The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Jager]

Country-based 11s, 12/02/2012. I will nominate the opening bowlers and first change bowler with 1, 2 and 3, then when it is unclear who would bowl next, the rest of the bowlers will get 4's because it'd be up to the captain. In some cases there will be 5th bowlers who are there as partnership breakers - in that case, they'll get 5s.

Australia
1. Trumper
2. Simpson - 4 ^
3. Bradman*
4. Chappell ^
5. Miller - 3 ^
6. Border
7. Tallon +
8. Davidson - 1
9. Warne - 4 ^
10. O'Reilly - 4
11. McGrath - 2

12. Benaud

I wanted Benaud to captain but Warne and O'Reilly being guaranteed selections messed that up. McGrath edges Lindwall and Lillee by the narrowest of margins - just imagine the pressure of Pidge, Warne, Davidson and O'Reilly - you'd imagine they'd attack Miller and I am very confident that'd be a bad idea. Trumper and Simpson were relatively easy picks for me - Hayden, Woodfull and Ponsford did come close though. Chappell and Border are the Roebuck rocks in my middle order to keep Miller settled - his bowling would only be in short bursts and could therefore focus his energy on extracting the most out of his prodigious batting talent.

England
1. Jack Hobbs
2. Herbert Sutcliffe
3. Len Hutton*
4. Wally Hammond - 5 ^
5. Ken Barrington ^
6. Denis Compton ^
7. Alan Knott +
8. Harold Larwood - 2
9. Fred Trueman - 1
10. Jim Laker - 4
11. Sydney Barnes - 3

12. Hedley Verity

Verity only misses out because of Barnes moving the ball away from the right-handed batsman - whilst Verity is one of my all-time favourites, I do believe he played in an era where left-arm orthodox spinning was very much in vogue because of the tendencies of the pitches to dry out and turn outside off stump - bowling around the wicket in that situation was deadly. Peter May is extremely hard done by getting left out here. A relatively weak slip cordon here, though.

West Indies
1. Gordon Greenidge
2. Condrad Hunte
3. George Headley
4. Brian Lara ^
5. Viv Richards ^
6. Garfield Sobers* - 5 ^
7. Jeffrey Dujon +
8. Malcolm Marshall - 1
9. Joel Garner - 2
10. Curtly Ambrose - 3
11. Lance Gibbs - 4

12. Michael Holding

I'll always pick a specialist spinner. Marshall bowling with the wind, Garner bowling into the wind as he surprisingly preferred - it makes a deadly prospect. Ambrose as first change is something I was troubled by, but I think his remarkable career puts him in a slightly higher bracket than Holding - his stats at first change were enough to convince me. Perhaps it riled him being used like that, but a strike rate of 41 and an average of 18 is enough for me, albeit from a sample size of nine matches.

South Africa
1. Barry Richards
2. Bruce Mitchell ^
3. Jacques Kallis - 4 ^
4. Graeme Pollock
5. Dudley Nourse
6. Aubrey Faulkner - 4
7. John Waite +
8. Mike Procter - 1 ^
9. Shaun Pollock* - 3
10. Hugh Tayfield - 4
11. Allan Donald - 2

12. Dale Steyn

Shaun Pollock makes this team in somewhat contentious circumstances - his main purpose here is variety, with Donald and Procter being huge swingers of the ball, Pollock's corridor bowling is an important factor in stabilising the attack. Steyn massively hard done by and would be rotating into the team frequently. Herbie Taylor was unfortunate to miss out but Faulkner's bowling is very important.

Pakistan
1. Saeed Anwar
2. Hanif Mohammad
3. Inzamam-ul-Haq ^
4. Younis Khan ^
5. Javed Miandad ^
6. Mushtaq Mohammad - 4
7. Imran Khan* - 1
8. Wasim Akram - 2
9. Wasim Bari +
10. Saqlain Mushtaq - 4
11. Waqar Younis - 3

12. Fazal Mahmood

That really hurts to leave Fazal out, I think he'd provide spectacular balance for the attack. Tough deciding on them slip fielders, too.

