Voting Thread- Quick ATG XI Draft- No Bradman (with a poll!)

[smalishah84]

dude.....you at least have one vote....I am a deserving member of the kk and kyear club

[kingkallis]

Lol

[Dan]

It comes down to the fact that each team has its weaknesses:

Jager - Lindsay probably batting a slot too high at 6. Miller allows flexibility, however.
Smali - Hanif isn't rated highly on CW, nor is Hayden. Inzy is out of position at 3. Doug Walters has to be the most overqualified sixth bowler ever, mind. Top bowling attack.
kyear2 - Tails off badly after de Villiers at 6. Top 6 is great, and the bowling attack is as good as you get.
Mine - Quite possibly a genuine fast bowler short, and the batting quality drops after the top 4, albeit running deep.
zaremba - Prior isn't rated highly as a 'keeper. Otherwise it bats to 10, and is fantastically well-balanced.
Monk - His entire middle order needs to bat at 3 or 4. Harvey and Sanga are out of position. Their quality, however, is unparalleled. Good bowling attack, too.
KK - Gilchrist too high at 6, Amla a weak point as current cricketers are generally not rated highly. Fantastically flexible bowling attack, with Compton and Border providing part-time spin options to complement Warne, and a good pace attack.
watson - Fredericks/Barlow opening is the weak point, but otherwise well balanced. Bats deep, plenty of bowling options.
Himmanv - Andy Flower as a wicketkeeper isn't rated highly, and he's batting out of position. Bats deep, 6 full-time bowling options (including Sobers), and a fantastic top order, with everyone in the right spot.

They are all extremely strong teams, and the differences are pedantic, but in a small draft all the teams come out relatively even in quality. Pedantic analysis is needed to come up with the best side.

Himmanv and zaremba came out with the best-balanced teams, IMO. Watson very, very close behind.

[AndyZaltzHair]

Can someone run down a sim? It would be nice to see the outcome just for fun

[fredfertang]

Seems to me that rvd's team is just about the strongest I've ever seen assembled in a CW draft - shameful he only has three votes!

[smalishah84]

It comes down to the fact that each team has its weaknesses:

Jager - Lindsay probably batting a slot too high at 6. Miller allows flexibility, however.
Smali - Hanif isn't rated highly on CW, nor is Hayden. Inzy is out of position at 3. Doug Walters has to be the most overqualified sixth bowler ever, mind. Top bowling attack.
kyear2 - Tails off badly after de Villiers at 6. Top 6 is great, and the bowling attack is as good as you get.
Mine - Quite possibly a genuine fast bowler short, and the batting quality drops after the top 4, albeit running deep.
zaremba - Prior isn't rated highly as a 'keeper. Otherwise it bats to 10, and is fantastically well-balanced.
Monk - His entire middle order needs to bat at 3 or 4. Harvey and Sanga are out of position. Their quality, however, is unparalleled. Good bowling attack, too.
KK - Gilchrist too high at 6, Amla a weak point as current cricketers are generally not rated highly. Fantastically flexible bowling attack, with Compton and Border providing part-time spin options to complement Warne, and a good pace attack.
watson - Fredericks/Barlow opening is the weak point, but otherwise well balanced. Bats deep, plenty of bowling options.
Himmanv - Andy Flower as a wicketkeeper isn't rated highly, and he's batting out of position. Bats deep, 6 full-time bowling options (including Sobers), and a fantastic top order, with everyone in the right spot.

They are all extremely strong teams, and the differences are pedantic, but in a small draft all the teams come out relatively even in quality. Pedantic analysis is needed to come up with the best side.

Himmanv and zaremba came out with the best-balanced teams, IMO. Watson very, very close behind.

Pretty good analysis I would say. Although Watson's bolwing attack trumps all I think

[8ankitj]

Seems to me that rvd's team is just about the strongest I've ever seen assembled in a CW draft - shameful he only has three votes!

You serious? Apart from Murali, he has just Lindwall as a top class test bowler. Woolley and Larwood have fairly ordinary bowling records in tests. Batting depth isn't exactly great either if it has depend on an uncapped Rice, and less than spectacular Jardine, Woolley and Evans. Not in top 3 teams even in this draft for mine, let alone across all drafts.

[watson]

It comes down to the fact that each team has its weaknesses:

Jager - Lindsay probably batting a slot too high at 6. Miller allows flexibility, however.
Smali - Hanif isn't rated highly on CW, nor is Hayden. Inzy is out of position at 3. Doug Walters has to be the most overqualified sixth bowler ever, mind. Top bowling attack.
kyear2 - Tails off badly after de Villiers at 6. Top 6 is great, and the bowling attack is as good as you get.
Mine - Quite possibly a genuine fast bowler short, and the batting quality drops after the top 4, albeit running deep.
zaremba - Prior isn't rated highly as a 'keeper. Otherwise it bats to 10, and is fantastically well-balanced.
Monk - His entire middle order needs to bat at 3 or 4. Harvey and Sanga are out of position. Their quality, however, is unparalleled. Good bowling attack, too.
KK - Gilchrist too high at 6, Amla a weak point as current cricketers are generally not rated highly. Fantastically flexible bowling attack, with Compton and Border providing part-time spin options to complement Warne, and a good pace attack.
watson - Fredericks/Barlow opening is the weak point, but otherwise well balanced. Bats deep, plenty of bowling options.
Himmanv - Andy Flower as a wicketkeeper isn't rated highly, and he's batting out of position. Bats deep, 6 full-time bowling options (including Sobers), and a fantastic top order, with everyone in the right spot.

They are all extremely strong teams, and the differences are pedantic, but in a small draft all the teams come out relatively even in quality. Pedantic analysis is needed to come up with the best side.

