Would you play Keith Miller in your Australia ATG XI?

[subshakerz]

This team looks good. But tbh not anything scary enough for me to think will have a chance on beating Australia over a course of the series. They just seem to clearly lack behind in everything compared to Australia except openers.

The main issue is Donald was relatively weak against Australia and Steyn was also kind of expensive and inconsistent against them. That's a big liability against an Aussie batting lineup that strong.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah but that doesn't square with how much emphasis you were putting on a 5th bowler over a better no.8 bat in a lineup. You made the former to be far more critical.

No I did not.

I said repeatedly that they are equally important. What I have said that by just covering their overs they are obligating their role while no. 8 batsmen are by the nature of the position way more inconsistent. I rate them equally.

What I've also argued as a response to one of your posts is that the 5th bowler is an actual position that's factored into an 11 as the top order all rounder. The no. 8 being able to bat has never been stipulated in such a way.

What I have said is that I rate the cordon as a whole (the entire unit) as bring slightly more important than both, but as an individual your 2nd slip who doubles as your 1st vs your spinner, is equal to the aforementioned 5th bowler and no. 8 batsman.

And if you would indulge me for a bit, I can show how this has been borne out in the ongoing series.

Marsh being useless and unable to be a regular contributor is placing extra pressure on the front line guys and adding to their work load.

It's been even worse for India, and forcing Bumrah to bowl more than is ideal.

That's impactful for both.

Cummins has also played a vital role in the last match for Australia, but in the other matches his output has been more moderate to poor (first match)

Not what I've said has been the most under discussed and one of the critical determinators of this series is the catching.

First test Khawaja drops Jaiswal and the match in the process and they lose.
In the drawn test Smith drops KL and with that the best opportunity to enforce the follow on for at least a chance at the win.

This last match, Khawaja catches everything and Smith (in addition to his hundred) pulls off two spectacular catches in the 4th innings to seal the victory. Including moving to first to snare a ball that Khawaja isn't getting to.

This doesn't even look at the Jaiswal drops and the half chances that no one talks about that Kohli doesn't even get to.

You catch well and you win, or the popular refrain, catches win matches.

As I said in an earlier post, the 3 most recent great teams and I could even stretch it to 4 and go back to the 70's Aussie squad. But using the 3

5th bowler
Richards
Waugh
Kallis

No. 8 batsman
Marshall
Warne
Morkel

Cordon
Lloyd / Richards / Richardson
Warne / Waugh / Ponting
Smith / Kallis / de Villiers

That's 3 of the top 5 cordons that I can think of since the war.

But yeah, in case you were (obviously) unsure. I rate the 5th bowler equally as valuable as the no. 8.

To win consistently I think one absolutely needs a reliable 5th than a standout no. 8, but as India has shown the past few years, that's heavily team dependant.

But over all a brilliant cordon, a standout no. 8 and a reliable 5th are all essential to success and winning, but if I have to rank them that's the order. And even then, SA doesn't function without Kallis, the entire attack somewhat comes apart... So tie.

 

[kyear2]

They will be short in all department. Batsman, Fast Bowlers (smaller gap), Spinner and on top of that you have Bradman and Gilchrist. The gap is huge imho.

A batting lineup that includes

Richards / Smith / Kallis / Pollock / Nourse / de Villiers doesn't come up short vs anyone.

Pacers
Steyn / Donald / Procter again compares very favorably to Australia's attack.

The only difference is Warne and Gilly.

 

[kyear2]

Over a course of say 5 match series. Do you think they will have any chance? Maybe a match but over a series??

That SA team can defeat Australia in a series.

Donald would be a huge factor though and can go either way.

 

[JBMAC]

In answer to the question posed in thread title..............Without any doubt!

 

[Line and Length]

In answer to the question posed in thread title..............Without any doubt!

Thanks

 

[subshakerz]

A batting lineup that includes

Richards / Smith / Kallis / Pollock / Nourse / de Villiers doesn't come up short vs anyone.

Pacers
Steyn / Donald / Procter again compares very favorably to Australia's attack.

The only difference is Warne and Gilly.

Proctor or Faulkner?

 

[subshakerz]

That SA team can defeat Australia in a series.

Donald would be a huge factor though and can go either way.

Definitely not in Australia. In fact I think they will be crushed.

 

[kyear2]

Proctor or Faulkner?

