Page 14 of 210 FirstFirst ... 412131415162464114 ... LastLast
Results 196 to 210 of 3139
Like Tree149Likes

Thread: The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

  1. #196
    International Debutant Jager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    The land of Siddle
    Posts
    2,889
    Australia beat WI in batting (Bradman), spin (Warne/O'Reilly/Grimmett) and fielding overall (the latter is my opinion). The pace attacks would be very close - I'd give it to WI but not by all that much. I can't separate SA and England - the batting lineups are too hard to split, England win the spin battle but SA are ahead in fast bowling, Procter being the deciding factor. NZ and SL are hard to split, too, but Hadlee and Bond give NZ the edge.

    1. Australia
    2. West Indies
    3. South Africa/England
    5. Pakistan
    6. India
    7. New Zealand
    8. Sri Lanka
    9. Zimbabwe
    10. Bangladesh
    Oh for a strong arm and a walking stick

  2. #197
    State Captain harsh.ag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    1,966
    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    Australia beat WI in batting (Bradman), spin (Warne/O'Reilly/Grimmett) and fielding overall (the latter is my opinion). The pace attacks would be very close - I'd give it to WI but not by all that much. I can't separate SA and England - the batting lineups are too hard to split, England win the spin battle but SA are ahead in fast bowling, Procter being the deciding factor. NZ and SL are hard to split, too, but Hadlee and Bond give NZ the edge.

    1. Australia
    2. West Indies
    3. South Africa/England
    5. Pakistan
    6. India
    7. New Zealand
    8. Sri Lanka
    9. Zimbabwe
    10. Bangladesh
    Australia do not beat WI in batting mate. Esp if we take this WI side:
    Greenidge | Headley | Viv | Sobers | Lara | Weekes | Walcott +| Marshall | Holding | Garner | Ambrose |

    How does
    Trumper | Simpson | Bradman | Chappell | Ponting/Border/Waugh/Harvey | Miller | Gilchrist | Warne | Lillee | O'Reilly | McGrath |
    beat the above batting line-up?

    Pace too is better for Windies. Only in spin does Australia take a major win.

    The rest of the list is good.

  3. #198
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Pakistan
    Posts
    21,446
    Aus and WI up for top spot

    I think that it is close b/w Pak, SA and Eng. Do think that SA probably have the edge over Eng and Pak.
    And smalishah's avatar is the most classy one by far Jan certainly echoes the sentiments of CW

    Yeah we don't crap in the first world; most of us would actually have no idea what that was emanating from Ajmal's backside. Why isn't it roses and rainbows like what happens here? PEWS's retort to Ganeshran on Daemon's picture depicting Ajmal's excreta

  4. #199
    International Debutant Jager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    The land of Siddle
    Posts
    2,889
    Quote Originally Posted by harsh.skm View Post
    Australia do not beat WI in batting mate. Esp if we take this WI side:
    Greenidge | Headley | Viv | Sobers | Lara | Weekes | Walcott +| Marshall | Holding | Garner | Ambrose |

    How does
    Trumper | Simpson | Bradman | Chappell | Ponting/Border/Waugh/Harvey | Miller | Gilchrist | Warne | Lillee | O'Reilly | McGrath |
    beat the above batting line-up?

    Pace too is better for Windies. Only in spin does Australia take a major win.

    The rest of the list is good.
    First of all Headley never opened the batting for WI - stupid to play him there. Secondly I am putting Gilchrist in this team, not because I want him there but because everyone else does. Thirdly, your team has no spinner, and WI experienced much less success when they ran all 4 of the quartet together.

    So batting only...

    Greenidge v Trumper
    Headley v Simpson (as an opener, Simpson is tried, tested and bloody good.)
    Viv v Bradman
    Sobers v Chappell (Chappell is equal to Viv and Bradman beats Sobers, but I didn't switch them even if it would assist my argument.)
    Lara v Harvey (draw)
    Weekes v Miller
    Walcott + v Gilchrist (whilst wicketkeeping, Gilchrist shreds Walcott)
    Marshall v Warne (draw)
    Holding v Lillee (not by a huge margin)
    Garner v O'Reilly (draw)
    Ambrose v McGrath (it should be noted McGrath improved a whole lot towards the end of his career)

    So it ends 4-4, with WI winning two points in their tail so they do not count for much.

