The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[NotMcKenzie]

But it's not the players who are crying out, it's the fans.

IIRC, I've seen both, and fans should be happy for the sacrifice the same way. I suspect as the distance in time grows, the clamour will recede (and that incidentally reminds me of the depressing thoughts I have all the time).

It's an important part of cricketing history which saw some of the greatest sides in history pitted against each other.

Doesn't make it 'first-class cricket' according to that term's definition, even though it was top quality. No-one is disputing the latter.

 

[Daemon]

lets say two good teams play for ICL. they will remain two good ICL teams. they don't become IPL teams even if the IPL teams are weaker.

WSC is just WSC. irrelevant to the "test" teams we select in this thread.

Gavaskar and Hutton cannot break into any all time WSC XIs. neither can Barry Richards into test teams.

good to know bradman would have never cracked my sunday league side

 

[bagapath]

good to know bradman would have never cracked my sunday league side

who cracks it, though? curious to know your Sunday league xi. Seriously.

 

[Starfighter]

05 Australia vs RoW shouldnt be considered an actual test match. Was a thrown together thing and the fact that it counts as a test but WSC doesnt is a bit of a joke.

Agree that it shouldn't be a test, though I'd compare it to the 1970 RoW series which was billed as a test series at the time, rather than the non-official WSC. But just imagine the outrage from Murali no longer having 800 test wickets.

 

[Daemon]

Agree that it shouldn't be test, though I'd compare it to the 1970 RoW series with was billed as a test series at the time, rather than the non-official WSC. But just imagine the outrage from Murali no longer having 800 test wickets.

he could just come out of retirement for a series at home against england or something

 

[Coronis]

Denying Barry Richards ATG status due to only having 4 Test appearances is akin to ranking Roy Emerson above Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall because the latter pair won fewer Slams. The pro tennis circuit and WSC were similar in that they flew in the face of the amateur based establishment of the time. Both featured the very best players of the time.

Good thing pure slam count isn’t the only factor in ranking tennis players. I do agree though with the statement that Barry Richards shouldn’t be in an ATG XI based on tests. However, I don’t think anyone disagrees that he was an immense talent and based on his entire career I am (as are most people) prepared to call him an ATG cricketer.

Also Rosewall > Emerson > Laver

 

[Engle]

Why do we call it “Test “ cricket ?
Because it “Tests “ your talents, temperament, endurance, pressure-handling, grueling, battling abilities to the max.

Did WSC cricket meet this criteria ? Resoundingly YES by engaging the crème de crème of the cricketing world who played to the best of their abilities. They had an establishment to counter, a tough taskmaster to please, reputations to uphold, careers and financial needs to be fulfilled. These were no exhibition or charity games.

Should they be given Test status ? They never will be for political reasons. In fact, it's better they stand out on their own for greater visibility.

Should they be considered in gauging a players performance ? Absolutely, if not more so.

 

[srbhkshk]

We call it test cricket because ICC pin-points which one of them are, might as well call the Australian domestic matches during 95-05 tests if Quality is the criterion.

 

[stephen]

We call it test cricket because ICC pin-points which one of them are, might as well call the Australian domestic matches during 95-05 tests if Quality is the criterion.

Nah, none of the Australian states are countries*, or multi-country groups.

*even if WA wants to be.

 

[srbhkshk]

Nah, none of the Australian states are countries*, or multi-country groups.

*even if WA wants to be.

Given multi-country groups are allowed, there's no reason sub-country groups shouldn't be.

 

[Red]

lets say two good teams play for ICL. they will remain two good ICL teams. they don't become IPL teams even if the IPL teams are weaker.

WSC is just WSC. irrelevant to the "test" teams we select in this thread.

Gavaskar and Hutton cannot break into any all time WSC XIs. neither can Barry Richards into test teams.

Blah blah

Of course ICL teams dont become IPL teams.

But quite clearly you can look at the standard of ICL and IPL and if it's somewhat comparable a player in one might be selected in an ATG T20 XI from either.

Saying Gavaskar or Hutton can't break into a WSC all time XI is like saying Tendulkar can't break into an ATG Australian XI. Just silly.

 

[Red]

To rebel against something and yet also ask to be welcomed by and benefit from what one is rebelling against is something that I really despise in people.

Sorry, but this is a load of ****.

They were rebelling against someone else making and keeping all the money that their talent, dedication and work was earning. They were getting nothing for their work until they rebelled.

