Voting Thread- Quick ATG XI Draft- No Bradman (with a poll!)

[fredfertang]

..... and he could even have improved it by having Stan McCabe rather than Rice, Woolley or Miandad

 

[Red]

Absolutely - he has, by my biased judgment obviously, the greatest ever opening bat, probably the second greatest ever opening bat, the greatest captain, the greatest fast bowler, the greatest fast bowler's leading apprentice, the greatest orthodox slow left armer and the greatest off spinner. Macartney, Woolley, Miandad, Evans and Rice are all fine players as well

I really struggle to see how Jardine could be classified as the greatest captain. He was the perpetrator of the greatest scandal in cricket, and a "cheat" within the rules of the game. Bodyline was the most pissweak thing to happen in cricket, and the fact that laws were changed after it shows it for what it was. You could say Lindwall is the greatest quick ever, but you could also say Lillee, Marshall or about 10 others are. Fast bowler's leading apprentice? Agree Murali is the greatest off spinner (but he should have been banned).

Openers are top notch. Middle order is ok.

The thing about being able to play Harvey at No.6 is that it allows the captain the option of attacking the bowling just when the bowling is starting to tire and the ball is old. Ian Chappell used Doug Walters to great effect in this role. A real game changer.

Harvey could bat anywhere in the order, he was equally adept against spin or pace, on ****ty wickets he was a master. Having him bat at six is a massive boost. The only player I feel is slightly out of position in my top six is Sangakkara at #5, but I think he'd adapt ok.

 

[kyear2]

Absolutely - he has, by my biased judgment obviously, the greatest ever opening bat, probably the second greatest ever opening bat, the greatest captain, the greatest fast bowler, the greatest fast bowler's leading apprentice, the greatest orthodox slow left armer and the greatest off spinner. Macartney, Woolley, Miandad, Evans and Rice are all fine players as well

Really, My middle order, bowling attack and cordon is better than that one, regardless what the votes say, so to say its the best ever is a bit of a stretch. Watson and Jager both to be had better teams.

Also am I reading correct that you are calling Larwood the greatest ever fast bowler?

 

[fredfertang]

I really struggle to see how Jardine could be classified as the greatest captain. You could say Lindwall is the greatest quick ever, but you could also say Lillee, Marshall or about 10 others are. Fast bowler's leading apprentice? Agree Murali is the greatest off spinner (but he should have been banned).

I was referring to Lindwall as being Larwood's apprentice.

Jardine, of course, polarises opinion, but only one team ever beat Australia over an entire series in which Bradman played, and it was a hammering too, and without their skipper it certainly wouldn't have happened

 

[fredfertang]

Also am I reading correct that you are calling Larwood the greatest ever fast bowler?

Yup

 

[kyear2]

I really struggle to see how Jardine could be classified as the greatest captain. He was the perpetrator of the greatest scandal in cricket, and a "cheat" within the rules of the game. Bodyline was the most pissweak thing to happen in cricket, and the fact that laws were changed after it shows it for what it was. You could say Lindwall is the greatest quick ever, but you could also say Lillee, Marshall or about 10 others are. Fast bowler's leading apprentice? Agree Murali is the greatest off spinner (but he should have been banned).

Openers are top notch. Middle order is ok.



Harvey could bat anywhere in the order, he was equally adept against spin or pace, on ****ty wickets he was a master. Having him bat at six is a massive boost. The only player I feel is slightly out of position in my top six is Sangakkara at #5, but I think he'd adapt ok.

Think Sangakkara is vastly over rated. Also dont see how Jardine by nearly starting an international incident makes him the greatest captain, especially over someone like Worrell who brought people together and helped to improve the game.

 

[Red]

For mine, Bill Woodful is the man whose fairness saved cricket from being destroyed by Jardine's tactics. Most players say that had Vic Richardson been captain in that series, he would have retaliated with a bouncer war. But Woodful had the sense to see the bigger picture, and what it was doing to the game.

A series win is one thing, but I reckon Bodyline took things beyond fairness. There was a serious concern someone would be killed.

 

[fredfertang]

For mine, Bill Woodful is the man whose fairness saved cricket from being destroyed by Jardine's tactics. Most players say that had Vic Richardson been captain in that series, he would have retaliated with a bouncer war. But Woodful had the sense to see the bigger picture, and what it was doing to the game.

A series win is one thing, but I reckon Bodyline took things beyond fairness. There was a serious concern someone would be killed.

Woodfull did, but Bull Alexander wasn't up to the job, although he did hit Jardine and drew blood, not that Jardine flinched, as Alexander acknowledged

 

[Red]

Think Sangakkara is vastly over rated. Also dont see how Jardine by nearly starting an international incident makes him the greatest captain, especially over someone like Worrell who brought people together and helped to improve the game.

