• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
Expressing disagreement is one thing, but personally I'd prefer to express it in language that doesn't come across as incredibly condescending to those making the unconventional selection. There is a massive difference between "Oh, you picked Barry Richards, that's an unconventional selection that I don't agree with because of the length of his Test career" and "Oh, you picked Barry Richards on the basis of 4 Tests and FC stats, how cute".

I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying - I'd personally take Hobbs and Hutton because they are proven, but would rate Richards above the likes of a Slater regardless of his lack of Test success - however the part I take issue with is dismissing another person's selection as "cute". It is somewhat semantic and pedantic, I will admit.
Massive difference? Wow. I know you may not have read all my posts on the matter but I'm sure you are aware that I think 4 Tests is no where near enough. However if you take issue with my subjective opinion that Barry Richards is a cute selection I will stop it after this post. FTR, I'm saying cute because I use it at times to describe something small and pretty - which sums up Richards Test career.
 
Last edited:

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
Massive difference? Wow. I know you may not have read all my posts on the matter but I'm sure you are aware that I think 4 Tests is no where near enough. However if you take issue with my subjective opinion that Barry Richards is a cute selection I will stop it after this post. FTR, I'm saying cute because I use it at times to describe something small and pretty - which sums up Richards Test career.
Yeah, I'm aware of your opinion and I agree with it; I find it incredibly difficult to select Barry Richards in an ATG XI aimed at being the best 11 players in history. I by no means take issue with your subjective opinion that Richards is not the best selection and I am glad you raised the points you have. Don't get me wrong, I want to see debate on both sides of the argument and I most definitely value your contributions to the discussion.

But disagreeing with the selection of Richards and having a well-reasoned debate/discussion on it is one thing. Dismissing people as being "cute" (which, FTR, is coded with condescension irrespective of how you are using it; one does not use language in some contextually-lacking vacuum) and treating them like idiots for holding a different opinion (since you just bumped a 6-month-old thread that was dripping with sarcasm and condescension to anyone who dared disagree) is completely different.

<About here I am switching from that specific issue to a wider analysis; nothing personal NUFAN>

When someone acts that way towards those with different opinions, nobody is going to want to engage in debate with them - which lowers the standard of CC overall because people either get sick and tired of being treated like idiots for their opinion and leave, or we get one massive circlejerk where everyone agrees and nothing ever gets challenged.

Not to mention it results in posters taking their entire view of others based on their manner of posting, rather than the content they provide - and that's terrible because it means that people with fantastic cricket brains are ignored or disliked because of this idea you can't debate with them without being treated like an idiot.

This is a bit of a general outburst - I want it to be abundantly clear that I take no issue with you whatsoever NUFAN - as the standard of debate on CW in this regard has been pretty dire across the board recently. I'm guilty of it as well at times, and would never claim not to be. I mean, there have been other threads in recent times that were cut short because the debate descended into personal attacks, despite interesting points of view challenging the status quo thinking. I'd much rather see civil debate in which disagreement is constructive and strengthens knowledge, rather that reducing the pool of views to draw from.
 
Last edited:

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
Yeah all good but seriously your interpretation of cute is not exactly what I had in mind - I could have used funky, but like I explained last post, I thought that selecting a cricketer with such a short and (bitterly) sweet Test career is more cute compared to funky. I strongly believe that many people on here and in life in general tend to pick one left of centre selection often when naming best teams or compiling lists to be just that little bit different. I'm guilty of it for sure when it comes to favourite lists, but when it comes to picking on performances, I personally don't see the value of picking someone with too many question marks. Also, I've definitely never considered people idiots for selecting Richards just because I don't agree with it.

I think the same about Procter too. It does get a bit ridiculous though because after how many tests does it go from not enough to enough? Honestly, from current cricketers, I don't think I would start rating a Test batsman in one of the top couple of ATG teams until he played 90+ Tests.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don't care if you can afford it, you have to earn your first Hermes. This is what my dick of a boss told me the first day of my job. Plus, having not liked the Ode I wrote a couple of pages back, I have to ruefully rethink my thoughts on Burgey's elitist status :p
It's not elitist to like nice things. It's not elitist to have a bespoke suit made for you in Italy out of Zegna cloth, or to buy Canali or Brioni suits here.

It would be elitist if I did those things then looked down on people who don't have them because one of my suits costs more than their education.
 

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
Mark Waugh is an excellent example in that if he did played no or very few Tests he probably would've been rated much higher than he is now. In fact, if his Test career never happened for reasons outside of his control I'm almost certain we would have people putting him in their first or second elevens. He was absolutely majestic to watch, possessed arguably unmatched talent within his generation, and outside of Test cricket he scored 18,826 First Class runs at the ridiculous average of 58. After seven Tests he was averaging 61. Lets say it ended there - with the non-Test FC record he amounted and the absolute pleasure he was to watch when he was batting well, he would've been rated a real gem. For years we'd have bemoaned the lost chance to see a special talent have a - no doubt in our minds - illustrious Test career.

A long-term Test career is a different beast though that presents different challenges; it can - for periods - conquer even the most gifted of us all. That's why we use its findings to rate someone like Mark Waugh and, while recognising his great talent and what he brought to the game, mark him down below other talents who achieved more.