If you "despise" that, I dunno what to even say.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Then stay within the first-class system, and do something else: strike, conduct newspaper campaigns about the state touring leaves you in, point out England pays people (even if not so much), build up press sympathy (particularly given rising revenue at the time). Difference is not joining an entirely new, private competition.

They decided to forsake a system that did not reward them for one that did; there's nothing determining that they ought to then be counted by the former for the time they weren't a part of it. I dislike people who want to have an each-way: get the financial rewards of playing for Packer (which is fine given what things were like back then), but also the prestige of staying in first-class cricket thereby making no sacrifice for the way they went about generally good cause. Fans who like this labour similarly, and no-one has been able demonstrate that it is not who was involved influencing their opinions. It is plain, however, you are not interested in understanding any other perspective. Also, commercial sponsorship were introduced in 1975, and payments were increased over the years, so it's not as if absolutely nothing was being done to improve the players' lot, even though one can rightly regard it as inadequate.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Saying Gavaskar or Hutton can't break into a WSC all time XI is like saying Tendulkar can't break into an ATG Australian XI. Just silly.

But he couldn't...

 

[Line and Length]

I guess arguing about this point is somewhat futile as any decision is well out of the reach of CW fans. That doesn't mean to say our opinions are either right or wrong - they are just that .... opinions.

 

[Line and Length]

Getting back to the ATG great teams, and without delving through the many posts made prior to the last few pages, I'd be interested to hear CW members' views of the late and great Richie Benaud's ATG teams. They first appeared in "My Spin on Cricket" in 2005 and subsequently were included in "Remembering Richie" which I am currently reading.

RB prefaces his teams with "I have met all of the eleven I chose and, when I narrowed it down to thirty-three from sixty-six, I had met all but one in the three teams, each of which could give a good account of itself."

His criteria was to include a pair of openers, specialist bats at 3, 4 and 5, all-rounder at 6, fast-bowling all-rounder at 7, wicketkeeper-batsman at 8, legspin bowler at 9 and pace bowlers at 10 and 11.

He listed 3 teams, presumably as a 1st, 2nd and 3rd XI.

Team 1
J.B. Hobbs
S.M. Gavaskar
D.G. Bradman
I.V.A. Richards
S.R. Tendulkar
G. St A. Sobers
Imran Khan
A.C. Gilchrist
S.K. Warne
D.K. Lillee
S.F. Barnes

Team 2
L. Hutton
A.R. Morris
W.R. Hammond
G.S. Chappell
F.M.M. Worrell
K.R. Miller
R.J. Hadlee
R.W. Marsh
W.J. O'Reilly
R.R. Lindwall
F.S. Trueman

Team 3
V.T. Trumper (the only selection RB hadn't met)
C.G. Greenidge
G.R. Headley
R.G. Pollock
B.C. Lara
I.T. Botham
Kapil Dev
I.A. Healy
Abdul Qadir
G.D. McGrath
H. Larwood

Apart from his decision to specifically select a leggie as his spin option (thus excluding Muralitharan), perhaps the biggest surprise is the total omission of West Indies pace bowlers - in particular Marshall and Ambrose. It's not as though he was averse to selcting West Indian cricketers as that country has almost as many representatives as England (6 v 7). Understandably, most of his selections are Australian (13) and the only one I might question would be Ian Healy as I believe there have been better wicketkeeper-batsmen (eg Alan Knott).

 

[stephen]

I think Richie thought that the 80s West Indian quicks were fine cricketers but he didn't really like the way they played the game. It's not like any of his pace selections are bad either, but I do think many would say that Marshall and Ambrose probably deserve a mention at least.

 

[Line and Length]

I think Richie thought that the 80s West Indian quicks were fine cricketers but he didn't really like the way they played the game. It's not like any of his pace selections are bad either, but I do think many would say that Marshall and Ambrose probably deserve a mention at least.

An interesting thought ... yet Larwood gets a berth!

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Perhaps it's a quantity thing, both in number of bowlers and the length of time it went on for.

I think his constraints—although they'd stop those arguments about people playing out of position—are a little artificial. Particularly requiring a leg-spinner: it also excludes Laker and Gibbs (whose average is not so impressive, but he was a record-holder for wickets taken); also wanting two all-rounders.

 

[trundler]

Grum the weirdest omission even within those constraints imo.