Would you play Keith Miller in your Australia ATG XI?

[Coronis]

Purely in terms of batting. Gilly of course is a worldclass keeper.

You literally said keeper bat. Walcott didn’t show anything like Gilchrist when he was keeping.

 

[subshakerz]

He was never as good with the bat while he kept as his overall record suggests. Gilly is a class above all other keeper/batsmen to have played the game.

Ok but how much of a drop off in Walcotts batting are you anticipating given than he averages 56 and in this case would be batting no.7?

 

[Coronis]

I thought you don't rate Trumper.

I don’t rate him highly as an opener. He’s not in my XI. Simpson and Hayden are both in the same tier as Greenidge and their next option is a huge step down in quality.

 

[Coronis]

Ok but how much of a drop off in Walcotts batting are you anticipating given than he averages 56 and in this case would be batting no.7?

You don’t get to have him in his batting peak when he didn’t keep and assume he would average the same whilst keeping. Stop being intentionally obtuse.

 

[subshakerz]

You don’t get to have him in his batting peak when he didn’t keep and assume he would average the same whilst keeping. Stop being intentionally obtuse.

No you're right. I checked and he didn't keep actually as long as I originally thought. My bad.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Greenidge is comfortably better than Hayden/Simpson I don't think this is really debatable.

Trumper again is a questionmark ceremonial player. Kyear picks Worrell to open. I'm not sure.

Greenidge is better but barely. His record against Australia is poor.

 

[stephen]

I think Hayden is more of a liability in these scenarios.


No doubt about Bradman being the biggest threat.


I would argue Smith is much less bulletproof against top quality pace than Viv at no.4


WI would have Marshall, Ambrose , Holding and Gibbs as their likely attack. Gibbs gives them control and tightness.


Um sorry but WI run them close with Headley, Viv and Lara. But WI have a trumpcard with Sobers batting at no.6, basically the ideal position for him to counterattack with a tired bowling lineup and softer ball.


Miller definitely has a case for being at no.6 but it undeniably weakens the Bradman advantage.


Again, WI still have the better all round pace attack.

Lol. Viv was a great, but arguing he outclasses Smith against top quality pace is ludicrous.

Any arguable pace advantage that the WI have over Australia (and it's arguable) is at most marginal. Warne completely outclasses any spin option that the WI have.

The WI all time side would be fighting the England all time side for a spot in the final against Australia. South Africa would round out the top 4. Pakistan, New Zealand and India would make 5-7, probably in that order.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I don’t rate him highly as an opener. He’s not in my XI. Simpson and Hayden are both in the same tier as Greenidge and their next option is a huge step down in quality.

Just say you rate Trumper as an overall batsman over Hayden and I will pretend I never heard you mention his name.....

 

[capt_Luffy]

Lol. Viv was a great, but arguing he outclasses Smith against top quality pace is ludicrous.

Any arguable pace advantage that the WI have over Australia (and it's arguable) is at most marginal. Warne completely outclasses any spin option that the WI have.

The WI all time side would be fighting the England all time side for a spot in the final against Australia. South Africa would round out the top 4. Pakistan, New Zealand and India would make 5-7, probably in that order.

How the **** is NZ even close to India??

 

[Coronis]

Just say you rate Trumper as an overall batsman over Hayden and I will pretend I never heard you mention his name.....

I don’t. Get over it. We all have different opinions and its not like its completely outlandish.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I don’t. Get over it. We all have different opinions and its not like its completely outlandish.

It's close to for me but well, have seen worse.

 

[subshakerz]

Lol. Viv was a great, but arguing he outclasses Smith against top quality pace is ludicrous.

Viv was definitely more dominant against high quality pace than Smith, especially if we count WSC plus high yield series against Lillee, Imran and Hadlee. I don't see how this is close.

Any arguable pace advantage that the WI have over Australia (and it's arguable) is at most marginal. Warne completely outclasses any spin option that the WI have.

WI pace advantage isn't arguable especially on pace friendly wickets. Marshall is the greatest pacer of all time, Ambrose is better than any Aussie pacer outside McGrath and Holding as a speed merchant is an ideal third seamer.

Warne's effectiveness against a WI lineup of Headley, Viv, Lara and Sobers is up in the air. Frankly I think he will be spanked.

 

[govinda indian fan]

Lol. Viv was a great, but arguing he outclasses Smith against top quality pace is ludicrous.