It would be unfair to just assume Barry Richards would've been a Test disappointment (relative to talent and non-Test FC performance, of course) like Mark Waugh, but equally it'd be naive to just assume he wouldn't. Barry Richards was a great cricketer no doubt, but there have been many great cricketers and indeed great openers throughout history who achieved more than him at the level we cherish, so to me anyway it seems somewhat needless to elevate him above them.
Some brilliant points, But two counter points. Barry didn't stop playing all together and played and played quite well in WSC (though that pitch that he scored the double vs Australia must have been quite flat as him Greenidge and Viv scored big hundreds againts a quite good attack) and for the ROW "tests" though those were also small samples even compared to how much some like Lillee or Viv played in the super tests we can only judge him on what he did. For those who saw him at Hampshire open with GG they state that Barry was the better player and Gordon was a highly rated test opener himself. What really sealed it for me though was the fat that the man I rate as the best ever opener rated Barry as one of his two best openers (outside of himself) and that Dennis Lillee rated him just behind IVA and Sir Garry as the best batsmen he has bowled to. Thats good enough for me.
 

watson

Banned
Some videos of Graeme Pollock in action. Interestingly he does occasionally take a pace down the wicket to the spinners, but generally speaking there is not much movement at the crease at all - the very antithesis of Michael Clarke. In fact I couldn't help laughing at his cover-drives against the English quicks in 1970. I don't think that he moved his front foot at all, yet the ball went crashing into the cover-point boundary with his bat in seeming slow motion (see the 3 minute mark). I know that Viv Richards looked cool at the wicket, but Pollock is just ridiculous.

Graeme Pollock 114 vs England 1970 - YouTube

1987 Graeme Pollock 43 vs Australia 1st ODI Port Elizabeth - YouTube


This video is worth watching just for Pollock's hook shot off Carl Rackemann at the 44th minute mark. For those fans of Clive Rice and Garth le Roux, there's plenty of good footage of them batting/bowling as well. Rice seemed a better bowler (with a mean bouncer) than he was a batsman, at least in 85/86.

Cricket Rebel Tour South Africa v Australia 1985-86 - YouTube
 
Last edited:

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
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?
Not sure how that makes sense - if Hobbs was the greatest, then surely he's also one of the two best?
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Screw all the haters! I'm putting B.Richards, Pollock and Procter in my ATG team today. Ultra aggressive today! Beat this pricks!

- B. Richards
- G. Greenidge
- D. Bradman
- G. Pollock
- V. Richards
- G. Sobers
- A Gilchrist
- M. Procter
- M. Marshall
- S. Warne
- D. Lillee


I defy ANYONE to beat them!
 

bagapath

International Captain
Screw all the haters! I'm putting B.Richards, Pollock and Procter in my ATG team today. Ultra aggressive today! Beat this pricks!

- B. Richards
- G. Greenidge
- D. Bradman
- G. Pollock
- V. Richards
- G. Sobers
- A Gilchrist
- M. Procter
- M. Marshall
- S. Warne
- D. Lillee


I defy ANYONE to beat them!

Hahahaha...

Anyone from Hobbs, Hutton, Gavaskar to replace Barry

Anyone from miller, imran, hadlee, botham to replace Procter

Totally your call Monk...
 

Gowza

U19 12th Man
Screw all the haters! I'm putting B.Richards, Pollock and Procter in my ATG team today. Ultra aggressive today! Beat this pricks!

- B. Richards
- G. Greenidge
- D. Bradman
- G. Pollock
- V. Richards
- G. Sobers
- A Gilchrist
- M. Procter
- M. Marshall
- S. Warne
- D. Lillee


I defy ANYONE to beat them!
i like this team a lot.
 

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
Screw all the haters! I'm putting B.Richards, Pollock and Procter in my ATG team today. Ultra aggressive today! Beat this pricks!

- B. Richards
- G. Greenidge
- D. Bradman
- G. Pollock
- V. Richards
- G. Sobers
- A Gilchrist
- M. Procter
- M. Marshall
- S. Warne
- D. Lillee


I defy ANYONE to beat them!
Very good, I personally just can't place anyone ahead of Hutton because of what he did, who he did it againts and what he had to overcome to do it and Hobbs was the master, though his level of competition was less stellar. Barry is next though.

Pollock over Lara, Sachin and Headley is a bit tougher because as much as I have come to admire Pollock, he plyed his trade mainly in South Africa while Barry went out to conquer the world and he just didn't face the quality of bowlers that BCL did. Tebdulkar has 51 Test Hundreds and Headley was Atlas and meant more to a very weak team and was seen as some to be as talented as the Don. I have less of an issue placing Pollock over Chappel as a better bat, but Chappel keeps his place in my second team because of his batting aided by his amazing slip catching, plus we already have a lefty in Lara.

Actually have no problems with Pollock as he was probably the best combination of batsman, bowler and fielder after Sobers while not weakening the batting or the bowling and he prospered at all three elements at the same time.
 

Coronis

Cricketer Of The Year
Screw all the haters! I'm putting B.Richards, Pollock and Procter in my ATG team today. Ultra aggressive today! Beat this pricks!

- B. Richards
- G. Greenidge
- D. Bradman
- G. Pollock
- V. Richards
- G. Sobers
- A Gilchrist
- M. Procter
- M. Marshall
- S. Warne
- D. Lillee


I defy ANYONE to beat them!
Hmm, not using anybody you've already chosen..

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Headley
Kallis
Hammond
Chappell*
Knott+
Hadlee
Murali
Ambrose
McGrath

Would probably lose but thats the best I can come up with :P Love your team.
 
Last edited:

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
Screw all the haters! I'm putting B.Richards, Pollock and Procter in my ATG team today. Ultra aggressive today! Beat this pricks!

- B. Richards
- G. Greenidge
- D. Bradman
- G. Pollock
- V. Richards
- G. Sobers
- A Gilchrist
- M. Procter
- M. Marshall
- S. Warne
- D. Lillee


I defy ANYONE to beat them!
Hobbs
Hutton
Macartney (Headley)
Hammond
Worrell (Tendulkar)
Miller
Imran
Knott +
Hadlee
Larwood (McGrath)
Muralitharan

Given alternatives for all my unconventional selections. I reckon that side would give yours a run for its money; only the Bradman factor, IMO.
 

Top