The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Slifer]

The pre WW2 batting lineup is seriously disturbing

 

[Jono]

Looking at Watson's signature and he has 5 superb teams. Not identical to what by selections would be, but close enough. Which would have the best chance of winning a competition between them.

PRE WWI
Grace-Trumper-Hill-Taylor-Ranjitsinhji-Faulkner-Noble-Lilley-Turner-Richardson-Barnes
PRE WWII
Hobbs-Sutcliffe-Bradman-Hammond-Headley-Macartney-Ames-Gregory-Larwood-O'Reilly-Grimmett
POST WWII
Hutton-Simpson-Kanhai-Pollock-Harvey-Sobers-Waite-Benaud-Davidson-Lindwall-Trueman
PACKER ERA
Gavaskar-Greenidge-Richards-Chappell-Lloyd-Botham-Imran-Knott-Lillee-Holding-Underwood
MODERN ERA
Hayden-Langer-Ponting-Tendulkar-Lara-Kallis-Gilchrist-Marshall-Warne-Ambrose-McGrath

 

[Second Spitter]

The pre WW2 batting lineup is seriously disturbing

Yeah, PRE-WW2 vs MODERN would be the match to see.

 

[Muloghonto]

Post WWII (alltime):

Gavaskar
Sehwag
Richards
Tendulkar
Lara
Sobers
Gillchrist
Akram
Marshall
Ambrose/Kumble(pace/spin wicket)
Muralitharan

1970-1990:

Gavaskar
Greenidge
Richards
G.Chappell
Lloyd
Knott
Imran
Marshall
Holding
Lillee/Prasanna (pace/spin wicket)
Chandrasekhar


1990-present:

Sehwag
Langer
Lara
Tendulkar
Kallis
Dravid
Gillchrist
Akram
Ambrose
Steyn/Kumble(pace/spin wicket)
Muralitharan

 

[Muloghonto]

Yeah, PRE-WW2 vs MODERN would be the match to see.

Disagree. Except for Bradman, everyone would either be dead or in the hospital thanks to Marshall and Ambrose/Holding.
Those amatuer guys were not used to 90+mph honing in on their heads 3 balls out of six. On the other hand, there wouldn't be much point playing a spinner against those pre-modern guys, unless we played on uncovered wickets. Ones who were used to playing the likes of Grimmett, OReiley, etc. on uncovered wickets would annihilate the likes of Warne/Murali on covered/rolled wickets, no problems.

 

[Red]

Disagree. Except for Bradman, everyone would either be dead or in the hospital thanks to Marshall and Ambrose/Holding.
Those amatuer guys were not used to 90+mph honing in on their heads 3 balls out of six. On the other hand, there wouldn't be much point playing a spinner against those pre-modern guys, unless we played on uncovered wickets. Ones who were used to playing the likes of Grimmett, OReiley, etc. on uncovered wickets would annihilate the likes of Warne/Murali on covered/rolled wickets, no problems.

Important toss to win then….

 

[Muloghonto]

PS: I gotto say that the purpose of picking an alltime XI is self-defeating for the sport. Whats the point of creating an XI that would bore people by winning 8 outta 10 matches ? Do we really go to watch Australia of the 90s versus Zimbabwe with a sense of excitement or a sense of resignation ?

Its much more productive, IMO, to pick two teams that would be the best for a given era, producing titanic contest that could go either way.

 

[Muloghonto]

Important toss to win then….

Yep.

Ironically, both sides ( old amatuers vs the modern side) should turn the conventional 'win toss, bat' on its head. They should both bowl first:
modern ones, because they would kill the oldies first up, then rack up an insane amount of runs against their slow bowlers, then finish off half the oldie team (the ones that are not in hospital from 1st innings barrage from marshall/holding/lillee etc).

Oldies should do the same, because they get the distinct advantage batting on 4th/5th day wickets- the modern wicket deteriorates far less, so their 'zero risk, bash only the pies' leads them to either steadily chase down the target or shut shop for a draw. While bowling first up gives them the maximal effect of using the juciest time on the seaming wicket, restricting the modern greats to a managable score.

 

[Second Spitter]

Disagree. Except for Bradman, everyone would either be dead or in the hospital thanks to Marshall and Ambrose/Holding. .

my suspicion is that Bradman would struggle against Marshall and co. just as much of the next guy. The strategy he used during the Bodyline series would be highly susceptible to Marshall's yorker or Sir Ambi's slower ball.

