• 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.

The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

peterhrt

U19 Cricketer
The difficulty with Rhodes is that during his spell as an opener (the 4 series in the 1910s), he only took 11 wickets @43; before that, his batting average was 25.

Just out of interest, I compared this England pre-1977 team with the England players picked in the "Centenary" draft we had.
10 of the 14 players mentioned were picked fairly quickly: Hobbs, Hutton, Hammond and Barnes were picked in round 1; Grace in round 2; Laker and Larwood in round 3; Compton and Tate in round 4; and Ames in round 5.
Rhodes wasn't picked until round 8, Woolley in round 9, Evans in round 11, and Hirst wasn't picked at all.

Meanwhile, you could get an alternative XI from other players picked in the first 5 rounds:
Sutcliffe, Boycott, Barrington, Ranjitsinhji, May/Dexter, Knott, Verity, Tyson, Bedser, Statham, Snow.
Rhodes' batting and bowling peaks not coinciding was an issue for The Cricketer's judges, who ignored his batting and picked him as the best left-arm spinner on all pitches. Ames was their keeper batting six. Others considered Rhodes' career as a whole and treated him as an all-rounder.

Some reputations have shifted over half a century. Grace, Hirst, Rhodes and Woolley were considered the big four English all-round cricketers. When Botham arrived on the scene they all got pushed back to varying degrees. One of the most common descriptions of Barrington now is "underrated". He wasn't rated back then. Grace and Hobbs kept all other openers out of the discussion apart from Hutton. Ranji had been consigned to the imperial past. The next batting cab off the rank was May. Dexter and Cowdrey were recalled fondly from the previous decade but neither was deemed to be in the Hammond/Compton class.

Tate and Bedser were regarded highly, but not as highly as Barnes. Lohmann was forgotten. Knott's Test career was almost over but there was still some old-fashioned prejudice around his standing back to medium-pacers. Verity and Underwood were seen as bad-wicket bowlers, as was Laker but there weren't any viable off-spinning alternatives. The reliable Statham was respected more than Trueman, Tyson or Snow, but never seriously challenged Larwood, whose closest rival might still actually have been Tom Richardson.
 

CricketFan90s

State Vice-Captain
Yeah England was a good team in the 80’s.

20 wins 39 losses 45 draws

Sounds good to me. So good that only SL had a worse W/L ratio.

Perhaps this is why you only pick modern players, because you have no idea about cricket history?
you don't know either Ashes series in 1980s after Kerry Packer Series England won 9 Tests and Australia only 5 Tests. So they were good enough to dominate Australia.

If i include 1989 Ashes then the scores are level.

9 Test Wins for England and 9 Test Wins for Australia with 3 Series won by England and 2 Series Won by Australia.

A 3 Leg Rabbit Historian like you should relearn the History.
 

capt_Luffy

International Regular
you don't know either Ashes series in 1980s after Kerry Packer Series England won 9 Tests and Australia only 5 Tests. So they were good enough to dominate Australia.

If i include 1989 Ashes then the scores are level.

9 Test Wins for England and 9 Test Wins for Australia with 3 Series won by England and 2 Series Won by Australia.

A 3 Leg Rabbit Historian like you should relearn the History.
That begs the question of how strong were the Aussies in the 80s and the answer is not much..... They had a pretty bad decade in the 80s. WI was clearly the best team, followed by actually Pakistan, then England, Australia and India were all close and NZ excellent at home.
 

AndrewB

International Vice-Captain
One of the most common descriptions of Barrington now is "underrated". He wasn't rated back then.
As I recall, writers through the 80s still weren't rating Barrington up with Compton and May. I wonder if their respective home/away records had anything to do with this, since they're all quite radically different:

Barrington: Home 50.71, Away 69.18
Compton: Home 60.04, Away 36.88
May: Home 57.30, Away 35.57

so English cricket fans of the 40s-60s will have seen Compton and May doing better than Barrington (and, of course, playing in Ashes-winning sides).
OTOH, Hammond's home/away averages are fairly similar to Barrington's and his reputation didn't suffer.
 

CricketFan90s

State Vice-Captain
That begs the question of how strong were the Aussies in the 80s and the answer is not much..... They had a pretty bad decade in the 80s. WI was clearly the best team, followed by actually Pakistan, then England, Australia and India were all close and NZ excellent at home.
They were also about to beat Australia in 1987 World Cup but that stupid reverse sweep from Gatting cost them the World Cup. They were also in the 1992 Final.
 

CricketFan90s

State Vice-Captain
As I recall, writers through the 80s still weren't rating Barrington up with Compton and May. I wonder if their respective home/away records had anything to do with this, since they're all quite radically different:

Barrington: Home 50.71, Away 69.18
Compton: Home 60.04, Away 36.88
May: Home 57.30, Away 35.57

so English cricket fans of the 40s-60s will have seen Compton and May doing better than Barrington (and, of course, playing in Ashes-winning sides).
OTOH, Hammond's home/away averages are fairly similar to Barrington's and his reputation didn't suffer.
A Good Observation. Compton and May more of Home Heroes. So Barrington was underrated.
 

