The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Red]

one or two professionals in a field of amatuers is what leads to statistical absurdities like those of Bradman, Barnes, etc. its because the few superior professionals get to disproportionately exploit a field that is on average, amatuer and lacking in development.

Do you understand the difference between a professional and amateur cricketer in this era and do you understand it's highly likely that an amateur cricketer would have more opportunities to practice and improve skills while growing up, and as an adult, than a professional would?

 

[the big bambino]

fast bowlers relying on outright pace..gee, you dont say! i didn't get the memo that fast bowlers today dont rely on outright pace- or for any era for that matter.
i don't care what Grace said, any bowler can figure out that the ball is easier to grip- both in your hand and off the pitch- when its old and thus older ball favors spin more and the ball with the shine still there (new ball) moves more when bowled at pace.
That these guys 100 years ago couldnt figure out this basic aspect to cricket bowling only further demonstrates how hopelessly amaturish and incompetent they were in empiric terms.

Settle. Just trying to tell you how the game developed. Prior to skills being developed then express pace is at a premium. Those guys actually did figure out the mechanics of seam and swing. They were professional, inventive and creative. They did the groundwork that improved standards. Much the same can be said about reverse swing. Just bcos it was mastered in the 90s doesn't mean that Holding and Lillee, for example were hopelessly amateurish does it now? As for Grace he was the father of the modern game which you slavishly worship like an idol. Somehow I think his reputation will survive your opinion.

 

[Ruckus]

It is important because it reminds us that there is chain of experts and eyewitnesses who take us back to the turn of the 20th century, and the conclusion they draw is that the skill of Test match players has remained fairly constant over the various generations. Therefore, when we say modern players are 'better' we are talking about incremental improvements in skill, not quantum leaps.

Yeah indeed, but incremental improvements over 100+ years of development = big differences between point A and point B.

Ashley Mallet is a respected writer and has seen all the best fast bowlers since the 1950s - from Lindwall to Steyn. Yet for him, Ray Lindwall is the doyen of fast bowlers, and better than Malcolm Marshall;

So again, we have an eyewitness who transcends generations, and concludes that the best fast bowling really hasn't improved significantly in about 50 years.

Yet you could inevitably find someone who has also seen both and rates Marshall as better. I wouldn't be putting to much trust into the opinion of one person alone. Not only that, memory of past events is an incredibly biased method of assessment by default. There are cognitive biases like 'Rosy retrospection' that make it very difficult for memory of past events provide an accurate picture of reality over time. If I was to ask you in 20 years if you thought a particular bowler was better than Steyn do you think you could accurately judge that using your memory?

Your opinion MULOGHONTO that great players from around WWII, or even WWI, are significantly weaker than their modern counterparts lacks the backing of experts and historians who know more than you do.

Therefore, it very likely indeed that a quality batsman like Bardesley, or a quality bowler like Gregory, would cope admirably with the rigors of 21st century cricket. And of course the reverse is true, a modern Test batsman or bowler of inferior quality wouldn't survive the rigors of early 20th century cricket for more than a short while.

I mean in this post alone you have provided a contradiction. You said in the first paragraph the Egan guy believes there is a disparity.

 

[watson]

Yeah indeed, but incremental improvements over 100+ years of development = big differences between point A and point B.



Yet you could inevitably find someone who has also seen both and rates Marshall as better. I wouldn't be putting to much trust into the opinion of one person alone. Not only that, memory of past events is an incredibly biased method of assessment by default. There are cognitive biases like 'Rosy retrospection' that make it very difficult for memory of past events provide an accurate picture of reality over time. If I was to ask you in 20 years if you thought a particular bowler was better than Steyn do you think you could accurately judge that using your memory?



I mean in this post alone you have provided a contradiction. You said in the first paragraph the Egan guy believes there is a disparity.

In the interest of fairness it's always a good idea to present both sides of the argument if you can. And them qualify the argument you happen to disagree with.