    Realistically it's more like 5-3 because of Bradman's crushing of whoever he goes up against should mean he gets 2 points, and for the WI tail victories only being worth half a point since they are far less important.

    Then it comes to bowling, your WI side has no spin, whereas Australia has five absolute legend-status bowling options and far more variety.


  5. #200
    Global Moderator vic_orthdox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    25,072
    Struggle to get anything out of that sort of analysis.

    And how is it true that the Windies had less success when they had a four pronged pace attack?

  6. #201
    International Vice-Captain Monk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,434
    I think most people agree at this point of the thread that the general consensus of the Australian, WIs and English teams would be (post if you don't):

    Australia
    V.Trumper
    B.Simpson
    D.Bradman
    G.Chappell
    K.Miller
    A.Border/ N.Harvey/R.Ponting
    A.Gilchrist
    S.Warne
    D.Lillee
    B.O'Reilly
    G.McGrath


    West Indies
    G.Greenidge
    C.Hunte/ R.Fredericks
    G.Headley
    V.Richards
    G.Sobers
    B.Lara/ E.Weekes/ F.Worrell
    J.Dujon/ J.Hendricks/ C.Walcott
    M.Marshall
    M.Holding
    C.Ambrose
    L.Gibbs/A.Roberts


    England
    J.Hobbs
    L.Hutton
    K.Barrington
    P.May/D.Compton
    W.Hammond
    I.Botham
    A.Knott
    F.Trueman
    H.Larwood/J.Snow
    D.Underwood/J.Laker
    S.Barnes



    It's very difficult to compare these three teams and say categorically which is the best. Simply considering batting and bowling averages is interesting, but entirely insufficient as a means of comparison. For example, the Australian team has Trumper as an opener. While most of us agree he is worthy of a place, his overall career batting average is only 39. So, Australia would seemingly be better served by having Lawry or Hayden there, but as cricket aficionados, we all agree Trumper is the better batsman. Likewise, England has SF Barnes from the very early era, when many bowlers had very low averages. Australia would be better served by selecting Spofforth and Turner to match Barnes' low bowling average, but most of us prefer McGrath and Lillee, for a few reasons. So statistically, it's kind of futile, and if we want to be statistically narrow-minded, we might as well simply select the player with the highest average in each position.

    Key Factors....

    Batting line ups

    Largely comparable. Australia have the sturdy reliable Simpson to open, alongside the dynamic Trumper, and then have the obvious, distinct advantage at number 3. Following is the class of Greg Chappell at four, then the dashing all-rounder Miller at 5 and one of Harvey, Ponting and Border at six. Miller's numbers are not as solid with the bat as his contemporaries, so this may be viewed as a weakness, but he does have an x-factor. His inclusion provides great balance to the team as it allows two high class leggies to play. Having the Don at three and Gilly at seven nullifies any slight loss sustained by having Miller at 5 over Ponting, Harvey or Border.

    The West Indies have the middle order batting line up you'd pay double entry fee to watch. Headley, Richards, Sobers and Lara are like a wet dream for batting appreciators. So much power, so much swagger, so much win. They could take a game away from the opposition very very quickly. The openers are proven and high quality, Greenidge somewhat underrated imo. Dujon or Walcott as the keeper at seven provides more batting power.

    England have the greatest openers of all the teams. This is their batting strength. Hobbs is generally regarded as the greatest batsman between Grace and Bradman. Hutton more dour, but utterly reliable and capable of high scores. Oppositions would want to get at least one of these early, or things could go on and on. With Barrington to follow at three, there is no problem "seeing the shine off". Following Barrington comes one of Compton or May (both of whom I dont know heaps about tbh), then the brilliance of Hammond at five. Hammond is a brilliant, and underrated batsman imo. I think you can mount a very good case for him being the second best batsman ever, and he is at least in the top 5. Following Hammond is Botham, whose inclusion some disagree on, but I think his influence and dynamism is necessary in this team. I also think his bowling is vital to this team's balance. He certainly could mix it with the best and come out on top.


    Please add to the conversation, should you wish to....
    Last edited by Monk; 12-09-2012 at 02:28 AM.

  7. #202
    International Debutant Jager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    The land of Siddle
    Posts
    2,889
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    Struggle to get anything out of that sort of analysis.

    And how is it true that the Windies had less success when they had a four pronged pace attack?
    I was just showing that as individuals in one on one comparisons, Australia has a stronger batting lineup.