India
1. Sunil Gavaskar
2. Virender Sehwag - 5 ^
3. Rahul Dravid ^
4. Sachin Tendulkar - 5
5. Vijay Hazare
6. VVS Laxman ^
7. Kapil Dev* - 1
8. Syed Kirmani +
9. Anil Kumble - 3
10. Zaheer Khan - 2
11. Erapalli Prasanna - 4

12. Vinoo Mankad

Weak attack, that - at least in comparison to the others. Definitely the bottom of the pile out of the six I've done tonight.

Will continue the rest tomorrow. Will happily justify any of my selections if anyone wants to query them

[MrPrez]

For the SA one I guess I can see your Pollock stance even though every bone in me feels outraged at Steyn not getting a game

Taylor or Amla for the 6th spot for mine though, we already have Kallis as a genuine fifth bowler - Faulkner at 6 over a genuine batsman when we have Kallis doesn't do it for me. It feels a bit like de ja vu with the whole Miller debate.

[Marcuss]

I don't like Kallis at 3 either

[MrPrez]

Ooh yeah skimmed right over that. Pollock 3 Kallis 4 for me.

[Howe_zat]

Why Younis ahead of Yousuf, especially if yo're batting him at 4?

[Monk]

Pollock never batted at #3 in tests (always 4 or 5), and Kallis spent quite a bit of time there (averaging 50).

Jager's got it right there.

[Cabinet96]

Am I the only one tempted to bat Smith at 3 and drop one of the all rounders? Or even Tayfield?

[MrPrez]

Originally Posted by Cabinet96

Am I the only one tempted to bat Smith at 3 and drop one of the all rounders? Or even Tayfield?

Ugh, not a chance.

Always though Pollock played a bit of no3, obviously not. Oops.

[sobers no:1]

Originally Posted by Monk

Can you please quote the experts who have specifically said Gavaskar was greater than Chappell? With a reference?

And your opinion on Bradman is absolutely and utterly ridiculous. What an absolute crock of crap. So, Bradman, who averaged 100 in one particular era, would average "50+" now, but Hammond who played in basically the same era as Bradman and averaged 50 something, would still average "50+" now?

How the **** could you possibly justify that assumption that would be in anyway logical?

ESPN's Legends of Cricket

Sobers rates Gavaskar as the greatest batsman

Sunny Gavaskar, the greatest batsman ever? | The Roar

Cricket Web - Features: Sunil Gavaskar - Where does he sit in the Hall of Fame?

this wont prove anythng .. i knw and i cudn't find mor, honestly i hv seen similar articles on viv , lara , sachin , don , sobers , barry , pollock etc.. but never heard anyone saying ponting , dravid , chappell ..etc as greatest ever / 2nd greatest ever..


don - hammond
they were highest quality batsmen = 55+ avg (current situation)
one utilized the less competitive situation . ( like hobbs after 40 , wg , sfb, headley , merchant..etc . " he scores goals like runs in cricket" bradman's comment on dhyanchand.. dhyanchandh was infinitely better than contemporaries . these kind of things happens mostly with amature conditions. - i knw some exceptions in sergey boobka , muralitharan..etc. i can see hammond bettering himself to cop up with higher standards and bradman who was an extreme professional getting reduced to human against more competitive opponents.

supporting evidents
bradman was not the master in all conditions
headley of a minnow team in his peak was not too bad compared to don (don 90 ??, headley 80 ??against eng)
also WG's supremacy over his peers

may b i'm plain wrong.. may b..

[Monk]

I think Gavaskar is a great cricketer, but it's well know the WIs thing has been overplayed.