 

[Muloghonto]

my suspicion is that Bradman would struggle against Marshall and co. just as much of the next guy. The strategy he used during the Bodyline series would be highly susceptible to Marshall's yorker or Sir Ambi's slower ball.

Probably, but he probably won't flat out die like Hobbs or Sutcliffe would, who were used to opening against spinners and military medium pacers. Hammond faced real pace,but those that are pitched fast & full or short of good length, with the occasional 'warning' bouncers. Not the headhunting barrage that Marshall could conjure at will.

 

[Second Spitter]

Does anybody wonder whether Holding gets consistently picked over Garner on these ATG lists because he had a more menacing nickname? (Whispering Death vs Big Bird)


Because i'm racking my brain trying to figure out what other criteria people here are using.....almost identical record expect Garner averages nearly 3 runs less than Holding.

 

[Prince EWS]

Does anybody wonder whether Holding gets consistently picked over Garner on these ATG lists because he had a more menacing nickname? (Whispering Death vs Big Bird)


Because i'm racking my brain trying to figure out what other criteria people here are using.....almost identical record expect Garner averages nearly 3 runs less than Holding.

I think it has a lot more to do with the fact that Holding was better to watch (for most).

Furthermore, I think the way most learned judges watch cricket lends itself much more to judging the strike rates of bowlers than the averages. They both struck once every 51 balls or so; the statistical difference between them is basically that once every 75 deliveries Holding offered a four ball where Garner would've bowled a dot. That's not something we naturally judge very well; what we do judge is how likely a a bowler is to take a wicket - how dangerous they are.

 

[Muloghonto]

Does anybody wonder whether Holding gets consistently picked over Garner on these ATG lists because he had a more menacing nickname? (Whispering Death vs Big Bird)


Because i'm racking my brain trying to figure out what other criteria people here are using.....almost identical record expect Garner averages nearly 3 runs less than Holding.

I dont know about the reasons for others, but Garner, like McGrath misses out in my first list because of Ambrose. These three were similar type of bowlers- extremely accurate, channel bowlers but Ambrose was a tad bit more menacing and more capable of blowing apart the top order than McGrath/Garner were.

If you'd look carefully, i pick my bowlers not merely on averages but also the roles they play. A complete pace attack has a left armer to create the weird angle ( there arn't any of the 70s-90s era that displace righties), a menacing channel bowler ( Ambrose/Lillee) and an outright thunderbolt ( Holding/Marshall/Steyn).

The case for Garner in the 70s-90s era would be, in my mind, against Lillee. And its close but I'd take Lillee for his explosiveness, since Lillee, like Garner could also be a workhorse.

If the comparison is between Holding and Garner, well, Holding has a worse average but then again, Holding, like Roberts and Lillee, had less support through their careers ( WI till 79 used to be Holding-Roberts for the most part).
Garner had the sweetest lineup to play for: his partners were either Roberts, Holding, Marshall, Ambrose & Walsh for 99% of his career, so he had to carry less of a workload himself.

Holding was more destructive, ie, capable of taking wickets in heaps than Garner, who like McGrath was rarely ever turning out figures like 5-20 or 7-40 but mostly taking wickets in regular intervals to end up with 4-60 kinda numbers.
Ultimately, strike bowlers are not about strike rates IMO but about their ability to take wickets in a heap.

 

[Second Spitter]

I understand where both of you are coming from. My big difficulty in selecting Holding (apart from the fact he was more of a thug) was his sheer propensity to get injured in the latter part of his career. The 1984/5 series in Australia was a testament to this -- MoM performance in the 1st test, missed the next 3 tests, ordinary performance in the 5th.

Indeed, most people seem to remember Holding's earlier career more fondly than the latter. Whereas Garner had a more even career path.

The "outright thunderbolt" factor was not really there after he decided to bowl from the shorter run (1983?). This is evidenced by the fact he rarely took the new ball after Marshall asserted himself on the scene. Subsequently, both Lloyd and Richards used him in a support role.

 

[Prince EWS]

I understand where both of you are coming from. My big difficulty in selecting Holding (apart from the fact he was more of a thug) was his sheer propensity to get injured in the latter part of his career. The 1984/5 series in Australia was a testament to this -- MoM performance in the 1st test, missed the next 3 tests, ordinary performance in the 5th.

Indeed, most people seem to remember Holding's earlier career more fondly than the latter. Whereas Garner had a more even career path.

