The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[watson]

Look Pidge and Curtly, I think you guys are great, I really do, in fact I rate you the second and third best bowlers of all time narrowly ahead of a few others. BUT.. Even though we have Bradman and we've gone for the extra batting in Gilchrist, I really think its important that our number 10 and number 11 can make some more runs because I know if we don't make enough runs from Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, etc our number 10 and 11 will save us!


FTR, I don't believe McGrath and Ambrose are number 2 and 3 - but I think the above situation shows that you can't just think about batting when deciding on the eleven, there comes a time when picking the best bowlers is actually going to be very useful.

Agreed.

Or to be a bit more precise - there comes a time when picking the best combination of bowlers is actually going to be very useful.

 

[NUFAN]

how many genuine fast bowlers have a test bowling average of 15, strike rate 37 and a batting average of 25? as said understandably he's left out by many but he could clearly bat very well, and was a very very good bowler.

One.

How many genuine fast bowlers have had an excellent series and a half? Many.

 

[Gowza]

One.

How many genuine fast bowlers have had an excellent series and a half? Many.

dodging the point that he was a very capable batsman.

 

[Flem274*]

A lot of you are assuming Bowler X or Y is the best bowler ever by a clear margin.

There is very little difference between a collection of ATG bowlers on pure bowling alone. Every time we have a thread on the greatest bowler we get Marshall, Imran, Lillee, Barnes, McGrath, Hadlee, Larwood, Murali, Warne and more named as the greatest. Granted, depending on the flavour of the month or what age group you talk to sometimes you will get a consensus, but the difference is minimal. There is no Bradman of bowlers.

Most of us agree averages don't tell the entire story when it comes to batsmen. Many (actually probably most) for example rate Viv higher than Kallis despite Kallis having the superior average. I don't want to get into a Viv v Kallis debate here, I just pulled those names from the top of my head. My point is the small differences in career records, or who was faster, or who had the biggest outswinger mean very little because results wise the top echelon of bowlers are pretty much equal. I think Glenn McGrath is the best specialist bowler of all time but I could argue for days with someone who believes Marshall, Hadlee or Murali is and neither of us would ever be proven right. Find me a thread where someone won one of those arguments and I'll show you Sledger is a decent human being. Those bowlers did everything everywhere (cue Lillee-in-subcontinent argument...).

So say you pick McGrath because you think he is the best bowler, but you can't conclusively prove it, and in doing so you exclude a bowler who could also make a case for being the best but who is definitely superior with the bat. In my opinion you made the wrong call. If you have players of equal ability with equal records in one field then you choose the best in the others. Even if we're not selecting for PEWS' theoretical level above test cricket where you can't assume the other team doesn't have their own Bradman, or the bowling version of him, plus they have their own selection of all time greats, I would still argue for just a fun paper exercise ATG bowlers who can bat or field are more valuable and make the team better than ATG bowlers who can't.

I do the same thing with batsmen, hence Sobers, Kallis and Hammond all make my team.

 

[watson]

I think that Mike Procter is a bona fide ATG. But I still think that there are other ATG bowling-allrounders who deserve to be in the First or Second ATG XIs due to their weight of Test match performances.

 

[NUFAN]

dodging the point that he was a very capable batsman.

Oh sorry I thought I addressed the point when I likened his ability to score Test half centuries to that of a carbon rod.

But yes, Procter was a terrific first class cricketer who's batting was valuable at that level.

 

[Gowza]

Oh sorry I thought I addressed the point when I likened his ability to score Test half centuries to that of a carbon rod.

But yes, Procter was a terrific first class cricketer who's batting was valuable at that level.

like i respectfully said understandable for people to leave him out due to lack of test match exposure but, that doesn't mean he wasn't capable at that level, unproven for an extended period at that level yes but doesn't mean he couldn't do it. i'm not trying to force my opinion on anyone simply just giving my opinion. imo he would have performed very well as an all rounder at test level, you don't have to think that and that's fine.

 

[Gowza]

I think that Mike Procter is a bona fide ATG. But I still think that there are other ATG bowling-allrounders who deserve to be in the First or Second ATG XIs due to their weight of Test match performances.

that's fair enough.

 

[watson]

A lot of you are assuming Bowler X or Y is the best bowler ever by a clear margin.

