• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Would you play Keith Miller in your Australia ATG XI?

kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
subshakerz said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not irrelevant and actually more important.

Moving on to Simpson, he took 71 wickets in 63 matches. He was better than Border and Simpson as far as blowing goes. Way more wickets.

The way you try to manipulate and bullshit arguments to suit you is hilarious. Ok, let's play along.

The no. 8 for Australia is Warne or Cummins, that's also down grade isn't it. So is it too not that important? The one for the WI is Marshall, so again not needed or that important. The way you cherry pick is so very disingenuous.

I also showed a list of no. 8's for the 3 last great teams in cricket. The no. 8's were Marshall, Warne and Morkel. Obviously the slot isn't that important.

And none of the two are historically, anecdotally, by selection or even shown in this series to be as important as .........

You ask a question, I answer and you still try to make up ****.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
kyear2 said:
M
The no. 8 for Australia is Warne or Cummins, that's also down grade isn't it. So is it too not that important? The one for the WI is Marshall, so again not needed or that important. The way you cherry pick is so very disingenuous.
Click to expand...
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.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
subshakerz said:
How can you justify Proctor over Pollock? The latter is a much better bowler.
Click to expand...
He is not, and I've never been a fan of Pollock, like Garner he was primary the second guy.

Also Donald had aggression and bounce, Steyn insane outswing and Procter ridiculous inswing. And all three was certifiably fast. Procter could also bowl spin as required. He was also a top flight slip fielder.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
kyear2 said:
He is not, and I've never been a fan of Pollock, like Garner he was primary the second guy.

Also Donald had aggression and bounce, Steyn insane outswing and Procter ridiculous inswing. And all three was certifiably fast. Procter could also bowl spin as required. He was also a top flight slip fielder.
Click to expand...
Once again you are using FC records to sideline cricketers with a complete international career. In this case, a bowler with 400 plus wickets @ sub 25.

But it's also an imbalanced attack. Pollock at least gave you a steady seamer. If you have three of the similar type of aggressive swingers it is likely to be hit or miss.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
subshakerz said:
Once again you are using FC records to sideline cricketers with a complete international career.

But it's also an imbalanced attack. Pollock at least gave you a steady seamer. If you have three of the similar type of aggressive swingers it is likely to be hit or miss.
Click to expand...
Once again I'm looking at who is better.

How many tests they played doesn't dictate who's better and no doubt in my mind Procter was a better cricketer to Pollock.

You're just looking for a fight aren't you.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
kyear2 said:
Once again I'm looking at who is better.

How many tests they played doesn't dictate who's better and no doubt in my mind Procter was a better cricketer to Pollock.

You're just looking for a fight aren't you.
Click to expand...
Serious question: why is he not in your SA ATG XI?

www.espncricinfo.com

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 www.espncricinfo.com
 
Q

Qlder

International Regular
How did this thread become about South Africa and the usual Barry Richards stuff...

As per Thread OP, Miller is one of my 5 locks in any Australia ATG XI (Bradman, Miller, Gilchrist, Warne and Lillee). The rest of the spots are up for discussion on any give day

1. Hayden
2. Simpson
3. Bradman
4. Chappell
5. Border
6. Miller
7. Gilchrist
8. Davidson
9. Warne
10. Lillee
11. McGrath

Squad: Ponting, Lindwall, O'Reilly
 
Anthony Clayden

Anthony Clayden

School Boy/Girl Captain
I would play Miller at 6, and because of that Davidson at 8
However the team depends on the location.
India are going for a square turner, so increase spins decrease pace, lengthen batting with batters who are good with spin.
WI will pick a pitch to help their pace quartet, so play Warne and only 3 pacemen, but strengthen batting with someone like border.
But I doubt any world eleven or probably even a combined one beats Australia at home.
 
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
Yeah not sure why we’re even trying to compare Australian all time team to the others. They have Bradman, Gilchrist and are the only top tier pace attack with a top tier spinner (sorry Gibbs, Tayfield, Saqlain).

Its personal preference tbh regardless of if you pick Miller or not Australia is still going to have the best team.

Obviously if you take out Bradman to “make it fair” then you wouldn’t be bothering with Miller anyway.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Coronis said:
Yeah not sure why we’re even trying to compare Australian all time team to the others. They have Bradman, Gilchrist and are the only top tier pace attack with a top tier spinner (sorry Gibbs, Tayfield, Saqlain).

Its personal preference tbh regardless of if you pick Miller or not Australia is still going to have the best team.

Obviously if you take out Bradman to “make it fair” then you wouldn’t be bothering with Miller anyway.
Click to expand...
Don't think the Gilly factor is quite as high as most other teams can pick a 40 averaging keeper bat.

Outside Bradman, WI to me have a better batting lineup otherwise, the question is how much do we rate the Bradman advantage in these scenarios.

Adding Miller towards the end does give more batting strength though too.
 
mr_mister

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Any merit to Gilly at 6 and Davidson at 7? Then you can have either Lindwall and Lillee, or Warne and O'Reilly. With McGrath nailed on at 11 of course.

He brings that left arm variety and batted at 7 plenty of times in tests!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top