The "outright thunderbolt" factor was not really there after he decided to bowl from the shorter run (1983?). This is evidenced by the fact he rarely took the new ball after Marshall asserted himself on the scene. Subsequently, both Lloyd and Richards used him in a support role.

Oh yeah I absolutely agree that he's a little over-rated on here. Great bowler no doubt but I wouldn't consider him for my top ten. I was just offering up explanations for why he's rated higher rather than trying to excuse his record.

 

[Muloghonto]

I understand where both of you are coming from. My big difficulty in selecting Holding (apart from the fact he was more of a thug) was his sheer propensity to get injured in the latter part of his career. The 1984/5 series in Australia was a testament to this -- MoM performance in the 1st test, missed the next 3 tests, ordinary performance in the 5th.

Indeed, most people seem to remember Holding's earlier career more fondly than the latter. Whereas Garner had a more even career path.

The "outright thunderbolt" factor was not really there after he decided to bowl from the shorter run (1983?). This is evidenced by the fact he rarely took the new ball after Marshall asserted himself on the scene. Subsequently, both Lloyd and Richards used him in a support role.

Holding was done after 1982 IIRC. The other thing about Holding that people who've seen him are fond of, is that he is the greatest pure speedster ever. Why ? Well, he is the guy who might've been slower than the fastest balls bowled by the likes of Waqar, Akhtar, Lee, Thommo, Imran but he was the extremely rare guy ( along with Marshall, who was a bit slower) who could bowl at the same speed all day. Holding, even after bowling 20 overs in a day, would bowl six balls at 93-94mph. this lack of a drop in his speed, owing to his athletics background, was simply stunning ( not many people are aware that as a 17 year old, holding was in contention to represent the Jamaican 400m & 1 mile team in olympics. he missed the cut but one needs to see the context: he barely missed the cut for olympic level athletics from a nation that is historically a track and field powerhouse!)

And Holding-Marshall were a newball pairing for a while, Marshall replaced Roberts to become Holding's partner, a scenario that persisted for 3-4 seasons before Garner replaced Holding to become Marshall's partner.
Unfortunately for Garner, the West Indies ****ed it up a bit by relegating him to support bowler, being intoxicated by the rapid rise of the faster (but less lethal) Patrick Patterson.

 

[Second Spitter]

Yeah, i knew about Holding's athletic achievements, although Jamaica were not same force in track they are today......I'm sure if Holding was born in the mid-80's he would be on that team now.

My memory may be a bit hazy but Marshall/Holding took the new ball together only during the tour of India in 83/84 (which Garner missed) for the first 3 tests and then they brought Roberts back to open with Marshall. In the 1984 drubbing of England, Garner established himself as the opening partner to Marshall. When Marshall missed the 4th test, Lloyd preferred to open the bowling with Garner and Winston Davis over Holding

Garner and Marshall were the perfect compliment for each other. I've heard stories that Garner was such a nice guy, nobody cared if they upset him....hence the shenanigans with Patto.

 

[Dan]

Empiric evidence of those 93/94mph speeds at the end of the day pls.

 

[watson]

Looking at Watson's signature and he has 5 superb teams. Not identical to what by selections would be, but close enough. Which would have the best chance of winning a competition between them.

Here are the team rankings after tallying the 'Highest Ratings' achieved by each player according to the ICC. The respective teams are therefore made-up of players operating at their peak performance. The ICC does not give a Wicketkeeper Rating to Wicketkeepers as it sees the task as too subjectively difficult.

Reliance ICC Player Rankings

I have tallied only 6 or 7 bowlers (Batting Allrounders plus frontline Bowlers) for each team as it seemed unfair to award points to players who probably wouldn't get to bowl in a real Test Match. The ICC also gives an Allrounder Rating to each player, and this number is in brackets. I have used the Allrounder rating for the 'Batting Allrounders' in the Top 6, and used just the Bowler Rating for the 4 frontline bowlers, rather than add-in any Allrounder Ratings to them as well.


