The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[NUFAN]

( no team has ever fielded 11 individuals simultaneously who can merit a case for their national XI)

Yeah.. apart from every single Test side that has played a Test match ever.

 

[Muloghonto]

Yeah.. apart from every single Test side that has played a Test match ever.

Oops,i meant alltime XI.

 

[NUFAN]

Oops,i meant alltime XI.

I could be annoying/awesome and show you at least 10 instances of teams which have fielded 11 players who would at the time of the Test arguably make their ATG National XI, but I wont subject you to it.

 

[uvelocity]

muloghonto, you have a smudge on your glasses

 

[Flem274*]

I could be annoying/awesome and show you at least 10 instances of teams which have fielded 11 players who would at the time of the Test arguably make their ATG National XI, but I wont subject you to it.

post it!

 

[kyear2]

Greenidge
Haynes
Richards
Richardson
Lloyd
Homes
Dujon
Marshall
Holding
Garner
Walsh

 

[Prince EWS]

post it!

He just means every country's first Test.

 

[the big bambino]

1. Again, the stats as they stand, are irrelevant from a statistical point of view. This is mathematically indisputable, so I'd suggest you do not try to buttress your point by drawing insignificant numbers from the hat.

2. The fact that there arn't many at test level argues towards many things. One of them being, the test arena is *NOT* the complete arena of batsmanship that is intrinsically the objective of this thread. If you want to argue the point that a format that predominantly provides oppotunity to hunker down for a batsman, is the guage of whether a batsman is easy or hard to contain, then it shows the limited scope of your argument. Test cricket does not put an onus on the batsman to avoid getting contained.

3. Would've played more tests has many factors than simply, skills. To assume that every single cricketer who did not play many tests, is solely a factor of skill (and its inverse), would demonstrate a complete lack of awareness to many variables that otherwise impact selection of players.

4. I won't even begin to address the logical absurdity of the last two sentences of your post.

Look bud: You can't even comprehend that I was retelling Hutton's opinion not offering my own. You dishonestly tried to pass your assessment of Amre as his own. Its a bit rich of you to criticise too mightily about data sets when you have NONE to back your opinion of Amre.

I'm not limiting the discussion to any form of cricket. You did that by inviting us to consider Nadkarni's ER at test and FC level. So your second para isn't in response to any point I made. Its just another red herring. To humour you lets look at his overall record anyway. Amre's ODI SR is mediocre as is his ListA record. FC record nothing out of the ordinary for Indian conditions. He didn't play t20. His test record shows he couldn't compete at higher standards. You got anything else? How good was he at French cricket? Entertain us with an anecdote about that...

Loved your para 3. Yeah he could've failed for any reason. Might have been a bed wetter: Who knows. BUT - you said it was down to the fact he couldn't play pace bowling: Remember? So I've just held you accountable to that assessment.

The logical absurdity was comparing Amre to Kallis in the first place and I note it was you who made the comparison.

 

[Dan]

Alright, this discussion is going around and around in circles. Let's drop it, hey?

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Mungo, Big baby has a point about the Hutton opinion.

 

[Red]

Alright, this discussion is going around and around in circles. Let's drop it, hey?

Mungo, Big baby has a point about the Hutton opinion.

Hey hey hey AN. Respect da mods

 

[the big bambino]

Big Baby: Hey AN my boy was looking over my shoulder as I was reading your post. He told me to give you the angry smiley.

 

[Burgey]

I have played against Amre. amongst many others. He was a wasted talent but cricket in India in the 80s was not strictly professional either: if you didnt make it to the national team, you still needed some form of income augumentation, aka reducing you to a part time cricketer or a seasonal cricketer at best.

Or fixing some odds.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Big Baby: Hey AN my boy was looking over my shoulder as I was reading your post. He told me to give you the angry smiley.

That's your official name now.

 

[the big bambino]

Fair enough. I can live with it. My boy's in good form today. He spilled some soup at lunch and I told him to get a sponge and clean it up. He said; "OK; but just this once".

 

[watson]

Big Baby: Hey AN my boy was looking over my shoulder as I was reading your post. He told me to give you the angry smiley.

And to think that I once truly thought you were a Cyberman.

 

[the big bambino]

Who?

 

[Muloghonto]

Look bud: You can't even comprehend that I was retelling Hutton's opinion not offering my own. You dishonestly tried to pass your assessment of Amre as his own.

You are assuming too much. There has been nothing dishonest in what I've posted- if you notice,I am a bit reticient to talk about my personal cricketing experience and with good reason. What I was trying to be reticient about, is hinting at the incident being a product of my own observations *and* conversations with Amre. He was my team-mate at one point.

Its a bit rich of you to criticise too mightily about data sets when you have NONE to back your opinion of Amre.

The folly of this statement is something that is lost on you. I will try with an analogy: You are the guy, who shows up to the gun-fight with a plastic knife ( as is the status of your extremely limited data-set), then yells and screams at the guy who doesnt have a gun either, when he points out that you are stuffed.

Do you get it yet ? I don't need a data set. My comments are not dependent on a data-set. Your data-set is flawed because it has no sample space merit whatsoever. Is it clear yet ?

I'm not limiting the discussion to any form of cricket. You did that by inviting us to consider Nadkarni's ER at test and FC level. So your second para isn't in response to any point I made. Its just another red herring. To humour you lets look at his overall record anyway. Amre's ODI SR is mediocre as is his ListA record. FC record nothing out of the ordinary for Indian conditions. He didn't play t20. His test record shows he couldn't compete at higher standards. You got anything else? How good was he at French cricket? Entertain us with an anecdote about that...

Loved /your para 3. Yeah he could've failed for any reason. Might have been a bed wetter: Who knows. BUT - you said it was down to the fact he couldn't play pace bowling: Remember? So I've just held you accountable to that assessment.

The logical absurdity was comparing Amre to Kallis in the first place and I note it was you who made the comparison.

There is no logical absurdity in comparing Amre and kallis to parameters that are identical to the data-set you are using for Amre.
Kallis after similar experience had under 30 average. So its a demonstration that your data-set, as I've been saying form the get-go, is trash. it is so because you simply do not understand the mathematical and logical absurdities of reading too much into a limited sample space.

 

[Dan]

Alright, this discussion is going around and around in circles. Let's drop it, hey?

Maybe this was a little too subtle.

We get it, you disagree. Enough is enough.

8 points for the next one to make a post on Amre's stats or how they're unimportant, how they relate to a young Jacques Kallis, or how they relate to something Len Hutton said a ****ton of years ago. This entire debate is completely absurd.

Oh, and if you find something else to argue about in such a personal manner, you'll be getting 5 points at the least.

If my intention still isn't clear, end it.

 

[Coronis]

Simpson
Barlow
Kallis
Sobers
Faulkner
Miller
Gilchrist+
Botham
Procter
Imran
Hadlee

A little all rounders XI. Would not be able to take my eyes off the batting from Miller-Procter. Doubt there'd ever be a dull moment with the bowling either.