Faulkner doesn't make mine.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

A batting lineup that includes

Richards / Smith / Kallis / Pollock / Nourse / de Villiers doesn't come up short vs anyone.

Pacers
Steyn / Donald / Procter again compares very favorably to Australia's attack.

The only difference is Warne and Gilly.

That batting lineup isn’t better or comparable to Australia. Richards is no better than a guy name Sidney Barnes that we had here. Barnes was legit as good as anyone. If I was putting a team just by taking talent level into account like you are doing with Barry Richards, I would probably have Barnes open. Bradman himself referenced he wanted either himself or Barnes to play every match if The Invincibles were to remain unbeaten. Morris himself referenced Barnes might have been the best batsman he had ever seen except Bradman.

Just compare the batting line up-

Australia

Barnes/ Trumper
Hayden
Ponting
Smith
Chappell
Border

This is already better than SA easily. Just add Bradman to that and that gap goes to a whole different galaxy. Just add Gilchrist, O’Reilly/ Warne and it’s just no context.

 

[kyear2]

Definitely not in Australia. In fact I think they will be crushed.

Barry played Lillee as well if not better than anyone, add that to Kallis and Pollock and that team is getting crushed? Even AB and Smith were more than decent in Australia.

Donald, Steyn and Procter, really?

Think the SA team is only but a touch below the Aus and WI guys.

 

[subshakerz]

No I did not.

I said repeatedly that they are equally important. What I have said that by just covering their overs they are obligating their role while no. 8 batsmen are by the nature of the position way more inconsistent. I rate them equally.

What I've also argued as a response to one of your posts is that the 5th bowler is an actual position that's factored into an 11 as the top order all rounder. The no. 8 being able to bat has never been stipulated in such a way.

What I have said is that I rate the cordon as a whole (the entire unit) as bring slightly more important than both, but as an individual your 2nd slip who doubles as your 1st vs your spinner, is equal to the aforementioned 5th bowler and no. 8 batsman.

And if you would indulge me for a bit, I can show how this has been borne out in the ongoing series.

Marsh being useless and unable to be a regular contributor is placing extra pressure on the front line guys and adding to their work load.

It's been even worse for India, and forcing Bumrah to bowl more than is ideal.

That's impactful for both.

Cummins has also played a vital role in the last match for Australia, but in the other matches his output has been more moderate to poor (first match)

Not what I've said has been the most under discussed and one of the critical determinators of this series is the catching.

First test Khawaja drops Jaiswal and the match in the process and they lose.
In the drawn test Smith drops KL and with that the best opportunity to enforce the follow on for at least a chance at the win.

This last match, Khawaja catches everything and Smith (in addition to his hundred) pulls off two spectacular catches in the 4th innings to seal the victory. Including moving to first to snare a ball that Khawaja isn't getting to.

This doesn't even look at the Jaiswal drops and the half chances that no one talks about that Kohli doesn't even get to.

You catch well and you win, or the popular refrain, catches win matches.

As I said in an earlier post, the 3 most recent great teams and I could even stretch it to 4 and go back to the 70's Aussie squad. But using the 3

5th bowler
Richards
Waugh
Kallis

No. 8 batsman
Marshall
Warne
Morkel

Cordon
Lloyd / Richards / Richardson
Warne / Waugh / Ponting
Smith / Kallis / de Villiers

That's 3 of the top 5 cordons that I can think of since the war.

But yeah, in case you were (obviously) unsure. I rate the 5th bowler equally as valuable as the no. 8.

To win consistently I think one absolutely needs a reliable 5th than a standout no. 8, but as India has shown the past few years, that's heavily team dependant.

But over all a brilliant cordon, a standout no. 8 and a reliable 5th are all essential to success and winning, but if I have to rank them that's the order. And even then, SA doesn't function without Kallis, the entire attack somewhat comes apart... So tie.

I will ignore the slips stuff which is irrelevant.

The difference is that Simpson who you agree for Australia isn't an actual 5th bowler, he is a 'part-time bowler' like Border and Chappell who you can find in any average side in world cricket. So basically you are willing to lower your threshold now from a specialist 5th bowler like Kallis or potentially Miller to part timer level because you know the role isn't really that important.

Whereas batting at no.8 is needed regardless and it seems you wouldnt compromise on anyone averaging less than the 20s in that position in an ATG side which is a higher standard than your average team. Hence I think your position is different from stated.