PRE WWI
01. Grace- 679/(207)
02. Trumper- 801
03. Hill- 886
04. Taylor- 844
05. Ranjitsinhji- 689
06. Faulkner- 877/(501)
07. Noble- 586/808
08. Lilley- 473
09. Turner- 394/855
10. Richardson- 161/809
11. Barnes- 206/932

TOTAL: 6596 + 3404 + 708 = 10,708

PRE WWII
01. Hobbs- 942
02. Sutcliffe- 888
03. Bradman- 961
04. Hammond- 897/(386)
05. Headley- 915
06. Macartney- 809/(314)
07. Ames- 619
08. Gregory- 542/744
09. Larwood- 277/720
10. O'Reilly- 212/901
11. Grimmett- 199/901

TOTAL: 7261 + 3266 + 700 = 11, 227

POST WWII
01. Hutton- 945
02. Simpson- 853/(377)
03. Kanhai- 875
04. Pollock- 927
05. Harvey- 921
06. Sobers- 938/(669)
07. Waite- 613
08. Benaud- 623/863
09. Davidson- 526/908
10. Lindwall- 413/897
11. Trueman- 260/898

TOTAL: 7914 + 3566 + 1046 = 12,526

PACKER ERA
01. Gavaskar- 916
02. Greenidge- 844
03. Richards- 938/(168)
04. Chappell- 883/(195)
05. Lloyd- 818
06. Botham- 811/(646)
07. Imran- 650/922
08. Knott- 650
09. Lillee- 252/884
10. Holding- 259/860
11. Underwood- 213/907

TOTAL: 7234 + 3573 + 1009 = 11,816

MODERN ERA
01. Hayden- 935
02. Lander- 780
03. Ponting- 942
04. Tendulkar- 898/(205)
05. Lara- 911
06. Kallis- 935/(616)
07. Gilchrist- 874
08. Marshall- 375/910
09. Warne- 348/905
10. Ambrose- 229/912
11. McGrath- 123/914

TOTAL: 7350 + 3641 + 821 = 11,812

1st. POST WWII - 12,526
2nd. PACKER ERA - 11,816
3rd. MODERN ERA - 11,812
4th. PRE WWII - 11,227
5th. PRE WWI - 10,708

The POST WWII team wins fairly comfortably, with virtually nothing between the MODERN and PACKER ERAs.

The best team made-up from all the players listed above is;

01. Jack Hobbs- 942
02. Len Hutton- 945
03. Don Bradman- 961
04. Ricky Ponting- 942
05. Viv Richards- 938
06. Garry Sobers- 938/(669)
07. Adam Gilchrist- 874
08. Imran Khan- 650/922
09. Curtly Ambrose- 229/912
10. Derek Underwood- 213/907
11. Glenn McGrath- 123/914

I have made the inclusion of a spinner mandatory, and resisted the temptation to include Kallis even though he would rack-up Allrounder points. This is because The Top 5 should always be the best batsman available, and one Batting Allrounder is enough.

Someone might like to create the 'Highest ICC Rated Team' from all available Test match players.

 

[smash84]

Holding was done after 1982 IIRC. The other thing about Holding that people who've seen him are fond of, is that he is the greatest pure speedster ever. Why ? Well, he is the guy who might've been slower than the fastest balls bowled by the likes of Waqar, Akhtar, Lee, Thommo, Imran but he was the extremely rare guy ( along with Marshall, who was a bit slower) who could bowl at the same speed all day. Holding, even after bowling 20 overs in a day, would bowl six balls at 93-94mph. this lack of a drop in his speed, owing to his athletics background, was simply stunning ( not many people are aware that as a 17 year old, holding was in contention to represent the Jamaican 400m & 1 mile team in olympics. he missed the cut but one needs to see the context: he barely missed the cut for olympic level athletics from a nation that is historically a track and field powerhouse!)

And Holding-Marshall were a newball pairing for a while, Marshall replaced Roberts to become Holding's partner, a scenario that persisted for 3-4 seasons before Garner replaced Holding to become Marshall's partner.
Unfortunately for Garner, the West Indies ****ed it up a bit by relegating him to support bowler, being intoxicated by the rapid rise of the faster (but less lethal) Patrick Patterson.

Very well said. I mentioned it in my favorite XI (which needs to be completed btw ) that of all the bowlers that I have seen over the years Michael Holding was the one who could bowl consistently quick for a fair period of time. Sure the Akhtars and the Lees were quicker but they couldn't maintain that sort of speed for too long in test match conditions but Holding could. I don't really see much of a difference between Holding and Marshall in terms of the quality that they offered and I am pretty sure that most of the people who saw them bowl will agree with me. Additionally there are also the points that PEWS mentions. Holding definitely much more enjoyable to watch and who can forget that glide to the crease? There is a reason that Michael Holding is called the Rolls Royce of fast bowlers.