Would you play Keith Miller in your Australia ATG XI?

[subshakerz]

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hutton
Hammond
Barrington
Root

is quite a bit better imo, especially Smith and Kallis are decently inferior to Sutcliffe and Hammond for me. I don't think I'll have Botham unless it's peak Botham, or else I'll just go with the bowling of Barnes/Trueman/Laker/Larwood after Knott.

Hutton never batted at 3. It's kinda cheating.to change an opener.

But yeah England are reasonably better.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hutton
Hammond
Barrington
Root

is quite a bit better imo, especially Smith and Kallis are decently inferior to Sutcliffe and Hammond for me. Nourse is also nah inferior to all of the English top 6 for me. I don't think I'll have Botham unless it's peak Botham, or else I'll just go with the bowling of Barnes/Trueman/Laker/Larwood after Knott.

Just take Grace and have a proper all-rounder bro!!

 

[ma1978]

It's clear that Aus have the best AT XI due to the Bradman factor, and the WI have the second best overall side, but England have a great shot at beating either side on their day. England have the best openers (Hobbs and Hutton), a very strong batting lineup, solid spin options and a very good pace attack. Very solid side all round.

South Africa round out the top 4, with their spin options being their weakness.

It would be awesome to see a WTC played with all time sides. Would be great.

hugh tayfield?

id argue if all kinds of cricket are taken into account SA is right up there with Aus and WI

Richards
Smith
Kallis
Pollock
Nourse
De Villiers (wk)
Procter
Pollock
Steyn
Donald
Tayfield

is exceptional

 

[ma1978]

I think it's the 5th best among the ATG ones.

no kallsi, pollock and nourse is as good as any 3-5 without Bradman

 

[ma1978]

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hutton
Hammond
Barrington
Root

is quite a bit better imo, especially Smith and Kallis are decently inferior to Sutcliffe and Hammond for me. Nourse is also nah inferior to all of the English top 6 for me. I don't think I'll have Botham unless it's peak Botham, or else I'll just go with the bowling of Barnes/Trueman/Laker/Larwood after Knott.

the sad part of the English at XI is it just shows how weak modern day English cricket is

 

[Johan]

the sad part of the English at XI is it just shows how weak modern day English cricket is

The Aussie ***** really buried it in the 89 Ashes, thankfully things have looked up since the 2005 Ashes.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Hutton
Hobbs
Hammond
Root
Barrington
Botham
Knott
Underwood
Bedser/Stratham
Trueman
Barnes

Where to fit Grace?

Grace fits at 3 imo.

Hobbs
Hutton
Grace
Hammond
Root

Is a stacked top 5, and contains multiple bowling options as a bonus.

Rest of the side depends a lot on personal preference, e.g. what to make of Botham in this sort of exercise, what to make of Barnes, etc.

 

[capt_Luffy]

no kallsi, pollock and nourse is as good as any 3-5 without Bradman

Not as good as Viv, Lara and Sobers (not to mention Headley). The overall top 5 of both India and especially England are also easily better.

 

[Coronis]

Coronis waxes lyrical about English (black and white) and Australian players and downplays others

Anyone shocked?

Who did I down play? Said clearly Gilly was better than Walcott and that Smith is top 6 (ahead of Lara btw)

Every opinion different to yours isn't blasphemy nor favoritism.

I'm actively lobbying for McGrath in another thread and half my posts are about Barry Richards, a white cricketer from apartheid South Africa.

Who else outside of your pure circle do you push for?

Name two.

I don’t think you understand the term wax lyrical.

Man you basically said Warne is basically going to be a non-factor and reckon half the lineup will smash him but are now gassing up Gibbs. (after something I said in another thread convinced you on him?)

When in reality the gap between the Windies and Australian pace attacks is minimal compared to the spin attack.

 

[Red]

G Smith
B Richards
J Kallis
G Pollock
D Nourse
AB DeVillers
A Faulkner
M Procter
D Steyn
H Tayfield
A Donald

Would challenge any XI. Swap Shaun Pollock for Faulkner if you want an extra quick.

Bowling attack of Steyn, Donald, Procter, Tayfield, Faulkner, Kallis is crazy balanced.

Also option to drop Faulkner and play a pure keeper because 5 legit bowling options is plenty. But AB keeping makes it more fun.

 

[kyear2]

Barnes, Trueman, Third pacer is where the problem rises, it really depends on how much people wanna rate a Larwood.

I just rock with Tyson and Trueman, if some are open to Barnes it works.

 

[stephen]

I just rock with Tyson and Trueman, if some are open to Barnes it works.

If India get Bumrah and NZ get Bond, Tyson should definitely be in the mix for England.

 

[kyear2]

SA batting isn't all that exceptional for the ATG sides honestly, Barnes/Trueman is good enough to handle the SA bowling imo, It's the all rounders for SA that are problematic

Really?