 

[Ruckus]

fair enough (see what I did there! hahaha)

 

[Shri]

I am probably going to get laughed out of here but this is my ATG team formed by stuff I have seen(only priority unless its Bradman/Sobers) and have read. Reasons for my picks might not make sense to you but it does to me and I cbf making long posts explaining why I picked the players that I picked but I am willing engage people with one or two lines.

So here goes:

Matthew Hayden
Virender Sehwag
Don Bradman*
Sachin Tendulkar
Garry Sobers
Viv Richards
Adam Gilchrist +
Imran Khan
Malcolm Marshall
Muthiah Muralitharan
Glenn McGrath

Reserves:
Ricky Ponting
Jacques Kallis
Ian Healy
Wasim Akram
Shane Warne

 

[G.I.Joe]

Why no Brian Lara?

 

[Shri]

Overrated. Ponting's better.

 

[Dan]

Richards at 6?

 

[Shri]

No 5 needs to be a neutral as far as aggression goes and No 6 should be a batsman who can maintain a good scoring tempo imo. I thought Richards had experience at 6 and could handle it.

 

[paulted]

Boycott's Mum
Boycott's Mum
Boycott's Mum
Boycott's Mum
Boycott's Mum
Boycott's Mum
Boycott's Mum
Boycott's Mum
Boycott's Mum
Boycott's Mum
Boycott's Mum

 

[Eds]

Shri clearly making up for the whole 'Bradman counts as two players' thing by playing without openers.

 

[Red]

I am probably going to get laughed out of here but this is my ATG team formed by stuff I have seen(only priority unless its Bradman/Sobers) and have read. Reasons for my picks might not make sense to you but it does to me and I cbf making long posts explaining why I picked the players that I picked but I am willing engage people with one or two lines.

So here goes:

Matthew Hayden
Virender Sehwag
Don Bradman*
Sachin Tendulkar
Garry Sobers
Viv Richards
Adam Gilchrist +
Imran Khan
Malcolm Marshall
Muthiah Muralitharan
Glenn McGrath

Reserves:
Ricky Ponting
Jacques Kallis
Ian Healy
Wasim Akram
Shane Warne

Fair enough side, but if you're picking Bradman and Sobers, I can see no reason not to consider guys like Hutton as an opener.

And if you saw Marshall, Imran and Viv, did you not see guys like Greenidge and Gavaskar? Both of whom I'd have over Hayden or Sehwag.

 

[kyear2]

Was also going to as why Harden and especially Sehwag over Hobbs, Hutton, Gavaskar or even Greenidge.

 

[Red]

Greenidge was such a gun.

 

[watson]

Greenidge was one of those players where his mid-40s batting average was completely outshone by the glowing opinion of his team mates, opposition bowlers, and peers.

 

[Second Spitter]

Amazing square of the wicket player. On a Windian team that played with more talent than grit, he played with both. Will never forget his 226 at Bridgetown in his penultimate test.

 

[Slifer]

Greenidge was one of those players where his mid-40s batting average was completely outshone by the glowing opinion of his team mates, opposition bowlers, and peers.

That's because frustratingly, he was (like Sir Viv) one of those players who played well past his sell date. After 70 odd tests I think his average was around 50 and slowly declined thereafter as he approached his 40s. Nevertheless, he was a very good opener in the same/similar mold to a Lawry or a Simpson.

 

[kyear2]

Amazing square of the wicket player. On a Windian team that played with more talent than grit, he played with both. Will never forget his 226 at Bridgetown in his penultimate test.

Yup, was there. Will never forget it.

That's because frustratingly, he was (like Sir Viv) one of those players who played well past his sell date. After 70 odd tests I think his average was around 50 and slowly declined thereafter as he approached his 40s. Nevertheless, he was a very good opener in the same/similar mold to a Lawry or a Simpson.

He was more aggressive than both though.

 

[Red]

Nevertheless, he was a very good opener in the same/similar mold to a Lawry.

Certainly not in style nor technique!