The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[marc71178]

And least we forget the W.I. dominated everywhere for over a decade, included the subcontinent using no spinners at all. Ambrose for instance was as effective as any spinner on a last day pitch as was
Marshall, Holding, Garner ect and they were all match winners. We didn't go with four fast bowlers because we couldn't find a spinner, it was a stategic move and it was succesful.

Although undoubtedly a superb side, I'm not sure dominated is the right term as there were a lot of draws - how many of those were down to the lack of a spinner on the last day?

 

[watson]

Since the covered pitch era how many teams outside of the subcontinent has utilised two specialist spinners? It is part of a forgotten era and in this instance Warne can hold down an.end on the final day while the fast men rotates from the other end. If Warne.needs a break Sobers can fill in for a few overs with his left arm spin. And least we forget the W.I. dominated everywhere for over a decade, included the subcontinent using no spinners at all. Ambrose for instance was as effective as any spinner on a last day pitch as was
Marshall, Holding, Garner ect and they were all match winners. We didn't go with four fast bowlers because we couldn't find a spinner, it was a stategic move and it was succesful.

Yes it's been a long time since teams like Australia or England regularly used a pair of spin bowlers. However, Underwood + Illingworth during the 70s, Emburey + Edmonds during the 80s, and Warne + May during the 90s do spring to mind.

But of course, in the history of cricket there have been some great combinations of spin bowlers that have won Test matches for their country, and hence a pair of Spin Bowlers is worth consideration;

O'Reilly + Grimmett
Laker + Lock
Ramadhin + Valentine
Bedi + Chandra
etc.

And as I've pointed before, the West Indian sides of the 80s and 90's won more Test matches when they played 3 Fast Bowlers plus 1 Spinner or Medium Pacer, rather than 4 Fast Bowlers. Therefore, 3 Fast Bowlers is sufficient, and probably optimum. So it still makes sense to me that the best possible attack would consist of 3 Fast Bowlers and a great combination of Spin Bowlers as it would cover all possible contingencies.

In the context of an ATG team the question is not whether 2 Spinners would significantly improve the attack because the answer to that is yes. But rather the question is whether the middle-order batting should be weakened slightly so that Shane Warne has a partner like Barnes, Murali, or O'Reilly?

 

[kyear2]

For me the answer would be no. For the fourth innings the pace of Marshall and the accuratcy of Mcgrath should be effective with the new ball, while with the older ball Warne could aim for the rough and Imran will be reversing it, just as effective as spin on the last day. If for some reason another spinner is required Sober has two typed that he could employ. Don't see the need to shorten the batting line up and risk a possible collapse for the over kill of a specialist spinner when you already have afout ATG bowlers and Sobers who can bowl three differnt styles as back up.
Even when Australia had Gilchrist in the line up, and Mcgill at their disposal rarely shortened their batting line up to play two spinner outside of rank turners, and that is because the modern game with covered pithes doesn't really support the notion of two spinners outside of the sub continent.

 

[Red]

ATG teams are speculative. And it comes down to personal preference. If someone wants to honour the history of early cricket and select two spinners, that's cool.

 

[kyear2]

It is, but we are also trying to select not just the best but the most effective 11.

Additionally Barnes played in a totally different era (pre war) of under prepared pitches and sub par opposition on even more conducive matting wickets. Thats why I rate Warne so highly as a spinner, doing what he did on modern pitches vs players like Lara and Tendulkar and over such a long period of time and still being statistically comparable to the early era spinners.

 

[Coronis]

It is, but we are also trying to select not just the best but the most effective 11.

Additionally Barnes played in a totally different era (pre war) of under prepared pitches and sub par opposition on even more conducive matting wickets. Thats why I rate Warne so highly as a spinner, doing what he did on modern pitches vs players like Lara and Tendulkar and over such a long period of time and still being statistically comparable to the early era spinners.

I think Barnes would be a more effective bowler than any other in an XI, probably. Considering the wide variety of deliveries he utilised, plus the degree to which he mastered them. The batsman wouldn't know what type of delivery was being bowled next. Would it be an 80 mph ball that barely turned? A leg break that turned from outside leg to off stump? Or even an off break? If the matting wickets were so conducive and the opposition sub-par how did Taylor score 508 runs at 50.8 in that famous series?

 

[watson]

AWTA

Barnes just adds so much flexibility to the attack. On Day 1 he could be an 80mph first change swing bowler, and on Day 5 he could be spinning the opposition out with Warne/Murali

01. Jack Hobbs
02. Len Hutton
03. Don Bradman
04. Brian Lara
05. Viv Richards
06. Gary Sobers
07. Alan Knott
08. Malcolm Marshall
09. Shane Warne
10. Dennis Lillee
11. Sydney Barnes

 

[NUFAN]

Barnes the Colin Miller of his generation IMO, hair and all.

Now for something less tongue and cheek..