CricketFan90s

State Vice-Captain
Dream Ashes Series Who Will Win ?
(Only included Players Younger than Don Bradman)
Australia XI

1) Bob Simpson
2) Matthew Hayden
3) Ricky Ponting (c)
4) Steve Smith
5) Greg Chappell
6) Allan Border
7) Adam Gilchrist +
8) Shane Warne
9) Pat Cummins
10) Dennis Lillee
11) Glenn McGrath

England XI
1) Len Hutton (c)
2) Alastair Cook
3) Ken Barrington
4) Kevin Pietersen
5) Joe Root
6) Ben Stokes
7) Ian Botham
8) Alan Knott +
9) Fred Trueman
10) Derek Underwood
11) James Anderson

7 Match Test Series : 3 Matches in England and 3 Matches in Australia and the Last Match will be played based on Who gains the Lead in the Series.
I will stick with Kevin Pietersen as his away record is better than Compton and May. This English Team has everything to beat Australia so it will be very competitive. Not Sure if Hutton is the Best Captain ? For this team.
 

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
Yes, the cutoff is once Overarm bowling became legal. The County cricket was golden standard, it was a graveyard for batsmen and people averaged low 30s back then. Ranji does 56. That's bloody impressive. Trumble doesn't makes top 10 bowlers because he was just alright. Also, the late 19th century can hardly be called cricket in infancy when it has existed from the 17th century.
This alone speaks to it being in its infancy
 

peterhrt

U19 Cricketer
As I recall, writers through the 80s still weren't rating Barrington up with Compton and May. I wonder if their respective home/away records had anything to do with this, since they're all quite radically different:

Barrington: Home 50.71, Away 69.18
Compton: Home 60.04, Away 36.88
May: Home 57.30, Away 35.57

so English cricket fans of the 40s-60s will have seen Compton and May doing better than Barrington (and, of course, playing in Ashes-winning sides).
OTOH, Hammond's home/away averages are fairly similar to Barrington's and his reputation didn't suffer.
That is correct. It took a long time for Barrington's reputation to grow.

England lost five consecutive home series to Australia, West Indies and South Africa in the 1960s and didn't lose any away. English pitches offered more assistance to fast bowlers like Hall, Griffith, Adcock and Peter Pollock. Barrington struggled against them at home, and also against left-armers Sobers, Goddard and Davidson who swung the ball in with favourable overhead conditions. He averaged 28 against West Indies and South Africa at home, and was dropped for the last three Tests of the 1966 series against West Indies.

Barrington's only hundred in England against Australia, West Indies or South Africa was on a Manchester featherbed when both sides scored over 600, Simpson made 311 for the opposition, and there was only time for two overs in the third innings. As far as home audiences were concerned, Barrington wasn't as good a county batsman as Hammond, Compton or May either.

Pitches abroad were usually comfortable for batting in the 1960s, unlike the previous decade, and Barrington took full advantage. In his own words, once he saw a flat surface he "booked in for bed and breakfast".
 
Last edited:

capt_Luffy

International Regular
This alone speaks to it being in its infancy
Kinda. It's not really like I am taking way many cricketers from its first 50-60 overarm years. Pre 1900s, I only rate Grace and Ranji this high, both with exceptional FC records head and shoulders above any contemporaries. It's not a mark for infancy, but imo when cricket really became modernish.
 

CricketFan90s

State Vice-Captain
That is correct. It took a long time for Barrington's reputation to grow.

England lost five consecutive home series to Australia, West Indies and South Africa in the 1960s and didn't lose any away. English pitches offered more assistance to fast bowlers like Hall, Griffith, Adcock and Peter Pollock. Barrington struggled against them at home, and also against left-armers Sobers, Goddard and Davidson who swung the ball in with favourable overhead conditions. He averaged 28 against West Indies and South Africa at home, and was dropped for the last three Tests of the 1966 series against West Indies.

Barrington's only hundred in England against Australia, West Indies or South Africa was on a Manchester featherbed when both sides scored over 600, Simpson made 311 for the opposition, and there was only time for two overs in the third innings. As far as home audiences were concerned, Barrington wasn't as good a county batsman as Hammond, Compton or May either.

Pitches abroad were usually comfortable for batting in the 1960s, unlike the previous decade, and Barrington took full advantage. In his own words, once he saw a flat surface he "booked in for bed and breakfast".
In that case
Kinda. It's not really like I am taking way many cricketers from its first 50-60 overarm years. Pre 1900s, I only rate Grace and Ranji this high, both with exceptional FC records head and shoulders above any contemporaries. It's not a mark for infancy, but imo when cricket really became modernish.
so what’s your England XI will be ? (They has to be younger to Don Bradman or started playing after ww2
 

capt_Luffy

International Regular
so what’s your England XI will be ? (They has to be younger to Don Bradman or started playing after ww2
  1. Len Hutton (c)
  2. Alastair Cook
  3. Denis Compton
  4. Joe Root
  5. Ken Barrington
  6. Ian Botham
  7. Alan Knott (wk)
  8. Fred Trueman
  9. Jim Laker
  10. James Anderson
  11. Bob Willis

Squad:
Geoff Boycott
Ben Stokes
Matt Prior
Brian Statham

Stokes comes in more bowlers friendly pitches for Willis.
 
Last edited:

CricketFan90s

State Vice-Captain
  1. Len Hutton (c)
  2. Alastair Cook
  3. Denis Compton
  4. Peter May
  5. Ken Barrington
  6. Ian Botham
  7. Alan Knott (wk)
  8. Fred Trueman
  9. Jim Laker
  10. James Anderson
  11. Bob Willis

Squad:
Geoff Boycott
Ben Stokes
Matt Prior
Brian Statham

Stokes comes in more bowlers friendly pitches for Willis.
Why do you rate highly compton and may. What’s the problem with Joe root ?
 

Top