There is very little difference between a collection of ATG bowlers on pure bowling alone. Every time we have a thread on the greatest bowler we get Marshall, Imran, Lillee, Barnes, McGrath, Hadlee, Larwood, Murali, Warne and more named as the greatest. Granted, depending on the flavour of the month or what age group you talk to sometimes you will get a consensus, but the difference is minimal. There is no Bradman of bowlers.

Most of us agree averages don't tell the entire story when it comes to batsmen. Many (actually probably most) for example rate Viv higher than Kallis despite Kallis having the superior average. I don't want to get into a Viv v Kallis debate here, I just pulled those names from the top of my head. My point is the small differences in career records, or who was faster, or who had the biggest outswinger mean very little because results wise the top echelon of bowlers are pretty much equal. I think Glenn McGrath is the best specialist bowler of all time but I could argue for days with someone who believes Marshall, Hadlee or Murali is and neither of us would ever be proven right. Find me a thread where someone won one of those arguments and I'll show you Sledger is a decent human being. Those bowlers did everything everywhere (cue Lillee-in-subcontinent argument...).

So say you pick McGrath because you think he is the best bowler, but you can't conclusively prove it, and in doing so you exclude a bowler who could also make a case for being the best but who is definitely superior with the bat. In my opinion you made the wrong call. If you have players of equal ability with equal records in one field then you choose the best in the others. Even if we're not selecting for PEWS' theoretical level above test cricket where you can't assume the other team doesn't have their own Bradman, or the bowling version of him, plus they have their own selection of all time greats, I would still argue for just a fun paper exercise ATG bowlers who can bat or field are more valuable and make the team better than ATG bowlers who can't.

I do the same thing with batsmen, hence Sobers, Kallis and Hammond all make my team.

The margin of difference between bowlers is about as great as the margin of difference between Imran or Marshall batting at No.8 - that is, about 18.8 runs on average.

Athough, to be fair, the amount of runs that Imran-Hadlee-Marshall-Warne combined would add to the team total (according to their batting averages) is 101.

The amount of runs that Marshall-Warne-Lillee-Barnes (my preferred attack) would add to the team total (according to their batting averages) is 58; a difference of 43 runs per innings. It is tempting to get excited about those extra 43 runs - but nah, still not worth the trade.

 

[NUFAN]

like i respectfully said understandable for people to leave him out due to lack of test match exposure but, that doesn't mean he wasn't capable at that level, unproven for an extended period at that level yes but doesn't mean he couldn't do it. i'm not trying to force my opinion on anyone simply just giving my opinion. imo he would have performed very well as an all rounder at test level, you don't have to think that and that's fine.

Yeah that's fair enough but batting wise unfortunately he didn't do it so since he didn't do it he has to be judged on his inability to score 50s at Test Cricket. Its similar to Garry Sobers and OD Cricket or a Subramaniam Badrinath in Test Cricket. Badrinath averages 60 in first class cricket, but I don't think he deserves to make an Indian Test team of the current century.

 

[harsh.ag]

Ode to an all-time XI:

Sir Jack and Len to open
as true champions of yore
they faced the two great wars
and are legends of folklore

Both await on the Don
at three lies a century
it is said he is a myth
from beyond the boundary

Unleashing hell at four
Sir Viv does saunter proud
attack him at your peril
he hooks straight in the crowd

At five is the prodigy
who got a nation high
with a hundred cracking hundreds
Sach did once make Warnie cry

At six is a bag of tricks
as only Sir Garry can define
he once hit six straight sixes
then bowled three kinds of rhyme

And Adam at seven (who plunders)
would keep the guard behind
as the gentle giant unfurling
the modern twirly mime

The playboy in at eight
who leads with a hint of reverse
the minstrels pen on Imran
a thousand glorious verse

Malcolm has a heart at nine
they said was open much
not a place exists in the land
its terror hasn't touched

The golden boy at ten
with a belly and a smile
he will twirl it with a heave
far beyond a mile

To end the line we have
Glen, the corridor of death
his tweaks and tricks were always
the source of Ashes wealth

These are the champions who make
the final eleven of ours
as CW pays homage
to the greats of all hours.

 

[smash84]

The margin of difference between bowlers is about as great as the margin of difference between Imran or Marshall batting at No.8 - that is, about 18.8 runs on average.