Himmanv and zaremba came out with the best-balanced teams, IMO. Watson very, very close behind.

Good description. However, regarding Monk; I don't think that it is possible for a batman to bat too low in the order. About the worse you can say is that you don't necessarily get full value for the players talent.

On-the-other-hand brilliant lower middle order batsman often look ordinary in positions 1-3. It is possible to bat too high in the order.

The thing about being able to play Harvey at No.6 is that it allows the captain the option of attacking the bowling just when the bowling is starting to tire and the ball is old. Ian Chappell used Doug Walters to great effect in this role. A real game changer.

Finally, I would agree with anyone who says that Spoffoth is an unknown quanity in Monk's team. However, the same applies for Grace, Trumper, Woolley, and Rice. All 4 are just as likely to fail as they are to play brilliantly. Although with Woolley you are more likely to give the benefit of doubt. He IS a great for sound reasons

And doubly finally, Sangakkara is a better batsman than Jardine by a country mile. Jardine can described as solid and dependable, but like that other great captain Mike Brearley lacked either the technique or the temperment to make a big score against quality bowlers. Over the course of a series the contribution of runs by Jardine will be mediocre at best.

[watson]

I do have a question for Jager....

Did picking Miller first-up create more problems than it solved?

It seems to me that their is a perennial problem regarding his batting position. If you put Miller at 5 or 6 then the top order is weakened because he only averages in the 30s. If you play him primarily as a bowler then potenially your attack in an ATG team is weakened because there are plenty of stronger bowlers out there to be picked.

I think the best combo could be;

6. Reasonable batsman but good with the ball (eg Faulkner)
7. Miller
8. Solid Batsman/Keeper who averages >30 (eg Knott)

With this combination you are not relying on Miller to be either a key batsman or bowler, but at the same time creating good batting and bowling strength around him.

I think your solution would also work Jager if you had a top class batsman/keeper like Gilchrist or Flower at No.6. I don't think that the selection of Lindsay quite cut-the-mustard. If your No.8 was a reasonable batsman then the Lindsay gamble may have worked. However, im my opinion Tayfield was a strategic error because his batting average of 16 was about half of what it should have been. In the end the team's tail became too long and this therefore allows the opposition to counter attack too readily. The team gives the perception of (potentially) 4 out, all out.

The upside is that any series involving your team would be exciting to watch. We could virtually guarantee a 3-2 or 2-3 result because your team would knock over the opposition batting line-up about as often as it would collapse.

[fredfertang]

You serious? Apart from Murali, he has just Lindwall as a top class test bowler. Woolley and Larwood have fairly ordinary bowling records in tests. Batting depth isn't exactly great either if it has depend on an uncapped Rice, and less than spectacular Jardine, Woolley and Evans. Not in top 3 teams even in this draft for mine, let alone across all drafts.

Absolutely - he has, by my biased judgment obviously, the greatest ever opening bat, probably the second greatest ever opening bat, the greatest captain, the greatest fast bowler, the greatest fast bowler's leading apprentice, the greatest orthodox slow left armer and the greatest off spinner. Macartney, Woolley, Miandad, Evans and Rice are all fine players as well

[fredfertang]

..... and he could even have improved it by having Stan McCabe rather than Rice, Woolley or Miandad

[Monk]

Absolutely - he has, by my biased judgment obviously, the greatest ever opening bat, probably the second greatest ever opening bat, the greatest captain, the greatest fast bowler, the greatest fast bowler's leading apprentice, the greatest orthodox slow left armer and the greatest off spinner. Macartney, Woolley, Miandad, Evans and Rice are all fine players as well

I really struggle to see how Jardine could be classified as the greatest captain. He was the perpetrator of the greatest scandal in cricket, and a "cheat" within the rules of the game. Bodyline was the most pissweak thing to happen in cricket, and the fact that laws were changed after it shows it for what it was. You could say Lindwall is the greatest quick ever, but you could also say Lillee, Marshall or about 10 others are. Fast bowler's leading apprentice? Agree Murali is the greatest off spinner (but he should have been banned).

Openers are top notch. Middle order is ok.

The thing about being able to play Harvey at No.6 is that it allows the captain the option of attacking the bowling just when the bowling is starting to tire and the ball is old. Ian Chappell used Doug Walters to great effect in this role. A real game changer.

Harvey could bat anywhere in the order, he was equally adept against spin or pace, on ****ty wickets he was a master. Having him bat at six is a massive boost. The only player I feel is slightly out of position in my top six is Sangakkara at #5, but I think he'd adapt ok.

[kyear2]

Absolutely - he has, by my biased judgment obviously, the greatest ever opening bat, probably the second greatest ever opening bat, the greatest captain, the greatest fast bowler, the greatest fast bowler's leading apprentice, the greatest orthodox slow left armer and the greatest off spinner. Macartney, Woolley, Miandad, Evans and Rice are all fine players as well

Really, My middle order, bowling attack and cordon is better than that one, regardless what the votes say, so to say its the best ever is a bit of a stretch. Watson and Jager both to be had better teams.

Also am I reading correct that you are calling Larwood the greatest ever fast bowler?

[fredfertang]

I really struggle to see how Jardine could be classified as the greatest captain. You could say Lindwall is the greatest quick ever, but you could also say Lillee, Marshall or about 10 others are. Fast bowler's leading apprentice? Agree Murali is the greatest off spinner (but he should have been banned).

I was referring to Lindwall as being Larwood's apprentice.

Jardine, of course, polarises opinion, but only one team ever beat Australia over an entire series in which Bradman played, and it was a hammering too, and without their skipper it certainly wouldn't have happened

[fredfertang]

Also am I reading correct that you are calling Larwood the greatest ever fast bowler?

Yup