    I can't find the study I read, but it showed that when Garner, Holding, Roberts and Croft played as a quartet (and also when Marshall/Clarke joined the fray) it was noticeably less successful than when WI played with a frontline spinner.

  8. #203
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,591
    RE: MONKS TEAMS

    I think that a lot depends on the track.

    Any grass at all and Marshall-Holding-Ambrose would be unstoppable. Bradman or Hobbs, it doesn't matter, the Aussie or England batting orders would get mowed down faster than their West Indian counterparts. Even though Lillee and Trueman et al would also be creating havoc.

    On a turning wicket I think that the Aussie and England teams would have the edge over the West Indians as O'Reilly and Warne, or Laker and Barnes would be incredibly difficult to play. There are no left-handers in the England line-up to counteract the leg-spin; so Australia by a whisker.

    On a flat track I'm also not sure. Again I think that the Australian or England teams are more likely to beat the West Indians because their attacks are more diverse and imaginative. But if Hobbs/Hutton, Bradman/Chappell, or Headley/Richards get entrenched then a string of draws seems most likely.

    However, if a Triangular Test Series were to be played on a number of different types of wickets, and I had to bet a $1000, then I would put my money on England as I would be presumerably getting the best odds.

    Trueman-Snow--Barnes-Laker-Botham would be quite a handful, and breaking through a top order consisting of Hobbs-Hutton-Barrington/Hammond would take some doing and shouldn't be underestimated.

    Lastly, I think that Larwood should be the 12th man rather than Underwood or Compton. On a green wicket an attack consisting of Larwood-Trueman-Snow-Barnes-Botham gives England a fighting chance against the West Indian and Aussie pace trio's. Especially if the batting is made stronger by replacing Botham with a specialist batsman who can handle pace. I think that 3 fast bowlers, plus Barnes, on a seaming wicket is plenty to get the job done and Botham would be overkill.
    Last edited by watson; 12-09-2012 at 02:20 AM.

  9. #204
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,591
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    Struggle to get anything out of that sort of analysis.

    And how is it true that the Windies had less success when they had a four pronged pace attack?
    From 1974-2001 the Windies had more success when they played 3 fast bowlers and another type of bowler - according to the following study;

    ...The second surprise is that in tests in which West Indies had fielded 4 pace bowlers, out of the selected 8, their win percentage is below 50. This indicates that the best combination was three top pace bowlers and one bowler of different type, a spinner or even a medium pace swing bowler, to maintain balance....

    It Figures | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo
    Last edited by watson; 12-09-2012 at 02:17 AM.

  10. #205
    International Vice-Captain Monk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,434
    I actually just forgot Larwood, I'll edit to add him to the England team.


    Interesting thoughts on the bowlers. I know the WIs quicks have a certain aura, but I wonder whether there is much separating Marshall, Ambrose and Holding from Lillee, McGrath and Miller. I'd favour the WIs, but only very slightly.

    I think if these teams were to play a lot of tests against each other (god, how good would that be), we'd find-

    England would be slightly dour, and I think they'd draw a lot of their tests. If they are batting first, and the wicket wasn't too juicy, they would could bat other teams out of the game with some big scores, but then struggle to bowl out the other batting line ups twice.

    Australia would be the most consistent winners, with the advantage of Bradman, reliability of Chappell and Border/Harvey, the x-factor of Miller and Gilly in batting the diversity of the bowling attack (plenty of ability to bowl out sides on day 5 with two leggies), and a high class pace attack.

    The West Indies would win quite a few too, and the ones they win would be won very quickly. Potentially by late on day 3, or early on day 4. I see their pace-men ripping through batting line-ups, Sobers, Viv and Lara going "calypso" with the bat, and the opposition crumbling under sustained assault with both bat and ball.
    Last edited by Monk; 12-09-2012 at 02:29 AM.

  11. #206
    International Vice-Captain Monk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,434
    Any agreement on an Indian team? Badly let down by bowling.


    1. V.Merchant
    2. S.Gavaskar
    3. R.Dravid
    4. S.Tendulkar
    5. V.Hazare
    6. S.Ganguly
    7. F.Engineer
    8. K.Dev
    9. A.Kumble
    10. E.Prassana
    11. B.Bedi

    Srinath or Z.Khan, or the three spinners?

    I've included Ganguly at 6. I'm not sure he's the best there, and I never liked him much, but he's a leftie, and he can bowl a few medium pacers if they're desperate for that sort of thing.