History of Cricket: The Myth of Sunil Gavaskar and the West Indies Quicks

The Myth of Sunil Gavaskar and the West Indies Quicks
Sunny Gavaskar is, without doubt, one of the greatest batsmen of all-time. Gavaskar is a true legend of the game. His technique was near faultless, and when combined with limitless patience, you had the mould for the perfect opening batsman. Gavaskar’s test career saw a total of 10122 runs at an average of 51.12, with an astounding 34 test centuries.

Gavaskar retired from test cricket in 1987, and therefore his era would appear to almost completely coincide with the great Windies bowling lineups of the late 70s and 80s. In 27 tests against the West Indies, Gavaskar scored an almost unbelievable 2749 runs at an average of 65.45, with an astonishing 13 centuries. These statistics are often used by fans and supporters to underline his claims as the greatest opening batsman of all-time. However, one of the great myths that has grown up about Gavaskar is his amazing dominance of the otherwise unconquered West Indian four pronged pace battery that these statistics would suggest. If you break down the actual series that he played, Gavaskar’s record doesn’t quite look as impressive as a first glance would indicate.

Gavaskar made his debut for India against the West Indies on the 6th of March, 1971 at Port of Spain. He played four tests, and finished the series with an impressive total of 774 runs at the astronomical average of 154.80 with four centuries. During this series, the West Indies were in a state of change. The leading pacemen of the 60s including Hall, Griffith and Gilchrist had all played their final test. The Windies bowling attack was dominated by spin, with Lance Gibbs well on his way to passing Fred Trueman as the leading test wicket-taker. The fast bowlers that Gavaskar faced during this series were Keith Boyce, Grayson Shillingford, Vanburn Holder and Uton Dowe (he of the 11th Commandment – Dowe shall not bowl). The other medium paced bowlers used included Gary Sobers and John Shepard. With all due respect to the bowlers of the time, it was hardly an attack to cause significant concerns to a player of Gavaskar’s obvious skill.

Gavaskar only played two tests of the 1974/75 home series against the West Indies. He struggled, scoring 108 runs at an average of just 27. The quick bowlers he faced in this series included a young Andy Roberts, and the medium paced Holder, Boyce and left armer Bernard Julien. Gavaskar’s next series against the West Indies was again away from home in 1975/76. Gavaskar again batted beautifully, scoring 390 runs at 55.71, with another two centuries. By this time, the Windies fast bowling battery was just starting to take form. The first two Tests saw Gavaskar opening the batting against genuine quicks Michael Holding and Andy Roberts. In support was swing bowler Julien, and spinners Holford and Jumadeen. After disappointing initially with 37 and 1 in the First Test, Gavaskar did score a wonderful 156 in the second. The Third and Fourth Tests saw no Andy Roberts, with Michael Holding in his second series as a Windies player supported by Wayne Daniel, Holder, Julien, Jumadeen, Albert Padmore and Imtiaz Ali. There was not yet any sign of the four pronged pace attack that would soon dominate the cricket world.

The West Indies then toured India in 1978/79. This tour was in the middle of the Packer years, and the West Indies bowling attack was decimated. Rather than facing Holding, Roberts, Garner and Croft, Gavaskar opened the batting in the First Test against the legendary Norbert Phillip, his old nemesis Vanburn Holder, and Sylvester Clarke. The Windies attack again had reverted to spin, with Derek Parry and Jumadeen both playing. Gavaskar again gorged himself, scoring 732 runs at 91.50, with another 4 centuries. A very young Malcolm Marshall made his debut during this very high scoring six test series that India won 1-0, with five draws.

Gavaskar’s second last series against the Windies was away in 1982/83. He scored 240 runs at an average of 30, with one century. Against the full might of the Windies four quicks (Holding, Roberts, Garner and Marshall), he scored 20 and 0 in the First Test, 1 and 32 in the Second, a very good 147 not out in the Third (which was badly affected by weather and India didn’t even finish their first innings), 2 and 19 in the Fourth, and 18 and 1 in the Fifth. This was the first time Gavaskar had played against all of the Windies quicks, and he clearly struggled.

