would be keen to see what the best XI would be if you had to go ascending order in terms of decade (i.e. player in 4th spot can't have played a decade earlier than player in 3rd).

very interesting idea! give it a shout, I want to see what such a team looks like

 

[stephen]

oops, forgot to highlight, yes Walcott as keeper.

I wouldn't pick Laker for the side, Murali is a far superior spinner, why would you want Laker? Murali was also the far superior cricketer in the 2000s and no way can GIlchrist be picked above that.

I agree my keeping is probably a weakness here but Walcott is decent enough (I know, only about 15 tests but it's a part time job for him).

The more difficult choices for me were having to skip Viv in the 70s and 80s, misisng out Ponting in the 90s but hey, there's so many variables to this I might do another one.

The point was to have a specialist in every position. Taking Gilchrist and swapping him for Walcott requires Murali to get replaced, which is why Laker comes in.

 

[TheJediBrah]

so your contention is that Gilchrist + Laker > Walcott + Murali

The veracity of this claim depends on how good Walcott's keeping was. If he was close to Gilchrist's level then I don't think you can make this claim, at best it's about par. If Walcott was an ordinary keeper then you're most likely right.

 

[Red]

Walcott kept for a third of his test career, the first 15 tests of his 44 in total. When he had the gloves (1948-51), his batting average was 40. Once he relinquished the gloves (1952-60), he averaged 64 with the bat.

 

[Line and Length]

There have been a few batsmen/keepers who have performed better with the blade when relieved of the gloves.

 

[morgieb]

There have been a few batsmen/keepers who have performed better with the blade when relieved of the gloves.

The majority of those that both were specialist bats and keepers generally did (Sanga, Walcott, Stewart), mostly by monster margins.

The main exception was Flower, but the sample size was much smaller there.

 

[stephen]

so your contention is that Gilchrist + Laker > Walcott + Murali

The veracity of this claim depends on how good Walcott's keeping was. If he was close to Gilchrist's level then I don't think you can make this claim, at best it's about par. If Walcott was an ordinary keeper then you're most likely right.

No, my contention is that it's completely garbage to pick specialists in every position in the team except keeper. It's disrespectful to wicket keepers because it's a bloody hard art to master.

My argument really is that Gilchrist+Laker > Murali+Waite/Evans.

 

[cricketsavant]

No, my contention is that it's completely garbage to pick specialists in every position in the team except keeper. It's disrespectful to wicket keepers because it's a bloody hard art to master.

My argument really is that Gilchrist+Laker > Murali+Waite/Evans.

Chill fella! I am picking only 1 player per decade, so you havet o make the tough calls. I'd like to see your team by my rules

 

[Bolo.]

Correlation/causation.

How much of this is workload, and how much is expected due to reasons that prompted the change being implemented?

Players tend overwhelmingly to go wk to specialist, which gives them time to iron out their early test wrinkles. They never go wk to specialist when in some sort of terminal batting decline. They tend to go wk to specialist when they start showing signs of being top quality bats.

 

[Red]

Great career by Dhoni but he still doesn’t make my odi xi

Gilchrist
Tendulkar
Richards
Kohli
DeVilliers
Symonds
Kapil
Wasim
Garner
Murali
McGrath

 

[AndrewB]

Genuinely wondered for a minute or so who was this player nicknamed "Garber"...

 

[Red]

Ha