 

[Prince EWS]

SA's team is awesome whether or not we count Richards and Procter, but it's kind of just a discount version of the other two top teams in a way. It doesn't really have any advantages over them other than balance through its allrounders.

 

[kyear2]

That batting lineup isn’t better or comparable to Australia. Richards is no better than a guy name Sydney Barnes that we had here. Barnes was legit as good as anyone. If I was putting a team just by taking talent level into account like you are doing with Barry Richards, I would probably have Barnes open. Bradman himself referenced he wanted either himself or Barnes to play every match if The Invincibles were to remain unbeaten. Morris himself referenced Barnes might have been the best batsman he had ever seen except Bradman.

Just compare the batting line up-

Australia

Barnes/ Trumper
Hayden
Ponting
Smith
Chappell
Border

This is already better than SA easily. Just add Bradman to that and that gap goes to a whole different galaxy. Just add Gilchrist, O’Reilly/ Warne and it’s just no context.

We can agree to disagree.

A lot of those guys, with the sole exception of Border and to a lesser extent Chappell thrived on some pretty unhelpful conditions, wouldn't find those in SA. Also most of them never engaged anything remotely close to an attack of Steyn, Donald and Procter.

Yes, Australia may win, but nothing close to a hammering or getting crushed, and in SA, open contest.

 

[subshakerz]

Barry played Lillee as well if not better than anyone, add that to Kallis and Pollock and that team is getting crushed? Even AB and Smith were more than decent in Australia.

Donald, Steyn and Procter, really?

Think the SA team is only but a touch below the Aus and WI guys.

The batting of SA can compete thanks to depth.

But the bowling won't compete. Donald had a mental block against Australia. Steyn maybe is going to have one or two impactful spells the entire series and then be collared the rest. Proctor is not a given and Pollock in Australia also faltered. Not sure about Tayfield though.

 

[kyear2]

SA's team is awesome whether or not we count Richards and Procter, but it's kind of just a discount version of the other two top teams in a way. It doesn't really have any advantages over them other than balance through its allrounders.

Richards is better than any opener for either team. He's also faced and more than anyone else in the game had the upper hand over Lillee... In his absolute prime.

Pollock make the Aussie middle order over either Ponting or Border

Kallis has the technique to stand up to any bowler in Australia. He's also better than any 5th bowler Australia can bring out, and if it's Miller, he's way ahead as a batsman.

Steyn, Donald and Procter can mow through any attack on their day.

Discount is a bit harsh I would say.

 

[Prince EWS]

The batting of SA can compete thanks to depth.

But the bowling won't compete. Donald had a mental block against Australia. Steyn maybe is going to have one or two impactful spells the entire series and then be collared the rest. Proctor is not a given and Pollock in Australia also faltered. Not sure about Tayfield though.

Tayfield and Faulkner is a pretty awesome spin combination for a team not really known for that.

Gives them six frontline(ish - five plus Kallis) bowlers and batting to 9 which is I guess their niche. They had a similar niche in the early 2000s against Australia and routinely got served by a team whose #8 averaged mid teens and didn't have a fifth bowler though.

 

[subshakerz]

Kallis has the technique to stand up to any bowler in Australia. He's also better than any 5th bowler Australia can bring out, and if it's Miller, he's way ahead as a batsman.

Kallis is likely to be a 6th bowler and hardly have the same impact.

 

[Prince EWS]

Richards is better than any opener for either team. He's also faced and more than anyone else in the game had the upper hand over Lillee... In his absolute prime.

Pollock make the Aussie middle order over either Ponting or Border

Kallis has the technique to stand up to any bowler in Australia. He's also better than any 5th bowler Australia can bring out, and if it's Miller, he's way ahead as a batsman.

Steyn, Donald and Procter can mow through any attack on their day.

Discount is a bit harsh I would say.

Yeah SA definitely have the better openers even if we ignore Richards.

 

[subshakerz]

Tayfield and Faulkner is a pretty awesome spin combination for a team not really known for that.

Gives them six frontline(ish - five plus Kallis) bowlers and batting to 9 which is I guess their niche. They had a similar niche in the early 2000s against Australia and routinely got served by a team whose #8 averaged mid teens and didn't have a fifth bowler though.

Not sure if I select Faulkner or Proctor.

Would we drop Shaun Pollock though?

But yeah quantity in these scenarios rarely makes up for quality.