One thing which never sits that well with me regarding Barnes and his inclusion as one of the four best bowlers of all time in many peoples eyes is when you start to compare his record against the likes of Lohmann, Ferris, Turner, Peel and Briggs.

Yes Barnes took more wickets, but he played more Tests (apart from Briggs). His strike rate was superb, but not as good as Lohmann nor Ferris. His economy rate was one of the highest out of the half dozen bowlers I've mentioned too.

Also, I don't often really like factoring in first class records, but in that era it was more important compared to now and Barnes has a terrific first class career in terms of average but his average is inferior to four of the five other bowlers mentioned.

Sure there has been some written evidence suggesting Barnes was a difficult costumer to face and averages aren't everything or we'd be all saying Shoaib Akhtar is better than Shane Warne, but for me stats do become more important for players that I have never watched.

Basically, I'm a Barnes sceptic, I'm not against pre war era players or anything, I just think there are some holes in his record to out and out be the best bowler from those first 50 or so years of Test Cricket, which differs from Bradman and his batting.

 

[the big bambino]

It is, but we are also trying to select not just the best but the most effective 11.

Additionally Barnes played in a totally different era (pre war) of under prepared pitches and sub par opposition on even more conducive matting wickets. Thats why I rate Warne so highly as a spinner, doing what he did on modern pitches vs players like Lara and Tendulkar and over such a long period of time and still being statistically comparable to the early era spinners.

Yes but in the end results count for more than the conditions endured by the bowler in achieveing them. What they tell you is Barnes was 10 runs a wicket better than the global average of his time and Warne was monstered by SRT and Lara. His combined ave against the WI and India sitting somewhere in the high 30s (though I have yet to check that for accuracy). So in that regard Barnes is better irrespective of the conditions each man endured.

 

[Red]

Great post NUFAN. Barnes is spoken of so highly by many insightful judges, but he does seem very comparable to a number of his early era peers.

 

[Coronis]

Great post NUFAN. Barnes is spoken of so highly by many insightful judges, but he does seem very comparable to a number of his early era peers.

Lohmann is a sad story..

Yet, Barnes is spoken of so very highly of, by all who saw him, and many saw the other bowlers you mentioned. See, if people were just looking at stats, they'd see Warne 708 wickets at 25, Murali 800 wickets at 22, in less tests. Just looking at those stats, Murali is clearly superior to Warne. However there are other factors that come into play.

 

[NUFAN]

Coronis there certainly are other factors that come into play but it's harder to gauge them when technology was limited. I mean, over the past 15-20 I'm extremely confident of my opinion of most contemporary players but yeah it's harder back in the day and I would question even Bradman if only he wasn't so superior to everyone during and after his period.

One thing that inhear abut is that Barnes averaged 10 less than the global average, that really doesn't impress me that much. What other factors put Barnes ahead enough for him to be in ATG discussion and not the others.

 

[watson]

Barnes the Colin Miller of his generation IMO, hair and all.

Now for something less tongue and cheek..

One thing which never sits that well with me regarding Barnes and his inclusion as one of the four best bowlers of all time in many peoples eyes is when you start to compare his record against the likes of Lohmann, Ferris, Turner, Peel and Briggs.

Yes Barnes took more wickets, but he played more Tests (apart from Briggs). His strike rate was superb, but not as good as Lohmann nor Ferris. His economy rate was one of the highest out of the half dozen bowlers I've mentioned too.

Also, I don't often really like factoring in first class records, but in that era it was more important compared to now and Barnes has a terrific first class career in terms of average but his average is inferior to four of the five other bowlers mentioned.

Sure there has been some written evidence suggesting Barnes was a difficult costumer to face and averages aren't everything or we'd be all saying Shoaib Akhtar is better than Shane Warne, but for me stats do become more important for players that I have never watched.

Basically, I'm a Barnes sceptic, I'm not against pre war era players or anything, I just think there are some holes in his record to out and out be the best bowler from those first 50 or so years of Test Cricket, which differs from Bradman and his batting.

The FC careers of Lohmann, Ferris, Peel, and Briggs were all done and dusted by 1900. The only bowler in your list with a meaningful over-lap is Turner (1882-1910).

The point being, I'm not sure that bowlers from the 1890s can be compared to Barnes who took most of his wickets from 1900-1914. This is because I believe that cricket was evolving at a rapid rate when still in its relative infancy, and therefore direct comparisons between Barnes and those forementioned bowlers are highly problematic at best.

 

[harsh.ag]

Barnes the Colin Miller of his generation IMO, hair and all.

Now for something less tongue and cheek..

One thing which never sits that well with me regarding Barnes and his inclusion as one of the four best bowlers of all time in many peoples eyes is when you start to compare his record against the likes of Lohmann, Ferris, Turner, Peel and Briggs.

