The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[centurymaker]

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?

yeah exactly, you don't pick them assuming that they'll be playing at their peak. There's no logic otherwise.

it's the whole career.

[Jager]

Originally Posted by 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.

If I was going to play anyone at 6, it'd be Taylor or De Villiers - Amla's got to be in the top order for me, it's his zone. I really do think Steyn's done enough to be in the side too, it's just that team balance comes before personal preference here.

[Jager]

How I rank my teams at a glance

Batting
Australia
South Africa
England
West Indies
India
Pakistan

Bowling
Australia
Pakistan
South Africa
West Indies
England
India

Fielding
Australia
West Indies
South Africa
England
India
Pakistan

[kyear2]

Originally Posted by centurymaker

yeah exactly, you don't pick them assuming that they'll be playing at their peak. There's no logic otherwise.

it's the whole career.

What myself and Watson is saying is that they are selected based on their entire career, but when we go into the time capsule to gather them all to play againts the Mars XI, once they have been selected based on their entire career, you are not going to pick Imran from '83 when he couldn't bowl, or Richards fr '90 when he was ready to and should have retired or Sachin during his early 2000's slump. That makes no sense.

You don't pick them assuming they will be playing at their peak, but once you do pick them you want Marshall fr '83/84 not '91.

[harsh.skm]

Originally Posted by kyear2

What myself and Watson is saying is that they are selected based on their entire career, but when we go into the time capsule to gather them all to play againts the Mars XI, once they have been selected based on their entire career, you are not going to pick Imran from '83 when he couldn't bowl, or Richards fr '90 when he was ready to and should have retired or Sachin during his early 2000's slump. That makes no sense.

You don't pick them assuming they will be playing at their peak, but once you do pick them you want Marshall fr '83/84 not '91.

Ok. Say we follow this process. Then, during the initial selection of the XI, what incentive do you have to pick Wasim over Waqar? Or Sachin over Lara? Almost 0, right? This is the reason I don't pick Imran as a bowler in my XI, but prefer Hadlee coming in at number 8.

[watson]

Originally Posted by kyear2

What myself and Watson is saying is that they are selected based on their entire career, but when we go into the time capsule to gather them all to play againts the Mars XI, once they have been selected based on their entire career, you are not going to pick Imran from '83 when he couldn't bowl, or Richards fr '90 when he was ready to and should have retired or Sachin during his early 2000's slump. That makes no sense.

You don't pick them assuming they will be playing at their peak, but once you do pick them you want Marshall fr '83/84 not '91.

That's right. I would also say that's it is a case of fairness coming first.

Which incidently, is why I have a problem selecting Ian Botham ahead of the other great allrounders. You have to disregard the latter half of career because it was mediocre at best. Only prior to 1983/84 did he achieve a level of greatness. And disregarding about 50% is not very good at all.

[watson]

Originally Posted by harsh.skm

Ok. Say we follow this process. Then, during the initial selection of the XI, what incentive do you have to pick Wasim over Waqar? Or Sachin over Lara? Almost 0, right? This is the reason I don't pick Imran as a bowler in my XI, but prefer Hadlee coming in at number 8.

All selection processes follow the personal tastes and preferences of the selector to some degree. In other words, there is no such thing as a purely objective selection process, although some experts come closer than others.

So for example; a selector who has a conservative personality will automatically feel more content with Sachin because is a steady reliable player as well as being brilliant.

Likewise, personalities who enjoy risk taking, and are the opposite of conservative, will be more likely to choose a more mercurial player like Brian Lara.

Indeed, logic sometimes gets left behind (a rightly so) as we choose our teams. In other words, selecting an ATG batsman can be like selecting a girlfriend. You don't know exactly why you like her, you just do, end of story.

[harsh.skm]

Originally Posted by watson

All selection processes follow the personal tastes and preferences of the selector to some degree. In other words, there is no such thing as a purely objective selection process, although some experts come closer than others.

So for example; a selector who has a conservative personality will automatically feel more content with Sachin because is a steady reliable player as well as being brilliant.

Likewise, personalities who enjoy risk taking, and are the opposite of conservative, will be more likely to choose a more mercurial player like Brian Lara.

Indeed, logic sometimes gets left behind (a rightly so) as we choose our teams. In other words, selecting an ATG batsman can be like selecting a girlfriend. You don't know exactly why you like her, you just do, end of story.

Ok, even though what you have said above is completely true, I don't think you have addressed my original concern.

Yes, choosing the players of an ATG XI is a slightly whimsical process. But, the issue here is not that. The issue here is, if you assume, beforehand, that the players selected in the team will be performing at their peak, then this provides an incentive effect, not just to the risk takers (as you have described them), but also to the conservatives to pick Waqar and Lara (who would have otherwise picked Sachin, or Wasim).

Don't you think so?

[Coronis]

Originally Posted by Jager

How I rank my teams at a glance

Batting
Australia
South Africa
England
West Indies
India
Pakistan

Bowling
Australia
Pakistan
South Africa
West Indies
England
India

Fielding
Australia
West Indies
South Africa
England
India
Pakistan

Aussies on top, big surprise Seems like a fairly big gap between the top 5 and Pakistan in batting, likewise with India in bowling.

[Prince EWS]

I'd put NZ ahead of India in terms of bowling tbh. In fact I think they're close to the other five than they are India. Hadlee and Cowie are complete guns.

[Jager]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

I'd put NZ ahead of India in terms of bowling tbh. In fact I think they're close to the other five than they are India. Hadlee and Cowie are complete guns.

AWTA, and Bond too.

[Mike5181]

Hadlee/Cowie/Bond would be pretty epic.

[kyear2]

Think it is time for the New Zealand or Sri Lankan teams Monk.

[watson]

Originally Posted by harsh.skm

Ok, even though what you have said above is completely true, I don't think you have addressed my original concern.

Yes, choosing the players of an ATG XI is a slightly whimsical process. But, the issue here is not that. The issue here is, if you assume, beforehand, that the players selected in the team will be performing at their peak, then this provides an incentive effect, not just to the risk takers (as you have described them), but also to the conservatives to pick Waqar and Lara (who would have otherwise picked Sachin, or Wasim).

Don't you think so?

I understand now - and yes, I think that you're correct.

Which is why, incidently, that Shane Bond is currently getting such high praise. On good days when Bond was unimpeded by injury he was a truly great bowler. But in reality there were not enough of those good days to make an open-and-shut case. Hence we go with our instinctual feelings that he belongs in the category marked great.

[Monk]

Originally Posted by kyear2

Think it is time for the New Zealand or Sri Lankan teams Monk.

Sure thing. Will do later in the week.