    Someone with more knowledge of Indian cricket history will be able to improve on this side!

  12. #207
    International Vice-Captain bagapath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    Any agreement on an Indian team? Badly let down by bowling.


    1. V.Merchant
    2. S.Gavaskar
    3. R.Dravid
    4. S.Tendulkar
    5. V.Hazare
    6. S.Ganguly
    7. F.Engineer
    8. K.Dev
    9. A.Kumble
    10. E.Prassana
    11. B.Bedi

    Srinath or Z.Khan, or the three spinners?

    I've included Ganguly at 6. I'm not sure he's the best there, and I never liked him much, but he's a leftie, and he can bowl a few medium pacers if they're desperate for that sort of thing.

    Someone with more knowledge of Indian cricket history will be able to improve on this side!
    i dont think sehwag is an all-time great. and obviously, merchant was. still i am not going to choose a genius who got to play only 10 tests over someone who has played close to 100 and averaged 50+ with 20+ centuries to his credit.

    the bowling is spin heavy, but india has always been. i went for the two best strike bowlers this country has produced - chandra and gupte. both happen to be leggies. thought of dropping subhash in favor of bedi, but that would make the selection of mankad redundant. so am going with both leg spinners in the xi.


    gavaskar (c)
    sehwag
    dravid
    tendulkar
    hazare
    mankad
    dhoni (wk)
    kapil dev
    srinath
    gupte
    chandrasekar
    Last edited by bagapath; 12-09-2012 at 03:15 AM.

  13. #208
    Global Moderator vic_orthdox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    25,072
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    From 1974-2001 the Windies had more success when they played 3 fast bowlers and another type of bowler - according to the following study;
    See, I think that overlooks guys like Patterson, Clarke, Winston and Kenny Benjamin, all who bowled at good pace and played in those sides while the Windies were a quality side.

    There would have been quite a few times when these guys were making up part of a four prong pace attack also, even though they weren't all time greats, and pushing the side towards a win.

  14. #209
    State Captain harsh.ag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    1,966
    Am I the only one here who thinks that Sobers would be a viable slow bowling option, and thus there is no need for Gibbs/Ramadhin at the expense of Garner/Roberts.

    My India XI: Gavaskar | Sehwag | Dravid | Tendulkar | Hazare | Mankad | Dhoni +| Kapil | Z Khan | Kumble | Prasanna |

    Sehwag is definitely one of the best openers I have seen. Can change the course of a match in one session. Mankad is a good all rounder to have as it allows for a leg-off-leftarm spin combination. As romantic is the figure of Chandrasekhar, Kumble is the best bowler of that mold India has produced, and with apologies to Sir Garry Sobers who thought of Gupte as the best leggie, Prasanna would make this attack much more complete. Dhoni over Engineer only because of his captaincy. His attitude is one of the best we ever had, and that perhaps cannot be easily understood by cricket fans of other nations, but India has lost far too many tests because of the wrong strategies and attitudes, and it doesn't feel that way under Dhoni (discounting the last 2 away series).
    Last edited by harsh.ag; 12-09-2012 at 03:41 AM.

  15. #210
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,591
    Quote Originally Posted by bagapath View Post
    i dont think sehwag is an all-time great. and obviously, merchant was. still i am not going to choose a genius who got to play only 10 tests over someone who has played close to 100 and averaged 50+ with 20+ centuries to his credit.

    the bowling is spin heavy, but india has always been. i went for the two best strike bowlers this country has produced - chandra and gupte. both happen to be leggies. thought of dropping subhash in favor of bedi, but that would make the selection of mankad redundant. so am going with both leg spinners in the xi.


    gavaskar (c)
    sehwag
    dravid
    tendulkar
    hazare
    mankad
    dhoni (wk)
    kapil dev
    srinath
    gupte
    chandrasekar
    I think that's possibly the best Indian side I've seen. Normally Prassana and/or Bedi make the team, but when you lack a Malcolm Marshall or Dennis Lillee then you need all the Strike Power you can get. Gupte and Chandra is an excellent idea. Faultless top 6 too. An in-form younger Sehwag up against Marshall would be some sight!



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Thread Hijacks
    By sledger in forum Site Discussion
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 10-02-2010, 04:32 PM
  2. Sri Lanka Thread
    By chaminda_00 in forum 2009 ICC World Twenty20
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-05-2009, 05:29 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •