The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[NUFAN]

West Indies all rounder XI
1. Chris Gayle
2. Frank Worrell
3. Marlon Samuels
4. Garry Sobers
5. Clyde Walcott
6. Collie Smith
7. Gerry Gomez
8. Learie Constantine
9. Bernard Julien
10. Roger Harper
11. Malcolm Marshall

Darren Bravo, Darren Sammy and Carl Hooper are all in with a shot and I think Carl Hooper really deserves a spot over Samuels but Marlon fits the need for a top order spot more so than Hooper. Let me know if you think I'm using the term all rounder too loosely with including Marshall.

 

[bagapath]

From all these teams if we were to keep 2 options for each position the pool will look like

2 Openers

Hobbs
Hutton
Gavaskar
B. Richards

3 Middle Order batters

Bradman
V. Richards
Tendulkar
Lara
Pollock
Hammond

1 All-rounder

Sobers
Imran

1 Wicket Keeper

Gilchrist
Knott

3 Fast bowlers

Lillee
McGrath
Marshall
Hadlee
Barnes
Ambrose

1 Spinner

Warne
Murali

 

[kyear2]

More I read about Barry Richards the more I believe that he deserves a spot on the first team with Hutton. Hobbs was without doubt the greatest opener, but was he one of the two best?

Peers, past and present, talk about Barry Richards [Archive] - Indian Cricket Fans

The ones that stands out to me the most is Hutton and Lillee.

 

[fredfertang]

More I read about Barry Richards the more I believe that he deserves a spot on the first team with Hutton. Hobbs was without doubt the greatest opener, but was he one of the two best?

Peers, past and present, talk about Barry Richards [Archive] - Indian Cricket Fans

The ones that stands out to me the most is Hutton and Lillee.

Gooch and Lillee nail it - he made batting look so simple unlike, for example, Geoffrey Boycott, who made it look decidedly tricky, or Viv Richards, who made it look like you had to be a very special sort of human being to do it well

 

[bagapath]

Barry Richards is a top contender for an All-time First Class XI for sure....

Hutton, Hobbs, Gavaskar, Hayden, Greenidge, Smith, Trumper, Sutcliffe and Sehwag achieved a lot lot more in test cricket than him and should always be considered before him in any test XI.

After four tests - the length of Barry's career - Gavaskar had a superior record than Barry

 

[bagapath]

ASIAN XI

Gavaskar
Sehwag
Dravid
Tendulkar
Miandad
Sangakara (wk)
Imran (c)
Kapil
Shakib
Akram
Murali

 

[kyear2]

Gavaskar
Merchant
Dravid
Tendulkar
Sangakkara
Miandad
Imran
Engineer
Wasim
Muralitharan
Waqar

 

[kyear2]

South African XI

Barry Richards
Bruce Mitchell
Hashim Amla
Graeme Pollock
Jacques Kallis
Dudley Nourse
Mike Procter
John Waite
Dale Steyn
Hugh Tayfield
Allan Donald

Isn't this better than the one just voted for? A specialist three and stonger #6

 

[Furball]

Nor do I, but the side needed an opener and I wanted Macartney to be godly at #3.

Doesn't explain why Watson's there.

 

[harsh.ag]

Barry Richards is a top contender for an All-time First Class XI for sure....

Hutton, Hobbs, Gavaskar, Hayden, Greenidge, Smith, Trumper, Sutcliffe and Sehwag achieved a lot lot more in test cricket than him and should always be considered before him in any test XI.

After four tests - the length of Barry's career - Gavaskar had a superior record than Barry

The man who achieved the most while batting in test cricket placed Barry Richards as the best right handed opener he had ever seen, better than Hobbs, Hutton and Sunny. The teammates at Hampshire who saw Greenidge and Barry bat together thought Barry was obviously better. Show respect for a genius, friend, especially when other genius stands up to salute him. The majority of greats wouldn't go shooting their mouths off for the sake of a fella who hadn't played test cricket if that fella wasn't in the best-of-the-best category. Barry is in the same class, if not above, Sunny, Hutton and Hobbs. That is not a subjective opinion, i.e. it's not XBox v PS. .

 

[Flem274*]

But we tear into what former players say about the modern game during commentary all the time. Why should ATGs be any different?

Bagapath has a very good point.

 

[bagapath]

The man who achieved the most while batting in test cricket placed Barry Richards as the best right handed opener he had ever seen, better than Hobbs, Hutton and Sunny. The teammates at Hampshire who saw Greenidge and Barry bat together thought Barry was obviously better. Show respect for a genius, friend, especially when other genius stands up to salute him. The majority of greats wouldn't go shooting their mouths off for the sake of a fella who hadn't played test cricket if that fella wasn't in the best-of-the-best category. Barry is in the same class, if not above, Sunny, Hutton and Hobbs. That is not a subjective opinion, i.e. it's not XBox v PS. .

The same man chose Alec Bedser over Marshall, Hadlee, Imran and McGrath. He also preferred Tallon to Gilchrist. That was a team "not even a mother would like".

My argument is not about whether Barry was great or not. It is only about whether we can consider him at all while discussing test cricket. I am not sure 4 tests mean anything at all. It is like judging Marshall from his one series in New Zealand or rating Gavaskar after his debut series in which he scored 774 runs. We should not use first class stats to extrapolate someone's standards in international cricket. Barry never had to deal with Bedi-Chandra in India or Imran in Karachi or Garner-Holding in Bridgetown. He was a terrific batsman in FC cricket. The argument starts and ends there.

 

[Coronis]

To be fair, Gilchrist had only played test cricket for a year or two before Bradman died.

 

[watson]

The same man chose Alec Bedser over Marshall, Hadlee, Imran and McGrath. He also preferred Tallon to Gilchrist. That was a team "not even a mother would like".

My argument is not about whether Barry was great or not. It is only about whether we can consider him at all while discussing test cricket. I am not sure 4 tests mean anything at all. It is like judging Marshall from his one series in New Zealand or rating Gavaskar after his debut series in which he scored 774 runs. We should not use first class stats to extrapolate someone's standards in international cricket. Barry never had to deal with Bedi-Chandra in India or Imran in Karachi or Garner-Holding in Bridgetown. He was a terrif batsman in FC cricket. The argument starts and ends there.

It is obvious that it is more reliable and satisfactory to select a player for an ATG team based on the facts of his documented Test career. However, this still doesn't prohibit the need for a large amount of extrapolation.

After all, the era that Jack Hobbs played in is vastly different to the era that Sunil Gavaskar played in. We therefore make a subjective judgement that the inherent skill and superb technique of Jack Hobbs would be enough such that he would make runs against the same bowlers that Sunil Gavaskar had to face - Snow, Lillee, Roberts, Marshall. And of course vice versa - we make a subjective judgement that Sunil Gavaskar would make runs with 'backward' equipment on a 'sticky wicket' against Arthur Mailey and Jack Gregory. Again, we extrapolate that Gavaskar's inherent skill and superb technique would enough to 'get him through'.

In other words, all ATGs are selected after a fair amount of extrapolation and subjective assessment. With Barry Richards it's just a bit more than usual, that's all. Rather, the problem that I have with selecting Barry Richards in my ATG First XI has more to do with the issue of fairness, because it feels like I am giving a student an A+ pass when he hasn't done his assignments.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Here is an interesting all-rounder atxi for england:

W G Grace
Wilfred Rhodes

Wally Hammond
Frank Woolley
George Ulyett

Tony Greig
Ian Botham
Andrew Flintoff
George Hirst

Alan Knott (w)
Maurice Tate

12th man: Trevor Bailey

Nice team Hell could dance with the best of them.

Probably Stanley Jackson in place of George Ulyett for strengthening batting a bit

 

[NUFAN]

Barry is in the same class, if not above, Sunny, Hutton and Hobbs. That is not a subjective opinion, i.e. it's not XBox v PS. .

Can Barry Richards handle backing up from a good series? Can he make any Test runs outside the comforts of South Africa? Since he has scored the same number of runs away from home as my bedside lamp has, it is without doubt a subjective opinion.

Barry Richards is a top contender for an All-time First Class XI for sure....

Hutton, Hobbs, Gavaskar, Hayden, Greenidge, Smith, Trumper, Sutcliffe and Sehwag achieved a lot lot more in test cricket than him and should always be considered before him in any test XI.

