The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Flem274*]

Best eleven I've seen

1. Matt Hayden
2. Graeme Smith
3. Ricky Ponting
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. Brian Lara
6. Jacques Kallis
7. Adam Gilchrist
8. Shane Warne
9. Dale Steyn
10. Muttiah Muralitharan
11. Glenn McGrath

[Coronis]

Originally Posted by Daemon

Yeah I can barely recall Gilchrist, McGrath, Warne in Tests. Have a few memories for when Dad subscribed to the channel to watch the WC but that's about it. It's all muddled until about '08.

Yikes, I still remember watching Waugh play.

[morgieb]

Originally Posted by Flem274*

Best eleven I've seen

1. Matt Hayden
2. Graeme Smith
3. Ricky Ponting
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. Brian Lara
6. Jacques Kallis
7. Adam Gilchrist
8. Shane Warne
9. Dale Steyn
10. Muttiah Muralitharan
11. Glenn McGrath

Pretty much this.

[Daemon]

Originally Posted by Coronis

Yikes, I still remember watching Waugh play.

It's what you get for growing up in a non cricket playing country.

[Monk]

Originally Posted by Coronis

Yikes, I still remember watching Waugh play.

I must be old. I can remember the Border era clearly. The first time I payed real attention to the details of cricket was during the 1989 Ashes, but I can remember thinking the WIs were so cool when they were thrashing us in the 80s.

I guess my general life pessimism stems from the fact I saw my cricket team (Aus) getting thrashed through the 80s, while the Tiges were getting slaughtered by everyone in the footy as well.

[Daemon]

Was just watching this - Shivnarine Chanderpaul 100 off 69 balls 1st test vs Australia 2003 Guyana - YouTube

Where does Chanderpaul rank amongst the great Windies batsmen? Such a gun.

[kyear2]

For me, behind:
Headley, Weekes, Worrell, Walcott, Sobers, Kanhai, Lloyd, Richards, Greenidge, Lara.

[Coronis]

Personally, I'd have him above Kanhai, Lloyd, Greenidge and perhaps Worrell in that list.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Coronis

Personally, I'd have him above Kanhai, Lloyd, Greenidge and perhaps Worrell in that list.

Nah. Worrell's ridiculously underrated as a batsman because of the legacy he left as a man. Fantastically orthodox batsman, stylish, found gaps everywhere and near-unstoppable on his day. Can't rate his batting highly enough.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by kyear2

For me, behind:
Headley, Weekes, Worrell, Walcott, Sobers, Kanhai, Lloyd, Richards, Greenidge, Lara.

Yeah that's about right. I'd probably have him above Lloyd but it's a 50/50 call. Rest were better.

No slight on him obviously; a great batsman. Just plenty of competition.

[fredfertang]

Originally Posted by rvd619323

Nah. Worrell's ridiculously underrated as a batsman because of the legacy he left as a man. Fantastically orthodox batsman, stylish, found gaps everywhere and near-unstoppable on his day. Can't rate his batting highly enough.

No one ever seems to make the point, but Sir Frank's early performances with the bat were genuinely Bradmanesque - if he'd have had The Don's mentality his record would undoubtedly have surpassed Headley's (not that I'm suggesting he was a better bat than Atlas, 'cos I'm deliberately not expressing a view on that)

[8ankitj]

Why doesn't Walcott get into many people's AT XIs?

[watson]

Originally Posted by Daemon

Was just watching this - Shivnarine Chanderpaul 100 off 69 balls 1st test vs Australia 2003 Guyana - YouTube

Where does Chanderpaul rank amongst the great Windies batsmen? Such a gun.

Chanderpaul's stat's are mostly irrelevant for mine. If he batted like Weekes, Worrell, or Walcott then he would be in my Top 5 West Indian batsman for sure. But unfortunately his style is just plain ugly, and I can't put that out of my mind. The only other batsman that I can think of that is less pleasing to watch is Andrew Hilditch. While Chanderpaul stands completely chest-on to the bowler and shuffles like a crab, Hilditch used to stand arse-on to the bowler and twist his neck about180 degrees so he could see the ball coming. How he managed to play any on-drives was a complete mystery to me.

[sobers no:1]

Originally Posted by Coronis

Personally, I'd have him above Kanhai, Lloyd, Greenidge and perhaps Worrell in that list.

There is one player whose stats are really very good yet we tend to rate him below his contemporaries because of a limited look at the aggregate statistics.

No one denies that Frank Worrell was a world class batsman but it is a tendency by a majority of cricket fans to rate him, as a batsman, below the other two 'W's basically because of their career figures which read as under :-

Player	Tests	Runs	50's	100's	Avg

Weekes	48	4455	19	15	58.6
Walcott	44	3798	14	15	56.7
Worrell	51	3860	22	9	49.5

By any and every criteria, the stats appear to show Worrell's performance with the bat as being inferior to that of his illustrious colleagues. This is not borne out by a closer look at these figures.

While all three of them made their debut in the same year ,1948, they did not play all the series together. Worrell, particularly was unable to play in a few series, mostly because of his personal reasons - generally academic. Plus while Weekes retired in 1958 and Walcott in 1960, Worrell played till 1963 mainly because West Indies needed him to lead them as the first ever black captain of the West Indian cricket team.

The three series that Worrell missed were against the then minnows of Test cricket ;-

- India 1948-49 (5 Tests)
- Newzealand 1955-56 (4 Tests - Only Weekes played in this series)
- Pakistan 1957-58

Its interesting to note the number of runs Weekes and Walcott scored in these three series.

Player	Mts	Runs	100s	50s	Avg

Weekes	14	1652	8	4	86.9
Walcott	9	837	3	4	76.1

Clearly they made merry against the weak attacks. Take away these three series and the comparative figures of the three W's for 1948-1960 become :-

Player	Mts	Runs	100s	50s	Avg

Weekes	34	2803	7	15	49.2
Walcott	35	2961	12	10	52.9
Worrell	36	3011	9	12	52.8

Thats better but thats not all. There is more to it.

Walcott and Weekes were absolute butchers on the home tracks which in those years were as true batting wickets as you could get anywhere in the world. However, when playing away from home, these two were reduced to more mortal figures. Here is how the three W's fared at home and away during this period.

Player        	Mts	Runs	100s	50s	Avg

Weekes-Away	16	838	1	7	28.9
Weekes-Home	18	1965	6	8	70.2

Walcott-Away	14	762	2	3	33.1
Walcott-Home	21	2199	10	7	66.6

Worrell-Away	16	1459	5	5	54.0
Worrell-Home	20	1552	4	7	51.7

The difference is too stark to require any comment and shows the relative batting strengths of the three in true light.

As I have always maintained, statistics rarely tell you everything although you can see a bit (just a bit) more out of them if you are willing to look a bit more carefully.

I had always, as a youngster been amazed at how much Worrell's batting was written in glowing terms while the same were not used for his two contemporaries. Then came internet and the ease with which one could look at all statistics in far greater detail and one saw the difference even in the figures - although by all accounts, Worrell's fabulous batting was difficult to capture in numbers.

[sobers no:1]

^^^ done by SJS

The stats do not do him justice!