Athough, to be fair, the amount of runs that Imran-Hadlee-Marshall-Warne combined would add to the team total (according to their batting averages) is 101.

The amount of runs that Marshall-Warne-Lillee-Barnes (my preferred attack) would add to the team total (according to their batting averages) is 58; a difference of 43 runs per innings. It is tempting to get excited about those extra 43 runs - but nah, still not worth the trade.

 

[Gowza]

Yeah that's fair enough but batting wise unfortunately he didn't do it so since he didn't do it he has to be judged on his inability to score 50s at Test Cricket. Its similar to Garry Sobers and OD Cricket or a Subramaniam Badrinath in Test Cricket. Badrinath averages 60 in first class cricket, but I don't think he deserves to make an Indian Test team of the current century.

he can be judged however someone wants to. he scored a 48, 2 runs isn't much of a difference, if someone scores 99 are we going to say he can't score 100? he had an extensive FC career scoring mountains of runs and tons against quality bowlers in tough conditions. there are many ex players and cricket experts saying he was a very very good all rounder and batsman and that if he had played a full test career he very possibly could have been the closest to garry sobers as the next best all rounder. procter's test career was short for reasons other than having someone better in front of him and therefore not being selected. i think it's fair enough if someone wants to exclude him because he didn't prove himself, doesn't mean i can't include him though. players aren't picked purely on stat's, they're picked on stat's, opinions and what we see of them and when i look at all that i want him in my XI.

 

[NUFAN]

he can be judged however someone wants to. he scored a 48, 2 runs isn't much of a difference, if someone scores 99 are we going to say he can't score 100? he had an extensive FC career scoring mountains of runs and tons against quality bowlers in tough conditions. there are many ex players and cricket experts saying he was a very very good all rounder and batsman and that if he had played a full test career he very possibly could have been the closest to garry sobers as the next best all rounder. procter's test career was short for reasons other than having someone better in front of him and therefore not being selected. i think it's fair enough if someone wants to exclude him because he didn't prove himself, doesn't mean i can't include him though. players aren't picked purely on stat's, they're picked on stat's, opinions and what we see of them and when i look at all that i want him in my XI.

Of course he can be judged however someone wants to judge him, doesn't mean I can't respond factually with reasons why he doesn't make my team.

Can Shane Warne and Alex Tudor score Test hundreds? My answer is no.

 

[Coronis]

6 first class centuries in consecutive innings, in the Currie Cup season straight after his last test series. I'd say he would've been able to score a test century, if he'd played any more matches.

 

[marc71178]

Out of interest how strong was that competition though? Looking at the opposition in those games, I'm not entirely sure it was that high, especially as 2 of the 6 teams he played against were 'B' teams.

 

[watson]

The assumption is that the difference between ATG bowlers is miniscule while the difference in their batting is large. This is true some of the time but not all of the time.

In the case of Marshall and Imran, I would say that Marshall is a better bowler than Imran to the same or similar magnitude that Imran is a better batsman than Marshall. In the end the differences cancel eachother out in the context of occupying the No.8 spot.

But because I believe the emphasis should always be on taking 20 wickets, then I'm going to bias toward what I consider a better/greater attack. In the end you ask yourself the question, 'Who do I really want to open my bowling and bowl the opposition out - Marshall or Imran?'

 

[NUFAN]

Out of interest how strong was that competition though? Looking at the opposition in those games, I'm not entirely sure it was that high, especially as 2 of the 6 teams he played against were 'B' teams.

The standard of competition was below Test standard so while a terrific performance, it has nothing to do with his Test match batting ability.

 

[Coronis]

Out of interest how strong was that competition though? Looking at the opposition in those games, I'm not entirely sure it was that high, especially as 2 of the 6 teams he played against were 'B' teams.

I was under the impression that South Africa had one of the strongest domestic competitions in the 70's. Feel free to correct me.

 

[marc71178]

Looking at the cards from those matches, it did seem a case of men against boys in most of those matches (only batting 8 times in 6 matches because of skittling the opposition almost every time), so I'm significantly doubting the actual difficulty of this achievement.

With the current farcical franchise cricket getting FC status at the moment, I'm wondering what it was like back then, hence the question.