After four tests - the length of Barry's career - Gavaskar had a superior record than Barry

Yeah this is exactly my thoughts too. I would also include the likes of Cook, Smith, Slater, Turner, Jayasuriya, Kirsten, Taylor etc as more successful Test Cricketers. Anyone who had a good career over an extended period of time basically is ahead of Richards.

Rather, the problem that I have with selecting Barry Richards in my ATG First XI has more to do with the issue of fairness, because it feels like I am giving a student an A+ pass when he hasn't done his assignments.

Exactly, so why give him an A+ equivalent by selecting him in your best team?

 

[Gowza]

so it's fair enough to have tendulkar opening in an all time team when he's done it once and scored 15, yet barry richards has done it more and averaged comfortably over 70 and he shouldn't be there? barry is the more successful test opener and therefore a more deserving all time team opener than tendulkar, yeah tendulkar has scored a bucket load of test runs, but he hasn't done it as opener.

 

[Red]

It's pretty simple for me. The more I've learnt about Barry Richards, the more I consider him to be the best opening batsman of all time (Hutton, Hobbs, Sutcliffe and Greenidge all around the same mark).

I don't really care that he only played 4 tests. There is really no doubt in my mind that if he'd played 100 tests, he would've still been my benchmark for opening batsmen. He was an unreal talent, and his lack of test cricket opportunities is one of the great disappointments for cricket fans.

 

[harsh.ag]

The same man chose Alec Bedser over Marshall, Hadlee, Imran and McGrath. He also preferred Tallon to Gilchrist. That was a team "not even a mother would like".

My argument is not about whether Barry was great or not. It is only about whether we can consider him at all while discussing test cricket. I am not sure 4 tests mean anything at all. It is like judging Marshall from his one series in New Zealand or rating Gavaskar after his debut series in which he scored 774 runs. We should not use first class stats to extrapolate someone's standards in international cricket. Barry never had to deal with Bedi-Chandra in India or Imran in Karachi or Garner-Holding in Bridgetown. He was a terrific batsman in FC cricket. The argument starts and ends there.

For the record, I don't like Bradman's team either. But, firstly, he is not a bowling expert, he is a batting expert. Secondly. he didn't select Bedser ahead of Marshall, Hadlee etc, he selected Lillee and Lindwall ahead of Marshall, Hadlee etc. He wanted a medium pace bowler like Bedser to give variety to the attack as was the norm during his time, and McGrath hadn't acquired a godly status when he made that team. Thirdly, he wanted the best keeper he had seen, and whatever Gilly's other marvelous attributes might be, he is not the best keeper,, and anyways he only two years of Gilly, if at all he was following cricket.

But Bradman did know batting, so we can take a cue when he selects Barry ahead of Hobbs and Hutton. Granted your point that you won't select him for an ATG Test XI, where would you place him on an ATG Cricket XI, first xi, second xi, third xi?

P.S. The point about him not playing in different conditions is ....., because then you should exclude Bradman, Hobbs, Hammond etc as well from your discussions.

 

[Flem274*]

Part of being great is being exceptional over a long period in test cricket.

Otherwise I'm putting Stewie Dempster in my all time XI to partner Barry Richards.

I think it's fair to include FC record under certain circumstances when selecting for the national ATG level. Whether it be a lack of opportunities (Jack Cowie played all 9 tests NZ played in his time for example), bizarre selection politics (Dempster) or something else (sorry for all the NZ examples btw, I'm sure there are others) you can make a case for inclusion of players with limited test matches, especially if there is a lack of depth in the position you're looking at.

When you can select any player in history for the greatest XI then it gets cutthroat. Richards may have been a great test cricketer as well as a great first class cricketer, but he wasn't because he didn't play enough. Mathew Sinclair and Brad Hodge had great records after playing a few test matches but even at the time of doing it no one in their right mind would advocate either for their respective national ATG sides.

To me selecting Barry Richards in the world ATG eleven is equivalent to selecting Stewie Dempster in the world ATG XI. Both were screwed over by circumstances outside their control, both have ridiculously good but short records and both were lauded as being fantastic batsmen.

You have Hobbs, Hutton, Gavaskar etc to pick from. All three were superb. All three did more than Richards. All three make better cases than Richards.