Barry, Kallis, Pollock

Smith, de Villiers, Nourse

That's pretty strong

Then there's

Procter and which ever keeper is preferred, good depth as well.

Bowling is also tremendous even by these standards

Steyn, Donald and Procter

Supported by Kallis and a great spinner in Tayfield?

Then arguably the best cordon along with Australia and WI with Barry, Kallis and deVilliers.

Don't see a weakness per say

 

[subshakerz]

Really?

Barry, Kallis, Pollock

Smith, de Villiers, Nourse

That's pretty strong

Then there's

Procter and which ever keeper is preferred, good depth as well.

Bowling is also tremendous even by these standards

Steyn, Donald and Procter

Supported by Kallis and a great spinner in Tayfield?

Then arguably the best cordon along with Australia and WI with Barry, Kallis and deVilliers.

Don't see a weakness per say

Yeah but do you play him? You haven't answered.

Vince van der Bijl Profile - Cricket Player South Africa | Stats, Records, Video

Read about Vince van der Bijl cricket player from South Africa profile, stats, rankings, records, videos, photos at ESPNcricinfo

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[kyear2]

We can't pick or choose. It's overall Botham

You pick these guys at their peaks.

You go to '79 and pick Viv. You're not getting fat Botham

 

[Prince EWS]

You pick these guys at their peaks.

You go to '79 and pick Viv. You're not getting fat Botham

We should be picking Mitchell Johnson then.

 

[kyear2]

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hutton
Hammond
Barrington
Root

is quite a bit better imo, especially Smith and Kallis are decently inferior to Sutcliffe and Hammond for me. Nourse is also nah inferior to all of the English top 6 for me. I don't think I'll have Botham unless it's peak Botham, or else I'll just go with the bowling of Barnes/Trueman/Laker/Larwood after Knott.

Grace doesn't belong in these team, played a different sport.

But serious question, is Hutton a test no. 3. Don't mean if he's eligible, can put anyone anywhere. But is he a rest no. 3, had a s/r the mid 30's and between him and Sutcliffe you're allowing bowlers to settle into lines, plans and rotations. Not to add that 3 of them played prior to WWII and both openers played their entire career prior to the LBW rules.

And as I said in the AT XI thread, I don't wasn't all my bowlers from the same era, the same way I wouldn't choose 3 batsmen from the 30's

Anyways, just my opinions.

 

[kyear2]

I don’t think you understand the term wax lyrical.

Man you basically said Warne is basically going to be a non-factor and reckon half the lineup will smash him but are now gassing up Gibbs. (after something I said in another thread convinced you on him?)

When in reality the gap between the Windies and Australian pace attacks is minimal compared to the spin attack.

Where did I gas up Gibbs? He's there for the SCG and over rates. Best case scenario is to tie up an end and let the guys rotate opposite him.

And yes, you said he would be essential in such a contest, want a prize?

And re Warne, I'm not making anything up. Yes there's a spin gap, but spin has never been as impactful vs great batsmen as lace bowling has been. As I've long said, pacers are impacted by conditions, batsmen by pacers. Even great spinner are impacted more by great batsmen than the opposite.

Warne wasn't only collared by Sachin, it was the India lineup. Lara rook to him and Murali as well.

And morning I said about the fast men was incorrect. Marshall is seen as the greatest, peak Ambrose was as good if not better than peak McGrath, and better the D.K.Lillee, and Holding was never a class below Lillee, just hella injury prone.

I'm doing the same thing everyone else is doing talking up the teams.

 

[kyear2]

G Smith
B Richards
J Kallis
G Pollock
D Nourse
AB DeVillers
A Faulkner
M Procter
D Steyn
H Tayfield
A Donald

Would challenge any XI. Swap Shaun Pollock for Faulkner if you want an extra quick.

Bowling attack of Steyn, Donald, Procter, Tayfield, Faulkner, Kallis is crazy balanced.

Also option to drop Faulkner and play a pure keeper because 5 legit bowling options is plenty. But AB keeping makes it more fun.

I would play Faulkner ahead of Procter of a specialist bat, but to let AB keep and bat him at 7 actually works.

That team can challenge any.

My only question is how good was AB to spin?

 

[stephen]

Grace doesn't belong in these team, played a different sport.

But serious question, is Hutton a test no. 3. Don't mean if he's eligible, can put anyone anywhere. But is he a rest no. 3, had a s/r the mid 30's and between him and Sutcliffe you're allowing bowlers to settle into lines, plans and rotations. Not to add that 3 of them played prior to WWII and both openers played their entire career prior to the LBW rules.

And as I said in the AT XI thread, I don't wasn't all my bowlers from the same era, the same way I wouldn't choose 3 batsmen from the 30's

Anyways, just my opinions.

And yet the West Indies AT XI would easily have 3/4 of their team from the same 25 year period. Greenidge, Richards, Lara, Marshall, Ambrose, Garner (or whoever is your third quick) all played most of their careers between 75 and 00.