Yes Barnes took more wickets, but he played more Tests (apart from Briggs). His strike rate was superb, but not as good as Lohmann nor Ferris. His economy rate was one of the highest out of the half dozen bowlers I've mentioned too.

Also, I don't often really like factoring in first class records, but in that era it was more important compared to now and Barnes has a terrific first class career in terms of average but his average is inferior to four of the five other bowlers mentioned.

Sure there has been some written evidence suggesting Barnes was a difficult costumer to face and averages aren't everything or we'd be all saying Shoaib Akhtar is better than Shane Warne, but for me stats do become more important for players that I have never watched.

Basically, I'm a Barnes sceptic, I'm not against pre war era players or anything, I just think there are some holes in his record to out and out be the best bowler from those first 50 or so years of Test Cricket, which differs from Bradman and his batting.

It is said that the cricketing times faced by Lohmann and Barnes were quite different, as the start of the 20th century brought about a change in both the quality of pitches and the quality of batting (via Ranji, Hill and others).

 

[watson]

Coronis there certainly are other factors that come into play but it's harder to gauge them when technology was limited. I mean, over the past 15-20 I'm extremely confident of my opinion of most contemporary players but yeah it's harder back in the day and I would question even Bradman if only he wasn't so superior to everyone during and after his period.

One thing that inhear abut is that Barnes averaged 10 less than the global average, that really doesn't impress me that much. What other factors put Barnes ahead enough for him to be in ATG discussion and not the others.

If you look at the raw stat's of Dennis Lillee then you probably wouldn't include him in any ATG team. He's got virtually nothing in India or the West Indies, and he was crap in Pakistan. His Average and Strike Rate are excellent, but certainly no better than some other great fast bowlers that consistently get over-looked during ATG discussions.

No, the reason that Dennis Lillee fits the ATG category is because so many eye-witnesses (Benaud, Richards, Botham, Harold Bird etc) say he was the best fast bowler they ever saw. It is on the basis of testimony that Lillee is generally revered - the same goes of Sydney Barnes, which is why we must rate him so highly.

 

[NUFAN]

So when did conditions change so much? Was it exactly 1900 after the other bowlers career ended? I don't for a minute believe that Cricket evolved at a rapid rate at any point in the 130 odd years of Test Cricket.

 

[NUFAN]

If you look at the raw stat's of Dennis Lillee then you probably wouldn't include him in any ATG team. He's got virtually nothing in India or the West Indies, and he was crap in Pakistan. His Average and Strike Rate are excellent, but certainly no better than some other great fast bowlers that consistently get over-looked during ATG discussions.

No, the reason that Dennis Lillee fits the ATG category is because so many eye-witnesses (Benaud, Richards, Botham, Harold Bird etc) say he was the best fast bowler they ever saw. It is on the basis of testimony that Lillee is generally revered - the
same goes of Sydney Barnes, which is why we must rate him so highly.

Whos opinion of Barnes should I/we be listening to and not forming our own opinion?

I consider Lillee an ATG and I don't have a problem with Barnes having the ATG tag either, it's just I don't get why he is rated so much higher than others who were just before or during his career.

 

[NUFAN]

It is said that the cricketing times faced by Lohmann and Barnes were quite different, as the start of the 20th century brought about a change in both the quality of pitches and the quality of batting (via Ranji, Hill and others).

Did the quality of pitches help or make it harder for the bowlers? Did the new pitches luckily favour Barnes style or did he change his technique masterfully to accomodate the change in conditions? Did Barnes dominate the best batsman or did he mainly feast on the batsman who's quality didn't improve massively as soon as the other bowlers with great records retired?

 

[Satyanash89]

If you look at the raw stat's of Dennis Lillee then you probably wouldn't include him in any ATG team

Always have to disagree when people say this... Stats include so much more than just the Average.
Two things that I find absolutely amazing about Lillee's stats are wickets per match and the number of 5-wicket hauls he got. 355 wickets in 70 matches is simply phenomenal, and it's a stat that imo doesn't get enough attention. 23 5-fers in 70 matches shows he didn't just get wickets, he got them in bunches, which is what wins matches. It's why I rate Lille so highly... I'd gladly trade 1-2 points of average for more wickets per match.
Same reason why Steyn is rapidly rising in the all-time stakes

 

[Coronis]

Did the quality of pitches help or make it harder for the bowlers? Did the new pitches luckily favour Barnes style or did he change his technique masterfully to accomodate the change in conditions? Did Barnes dominate the best batsman or did he mainly feast on the batsman who's quality didn't improve massively as soon as the other bowlers with great records retired?

Well pretty much before 1900, the game was bowler dominated iirc. There are few batsmen of note from that time, in fact, apart from Bannerman, who I only remember cos he scored that famous first century, I only really know Grace and Murdoch. Suddenly in the late 90's and early 00's, you have Ranji, Fry, MacLaren, Hobbs, Hill, Woolley, Trumper, Armstrong etc.