The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[a massive zebra]

So I was thinking about a t20 team consist of players who have never played competitive t20 cricket.Must have been done before but still fun

Richards.B
Sobers
Richards.V
De Silva
Pollock
Botham
Dev
Imran *
Kaluwitharana +
Marshall
Barnes

To take them on

Gayle
McCullum *
Watson
Kohli
DeVilliers +
Yuvraj
Afridi
Starc
Gul
Malinga
Murali

Would be nice viewing

I would go with:

Victor Trumper
Don Bradman*
Viv Richards (8)
Garry Sobers (6)
Gilbert Jessop (7)
Kapil Dev (3)
Dennis Lindsay+
Learie Constantine (5)
Bill O'Reilly (4)
Waqar Younis (2)
Sydney Barnes (1)

Vs

Chris Gayle (6)
Dave Warner
Virat Kohli*
KL Rahul
AB de Villiers
Glenn Maxwell (5)
Jos Buttler+
Sunil Narine (3)
Rashid Khan (4)
Umar Gul (2)
Lasith Malinga (1)

 

[Line and Length]

Doug Walters and Colin Milburn would have done well in t20

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Need raw hitting power so Gilbert Jessop and Lance Cairns would be good options.

 

[CricAddict]

So I was thinking about a t20 team consist of players who have never played competitive t20 cricket.Must have been done before but still fun

Richards.B
Sobers
Richards.V
De Silva
Pollock
Botham
Dev
Imran *
Kaluwitharana +
Marshall
Barnes

To take them on

Gayle
McCullum *
Watson
Kohli
DeVilliers +
Yuvraj
Afridi
Starc
Gul
Malinga
Murali

Would be nice viewing

The 90s players are hard done by here. I am sure Sachin, Lara, Ponting, Jayasuriya, Symonds, Mcgrath, Pollock, Klusenar etc. would have been incredible T20 players if they had played it in their prime.

 

[a massive zebra]

The 90s players are hard done by here. I am sure Sachin, Lara, Ponting, Jayasuriya, Symonds, Mcgrath, Pollock, Klusenar etc. would have been incredible T20 players if they had played it in their prime.

But his message specifically said "a t20 team consist of players who have never played competitive t20 cricket." Most of the guys you mentioned did play competitive t20 cricket and are therefore ineligible.

 

[Daemon]

But his message specifically said "a t20 team consist of players who have never played competitive t20 cricket." Most of the guys you mentioned did play competitive t20 cricket and are therefore ineligible.

Yeah I think what he meant was that they're neither here nor there - they fail the criteria for the first team and would've probably had a good shot at the second but didn't play T20s in their prime

 

[CricAddict]

But his message specifically said "a t20 team consist of players who have never played competitive t20 cricket." Most of the guys you mentioned did play competitive t20 cricket and are therefore ineligible.

That is exactly what I am saying. They all played competitive T20 past their prime. So they don't get selected in either teams due to that and hence, hard done by.

 

[TheJediBrah]

If t20s came along in the 90s who do you think the bolters would be? Other than the obvious Aus and SA I think NZ and Pak would have been well suited to the format and overperformed relative to Tests and ODIs. Coversely I think England and India would have pretty ordinary.

 

[mr_mister]

I think England could have overachieved relative to their test performances, just because t20 cricket seems to level the playing field a lot

They had plenty of effective bits n pieces guys or 'match winning on their day'(even if that day was once every few years) in white ball stuff like Hick, Fairbrother, Ealham, Knight. All of which could generate good t20 results imo

 

[Daemon]

If t20s came along in the 90s who do you think the bolters would be? Other than the obvious Aus and SA I think NZ and Pak would have been well suited to the format and overperformed relative to Tests and ODIs. Coversely I think England and India would have pretty ordinary.

Australia would've cleaned up, yeah.

India was pretty crap in the 90s so I think they would have overperformed relative to Tests and ODIs on the back of Tendulkar/Azhar/Dev.

Pakistan would be incredible imo, largely because of the bowling. But I'm also assuming T20 in the 90s would attract even more fixing so maybe half would be banned after deliberately underperforming.

 

[mr_mister]

Yeah upon more thought Pak would dominate. Afridi, Inzy and Ijaz some of the best big hitters around in the 90s to go with all the bowling

 

[mr_mister]

Also it's pretty random but Azharuddin once held the record for fastest ODI century for 8 years, hitting a 62 ball ton in 1988. It wasnt til 1996 when Afridi and Jayasuriya basically reinvented the format that Azhars record was broken

 

[Daemon]

And then Afridi's record stood for 14 years lol

Can't imagine it'll take too long for someone to beat the current record actually.

 

[stephen]

I reckon Australia would have been middle of the road at best in the 90s. Can you imagined Tubby Taylor opening? The Windies would have been good. T20 relies heavily on your best 3-4 batsmen and back then they had some good players.

 

[Daemon]

I reckon Australia would have been middle of the road at best in the 90s. Can you imagined Tubby Taylor opening? The Windies would have been good. T20 relies heavily on your best 3-4 batsmen and back then they had some good players.

Really? They had Lara and Haynes for a while. Hooper would be decent. Richardson any good in ODIs?

Bowling at least they had Walsh and Bishop.

 

[honestbharani]

Really? They had Lara and Haynes for a while. Hooper would be decent. Richardson any good in ODIs?

Bowling at least they had Walsh and Bishop.

Arthurton wud have been good value in T20s

 

[Red]

I reckon Australia would have been middle of the road at best in the 90s. Can you imagined Tubby Taylor opening?

You'd reckon someone like Tubby wouldn't be picked in T20s, in the same way someone like Chris Rogers wasn't picked for ODIs.

Mid 90s T20 Australia might've been something like:

Mark Waugh /o
Michael DiVenuto /
Dean Jones /
Steve Waugh /o
Brad Hodge /
Tom Moody /o
Shane Lee /o
Ian Healy /+
Craig McDermott o/
Shane Warne o/
Glenn McGrath o

Stuart Law and Paul Reiffel would be good also. Perhaps Jimmy Maher.

Wouldn't be a bad side, imo.

Obviously as you get later in the 90s Gilly and Ponting become automatic inclusions, which makes the team a lot better, but that feels like the next era on from Tubby wrt limited overs.

 

[stephen]

I'm assuming that Australia would be following their thought process that they did for most of the 90s, fielding mostly the same side in all formats.

The 96 world cup loss really changed things up and 98 was really when Australia got gud at ODIs.

 

[Red]

I'm assuming that Australia would be following their thought process that they did for most of the 90s, fielding mostly the same side in all formats.

The 96 world cup loss really changed things up and 98 was really when Australia got gud at ODIs.

Yeh, depends a lot on the thought processes of selectors.

96/97/98 was when Gilly and MWaugh started opening together and Ponting came in at #3 permanently. As good an ODI top 3 as there's ever been.

Early to mid 90s was still a bit same same.

Can anyone link anything to the time when MWaugh became an ODI opener, and why it happened?

 

[stephen]

Yeh, depends a lot on the thought processes of selectors.

96/97/98 was when Gilly and MWaugh started opening together and Ponting came in at #3 permanently. As good an ODI top 3 as there's ever been.

Early to mid 90s was still a bit same same.

Can anyone link anything to the time when MWaugh became an ODI opener, and why it happened?

It was the 1996 loss. After that loss the selectors radically changed their thinking. They wanted an aggressive opener, which they found in Gilchrist and they wanted fast strikers, which Tubby wasn't.