Any arguable pace advantage that the WI have over Australia (and it's arguable) is at most marginal. Warne completely outclasses any spin option that the WI have.

The WI all time side would be fighting the England all time side for a spot in the final against Australia. South Africa would round out the top 4. Pakistan, New Zealand and India would make 5-7, probably in that order.

India atg xi is better then nz atg xi.more atg bats much more dynamic wk and much much better spinners. 5 th spot would be fight between ind vs pak

 

[kyear2]

Wait you were trying to fit Lindwall in at no 8 for his batting.

And WI don't have any no.8 options so they have to stick with Marshall.

Lindwall was seen as the GOAT pacer when he retired, additionally even though he played in a tougher era than Lillee, he was still better travelled and tested on flat conditions.

Even then by default still go Lillee.

Not really.

It's not, but his agenda doesn't allow for it to be acknowledged as important. In fact it's the absolute opposite.

 

[kyear2]

I know its most likely not the ideal team or anything but the image of Warne and Murali bowling from opposite ends spinning the ball both ways has always entranced me somewhat. Would also perhaps be a way for me to include Imran in my XI (for Imran lovers)

Could, but no need to shorten the batting order.

If you're playing both it's a spinning track, Maco and Pigeon to open and Sobers can be the 3rd seamer until the ball is ready for Warne. Murali was more than accustomed to operating with a new cherry.

 

[subshakerz]

Lindwall was seen as the GOAT pacer when he retired, additionally even though he played in a tougher era than Lillee, he was still better travelled and tested on flat conditions.

Even then by default still go Lillee.

Yeah except when you picked Lindwall in your side you made explicit reference to batting depth. There is no other reason you wouldn't put him over Lillee there. Stop trying to hide your position.

 

[kyear2]

Worrell hardly opened. By right it should be Hunte and Greenidge.

What about Walcott as keeper?

Yes, he hardly did, but he did, and did decently well with a hundred.

He was the ultimate team guy who would adapt to any role required from opening the batting to opening the bowling. He's also the best choice for captain and doesn't make the team otherwise.

It would be my vote, wouldn't make a fuss about it though.

With a spinner in the team, Walcott is a must. There's no argument there.

 

[subshakerz]

With a spinner in the team, Walcott is a must. There's no argument there.

@Coronis argues that Walcott may not qualify as a true keeper bat since he only kept early career before his batting blossomed.

 

[kyear2]

I know kyear claims he bowled only short spells. Unsure how accurate that is.

I do think he preferred to bowl less, iirc even in 48 he had some back issues by then. Certainly he bowled less at a first class level and was captaining his side there iirc (likely thanks to Bradman he never captained Australia).

There is a good story about him being able to shoulder those burdens when necessary.. in 1956 in England (Laker’s famous series) Lindwall pulled out of the second test, and his replacement (Pat Crawford) broke down after 5 overs. Miller bowled 34 and 36 overs in the 2 innings, taking 5/72 and 5/80 (thus doing something Lindwall and Bumrah couldn’t) to help ensure the team’s only victory that series.

He was 36 at the time, and averaged 29.2 overs per innings for the series. 21 @ 22.23, the only bowler besides Laker to take 20 wickets for the series.

I don't recall if I responded to this, been a busy couple days.

But I don't think he was incapable of a full work load, I do know that he preferred not to, like Kumar preferred not to have the gloves. But tell him it's the only way he's playing they'll like it just fine.

My issue is that Lindwall and Lillee, and also Davidson are better with the new ball and Cummins more adapt and accustomed to the old ball.

I know Subz wants the batting at 8, but when the both played together, it was Lindwall and Miller. When they retired one was a bowling great, the other the GOAT. The latter one is the one I would prefer.

Makes sense?

And for the ones who want him as the 5th option, my only argument is how many overs is he bowling as the 5th bowler (especially with Lillee, McGrath, Cummins and Warne who can bowl long spells) to justify the drop off of average batting in the top order.

Hence my earlier question, how many overs is he bowling and what would we expect his batting average to be. It's diminished returns as a bowler and a compromised selection as a top order batsman.

Nothing to do with his quality as a well rounded all rounder.

 

[kyear2]

The 5th bowler question really goes into team philosophy.

I just think the team is more imbalanced if you insist on 5 regular bowlers, the 5th won't even get that many overs.

What I've been saying.

It's an essential rotation piece.