In 1983/84, Gavaskar played the Windies for the last time. This series was at home, and the bowling attack was weakened by the absence of Garner. In the first test, the Windies fielding four quicks, but whilst Holding and Marshall were genuinely fast, neither Eldine Baptiste or Winston Davis really threatened. Gavaskar started poorly with 0 and 7 in the First Test, before finding some form with 121 and 15 in the Second, and 90 and 1 in the Third. 12, 3, 0 and 20 were his scores in the next two tests, before Gavaskar played one of his great knocks. In the final test, he dropped himself down the order to no. 4, with Gaekwad and Sidhu opening. The fact that Malcolm Marshall took two wickets without a run being scored meant that Gavaskar may as well have opened anyway. Gavaskar proceeded to totally dominate the Windies attack and scored a wonderful 236 not out. This was a fantastic innings, and underlined why Gavaskar is a great. There is a wonderful account of this innings at 29 that is highly recommended reading. Unfortunately, his previous failures in the series were effectively covered up by this large unbeaten double century.

When you examine the record of Gavaskar against the West Indies, it is clear that only the final three centuries were actually scored against an attack that resembled the fearsome Windies pace barrage that we remember. A large percentage of his runs were accumulated in two series against very much weakened bowling attacks. As a consequence of factors outside of his control, Gavaskar didn’t play against the Windies full strength team between 1975/76 and 1982/83. This analysis is not to decry Gavaskar – he is a legend of the game and deserves ultimate respect for what he has achieved. He could, after all, not control who he played against. A very strong argument can be made that Gavaskar should be considered of the best few opening batsmen in the history of the game. However, the claims made by some supporters that he is the greatest opener of all-time based solely on his record against the Windies is one that simply does not hold up to closer scrutiny.

[Coronis]

Pollock was definitely a specialist #4. So, its fine to have Hammond as the third pacer for England, but not Sobers as a third pacer for a World XI?

[kyear2]

Originally Posted by watson

I judge a player over his whole career out of fairness. If a player like Curtly Ambrose was great from the beginning of his career to the end of the career then he deserves to be in the ATG side ahead of Jeff Thomson. This is despite the fact that for about 2 years in the mid-70s Thomo was palpably the better fast bowler. As a couple of dozen English and West Indian batsman would testify.

However, when things are roughly equal, as in Tendulkar V Lara, then I am going to gravitate toward Lara because on his 'good days' he was truly stunning.

What I was saying is that players are selected based on the merits of their entire career, but once selected you are choosing them at their very best.

[watson]

Originally Posted by kyear2

What I was saying is that players are selected based on the merits of their entire career, but once selected you are choosing them at their very best.

Then we agree again kyear - as usual.

[harsh.skm]

Originally Posted by kyear2

What I was saying is that players are selected based on the merits of their entire career, but once selected you are choosing them at their very best.

But this does not make any sense, sir. If you knew, a priori, that you would be choosing the selected players at their very best, rather than not having a choice which version of them will walk out, then why would you not pick the person who had the highest peak, like Waqar, Botham and Lara compared to Wasim, Miller and Sachin, for example? There is no incentive to take into account the entire career during selection if you are going to then choose them at their best. Or am I being thick here?

[Jager]

Originally Posted by harsh.skm

But this does not make any sense, sir. If you knew, a priori, that you would be choosing the selected players at their very best, rather than not having a choice which version of them will walk out, then why would you not pick the person who had the highest peak, like Waqar, Botham and Lara compared to Wasim, Miller and Sachin, for example? There is no incentive to take into account the entire career during selection if you are going to then choose them at their best. Or am I being thick here?

Exactly what I was thinking, Waqar, Botham, Lara, Macartney etc. would all be selected because of their stunning peaks and that their career records are still good enough to be in ATG contention.