Not sure how. His average against every team is over 40 (apart from England), over 50 against everyone apart from SA (49) and Aust (42).

Highest score is 287 against a SA team containing Ntini and Steyn.

Overall average is nearly 57. When he is not wicketkeeping his average is 70. Has nearly made 10,000 test runs.

If anything, he's vastly underrated. If he was Australian or English, he'd be in most people's top ten batsmen ever.

 

[kyear2]

And plays half of his games on the roads called S.L pitches. Just my opinion, but place him just about with Jayawardeane and Sehwag, but just a bit higher.

 

[Red]

And plays half of his games on the roads called S.L pitches. Just my opinion, but place him just about with Jayawardeane and Sehwag, but just a bit higher.

He's pretty much succeeded in all venues, you can't maintain an average that high being just a home track specialist.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

He actually averages 63 in Sri Lanka and 47 away, so it's hardly like he's a dud away from home.

FWIW Ponting averages 45 away and 58 at home, Lara averaged 47 away and 58 at home, Sobers averaged 50 away and 66 at home, so it's hardly bucking the trend for most great batsmen to perform better in home conditions, it just makes sense.

(Kallis' and Tendulkar's average are roughly the same at home and away from home, just so I'm not accused of being selective!)

 

[kyear2]

So you are comparing the wickets in Sri Lanka the past couple of years to those in the West Indies and Australia over the periods in question?

 

[watson]

Yup

Larwood could be conceived as being the 'Greatest' fast bowler in terms of being a prototype, but he is most certainly not the most skillful, or the best.

Here are some revealing Strike Rates;

Australia 1926 = 63.3
West Indies 1928 = 50.0
Australia 1928-29 = 86.3
South Africa = 77.0
Australia 1930 = 151.5
Australia 1932-33 (Bodyline) = 40.0

It is important to note that his two best Strike Rates were either against weak opposition or when the field was stacked in his favour. This would imply a certain amount of deficiency in skill to me, even allowing for an excellent Australian batting line-up. Also, Bradman later confessed that Ken Farnes was the the better quick bowler in comparison because of 'he moved the ball off the wicket better.'

Would I have Larwood in an ATG team? Probably yes, but not as the Spearhead. He would be there to back up to the likes of Holding, Roberts, Ambrose, Marshall, Garner, Snow, Trueman, Lillee, Lindwall, Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Donald, Adcock, Proctor, or Steyn.

 

[Red]

So you are comparing the wickets in Sri Lanka the past couple of years to those in the West Indies and Australia over the periods in question?

No. And I'm not certain how that's relevant.

 

[kyear2]

The pitches in S.R are so flat they are a joke, thats my point. Look at the scores the last couple years. This is just my opnion.

 

[Red]

The pitches in S.R are so flat they are a joke, thats my point. Look at the scores the last couple years. This is just my opnion.

Sangakarra has made some big scores at SSCG Colombo, for sure.

But, the average player score at SSCG Colombo since 2001 is 40.7. The average player score in the same time at Adelaide (as an example) is 40.1. The SCG is 38. Brisbane is 36.

So it's not like Colombo is that much different statistically to three Australian grounds in terms of average runs per batsman. There are plenty of good batting wickets in the world, and the good batsmen make runs on them when they can....

 

[watson]

The debate started out comparing the relative strengths of Sangakkar V Jardine.

The fact remains, Jardine's highest score against Australia was 98 runs in 1928.

This implies that his average is a healthy 48.0 because he made consistent moderate scores. However, moderate scores do make a great batsman no matter how you cut it.

Sangakkara has made scores of 150 runs or more on 16 occasions against a variety of opponents. This includes 287 against Steyn and Ntini in 2006.

Sangakkara is a great batsman relative to Jardine, and probably on his own terms as well, by those numbers. Jardine is not.

 

[Jager]

I do have a question for Jager....

Did picking Miller first-up create more problems than it solved?

There is no such thing as a 'problem' when you have Miller. Who cares if you win or lose, it's sport, enjoy it, play fair and hard. That being said, Miller is fine at 7 IMO. Lindsay was a superb batsman, him being at 6 just creates an illusion that the lineup is weak. If you switch the two around, immediately it appears a superb batting lineup, I just prefer the great man at 7 where he has no responsibility.

Absolutely - he has, by my biased judgment obviously, the greatest ever opening bat, probably the second greatest ever opening bat, the greatest captain, the greatest fast bowler, the greatest fast bowler's leading apprentice, the greatest orthodox slow left armer and the greatest off spinner. Macartney, Woolley, Miandad, Evans and Rice are all fine players as well

..... and he could even have improved it by having Stan McCabe rather than Rice, Woolley or Miandad

I was referring to Lindwall as being Larwood's apprentice.

Jardine, of course, polarises opinion, but only one team ever beat Australia over an entire series in which Bradman played, and it was a hammering too, and without their skipper it certainly wouldn't have happened

AWTA about Larwood/Jardine, and I disagree that Jardine 'cheated'. If Jardine is a cheat for employing hostile short-pitched bowling, who are we to celebrate the West Indies of old?

 

[fredfertang]

AWTA about Larwood/Jardine, and I disagree that Jardine 'cheated'. If Jardine is a cheat for employing hostile short-pitched bowling, who are we to celebrate the West Indies of old?

One interesting question that is often overlooked is what would have happened if Jardine hadn't used Bodyline. a form of attack which, lest it be forgotten, was entirely in accordance with the laws of the game as they then were.

If the wickets had been as perfect as they had been in 1928/29 then allowing for the fact that there might have been a couple of sticky wickets along the way, of which England would have got the benefit of one, then I believe it would have been 4-1 to Australia, with three of the Tests lasting nine days each, and Bradman would have scored 1,500 runs at an average of about 300. Woodfull, Ponsford and Fingleton would have got 1,000 each at averages of 150. Stan McCabe would only have got 150 runs at 20 but he'd have got 100 of them in the innings when Verity skittled Australia for 120 on the sticky

Interest in the game would have plummeted and by the end of the series the grounds would have been half empty and worse.

In fact, although Jardine had no way of knowing it would be the case the wickets did have a bit of uneven bounce, but the result would have been the same, 4-1 Australia, but those Aussie batters would have been perhaps 20% less successful. The crowds and interest would still have dwindled

So without Bodyline imo, without some other drastic upheaval, the game would have died. Don't get me wrong Bodyline had to be outlawed, because injuries to batsmen would have killed the game anyway if it had continued, but cricket desperately needed the wake-up call only Jardine had the courage and strength of character to give it

 

[Dan]

Think Sangakkara is vastly over rated. Also dont see how Jardine by nearly starting an international incident makes him the greatest captain, especially over someone like Worrell who brought people together and helped to improve the game.

Jardine was one of the first captains ever to study his opposition in detail, and come up with plans (unique to each batsman), to get them out. He was the only one who could come up with a plan to stop Bradman, and he was fantastic at rotating his bowlers to get the best out of them. Sure, his batting may be somewhat deficient, but his leadership more than makes up for his propensity for 'moderate' scores.

Worrell, IMO, is the best leader of men ever - and he would have taken Jardine's spot had he lasted that far into the draft. Jardine, on the field, was near-unparalleled throughout history, let alone in his own time.

Larwood could be conceived as being the 'Greatest' fast bowler in terms of being a prototype, but he is most certainly not the most skillful, or the best.

Here are some revealing Strike Rates;

Australia 1926 = 63.3
West Indies 1928 = 50.0
Australia 1928-29 = 86.3
South Africa = 77.0
Australia 1930 = 151.5
Australia 1932-33 (Bodyline) = 40.0

It is important to note that his two best Strike Rates were either against weak opposition or when the field was stacked in his favour. This would imply a certain amount of deficiency in skill to me, even allowing for an excellent Australian batting line-up. Also, Bradman later confessed that Ken Farnes was the the better quick bowler in comparison because of 'he moved the ball off the wicket better.'

Would I have Larwood in an ATG team? Probably yes, but not as the Spearhead. He would be there to back up to the likes of Holding, Roberts, Ambrose, Marshall, Garner, Snow, Trueman, Lillee, Lindwall, Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Donald, Adcock, Proctor, or Steyn.

Bradman hated Larwood with a passion post-Bodyline. His opinion is rather biased.
Read this: Cricket Web - Features: Our Cricket Heroes - Harold Larwood, with particular reference to this passage:

The next Ashes series was in England in 1930 in which, after being hinted at in 1928/29, the genius that was Donald Bradman fully flowered. The series was without doubt the low point of Larwood's career and should certainly not be taken as in any way representative of his career. In the first Test of the series Larwood was taken ill during the course of the game and did not return until the third Test when, not fully fit, he was completely mastered by Bradman and he again missed the fourth Test before returning for the fifth. In that final Test Larwood again failed to exercise any control over the Australian batting. Bradman batted superbly, as did the ill starred Archie Jackson, but despite the mauling he suffered it did not escape Larwood's attention that, for a time after the Oval pitch had been freshened up by a shower, Bradman looked less than comfortable when Larwood dug the ball in at him. In addition to his other fitness worries Larwood was, throughout this summer, also troubled by dental problems but in keeping with the personality of the man he never sought to make any excuses and, of course, the nature of his problems in 1930 are not disclosed by mere statistics.

He was, IMO, the best ever.