Page 148 of 202 FirstFirst ... 4898138146147148149150158198 ... LastLast
Results 2,206 to 2,220 of 3016
Like Tree115Likes

Thread: The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

  1. #2206
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    17,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Coronis View Post
    Doubt anyone would miss out from his 4th, either.
    Yeah the top 4 should all without doubt make the top 50. Only a real barry would miss out.

  2. #2207
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,303
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    However, I am struggling to find a Test where Imran emulated Ian Botham and impacted a match with BOTH bat and ball (maybe someone else can find a good example!). In that respect Imran is a deficient allrounder in a way that other great allrounders are not.
    It's not just that, he's never managed to do it over a series with both at the same time.
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

  3. #2208
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    17,464
    Yep I agree Watson and marc, which is my reasoning behind punishing Imran slightly and not including him in my ATG team. Still makes the second team, so its a slight punishment.

  4. #2209
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,303
    Funny thing is I'd still include Imran more often than not based on his bowling, which I feel seems to kind slightly under-rated because of his batting (which I feel gets grossly over-rated)
    kyear2 and BeeGee like this.


  5. #2210
    International Captain The Sean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    7,268
    Quote Originally Posted by marc71178 View Post
    Funny thing is I'd still include Imran more often than not based on his bowling, which I feel seems to kind slightly under-rated because of his batting (which I feel gets grossly over-rated)
    Yeah, I broadly agree with this. I think Imran is slightly over-rated as an all-rounder (a great one no question, but not quite as "genuine" as say Botham or Miller) but is generally underrated as a bowler - where, at his peak, he stands comparison with anyone in the history of the game.

    Add to that his leadership skills, and you get a player whose overall value as a cricketer is exceeded by very, very few.
    Member of the Twenty20 is Boring Society

    Quote Originally Posted by grecian View Post
    C'mon Man U.
    RIP Craigos

  6. #2211
    School Boy/Girl Captain
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by smalishah84 View Post
    you could check out the 1981-92 series in England. Topped the bowling averages and was right up there in the batting averages for the series too. Although Pakistan lost 1-2 but still he was the standout player in that series. Also I think in the 1986-87 series in England which Pakistan did win and Imran got the man of the series.
    yeah the 82' series he did quite well, in the first test he did: 7/52, 22, 2/84, 65. in the 2nd test he did: 12, 2/55, 2/84. 3rd test he did: 67*, 5/49, 46, 3/66. in the 87' series 1st test: 10*. 2nd test: 2/90. 3rd test: 3/37, 26, 7/40. 4th test: 0, 6/129, 37, 2/61. 5th test: 118, 1/39, 0/59. in the 82' series he did better on a match by match basis i.e. performed with both bat and ball together in the matches more often but he still did well with both bat and ball over the course of the series in 87'.

  7. #2212
    International Vice-Captain centurymaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    4,825
    I have just realized that the only true greats in the 70s and 80s were those who performed overseas since home-umpiring was very prevalent. There is a serious case for discounting home averages. I was just looking through some scorecards and was surprised at the number of LBWs given to away teams compared to home teams.
    Proud Supporter of All Blacks

  8. #2213
    International Regular kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    3,607
    Quote Originally Posted by marc71178 View Post
    Funny thing is I'd still include Imran more often than not based on his bowling, which I feel seems to kind slightly under-rated because of his batting (which I feel gets grossly over-rated)
    Agree, as over rated as his batting can be, hos bolwing is often under rated and at the end of the day, he brings too much to a team to be omitted.
    1st XI
    Hutton | Hobbs | Bradman* | Richards^ | Tendulkar | Sobers5^ | Gilchrist+ | Khan3 | Marshall1 | Warne4^ | McGrath2
    2nd XI
    Sutcliffe | Gavaskar* | Headley | Chappell^ | Lara^ | Kallis5^ | Knott+ | Hadlee3 | Ambrose2 | Lillee1 | Muralitharan4
    3rd XI
    Greenidge | Richards^ | Ponting^ | Pollock | Hammond^ | Worrell5* | Waite+ | Akram3 | Steyn1 | Holding2 | O'Reilly4
    4th XI
    Morris | Simpson^ | Sangakkara | Weekes^ | Border*^ | Walcott+ | Faulkner5 | Laker4 | Trueman1 | Garner3 | Donald2

  9. #2214
    International Regular Monk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,921
    Having a guy like Imran at 8 is a massive bonus regardless of whether you underrate or overrate his batting skills. He averaged nearly 40 with the bat, so to have him at 8 is a huge bonus when you consider he is without doubt an ATG quick bowler. I love the idea of teams where everyone is a competent batsman, especially when guys like Sobers and Gilchrist are at 6 and 7. If the tail can stick with either of those guys for a session or more, a score of 300 becomes 500 very quickly.

    L. Hutton
    B.Richards
    D. Bradman
    G. Chappell
    V. Richards
    G. Sobers
    A. Gilchrist
    I. Khan
    R. Hadlee
    M. Marshall
    S. Warne
    Last edited by Monk; 03-07-2013 at 05:38 PM. Reason: when/with

  10. #2215
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The great state of New South Wales
    Posts
    42,682
    This is no doubt where some absolute moron will come in and say that the batting lineup is already really strong and that you don't need a competent number eight, ignoring the fact that strength is relative, the fact that the standard of the opposition is unknown and therefore the fact that we have no real idea how strong that batting lineup really will be.

    Marshall at eight was/would be fine in a fixed moment in time in Test cricket. However an all-time world XI as a concept would play at a theoretical level a couple above Test cricket, so that argument is the equivalent of saying it'd be all good to bat Jimmy Anderson at #8 for England because he averages in the 20s playing club cricket and the rest of the batting lineup is ridiculously strong anyway, all boasting club cricket averages in the 70s. Unfortunately for England and for Jimmy Anderson, their opposition will also be full of such players from another country's mirrored setup and not your typical club cricketers; therefore a batsman competent to bat eight at the level of the match is required. Against a theoretical attack on equal footing with the all-time World XI, however you want to imagine that attack, Marshall at 8 is the equivalent of Anderson at eight in a Test.
    ~ Cribbage

  11. #2216
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Harsh Reality
    Posts
    4,073
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    This is no doubt where some absolute moron will come in and say that the batting lineup is already really strong and that you don't need a competent number eight, ignoring the fact that strength is relative, the fact that the standard of the opposition is unknown and therefore the fact that we have no real idea how strong that batting lineup really will be.

    Marshall at eight was/would be fine in a fixed moment in time in Test cricket. However an all-time world XI as a concept would play at a theoretical level a couple above Test cricket, so that argument is the equivalent of saying it'd be all good to bat Jimmy Anderson at #8 for England because he averages in the 20s playing club cricket and the rest of the batting lineup is ridiculously strong anyway, all boasting club cricket averages in the 70s. Unfortunately for England and for Jimmy Anderson, their opposition will also be full of such players from another country's mirrored setup and not your typical club cricketers; therefore a batsman competent to bat eight at the level of the match is required. Against a theoretical attack on equal footing with the all-time World XI, however you want to imagine that attack, Marshall at 8 is the equivalent of Anderson at eight in a Test.
    I think that 'absolute moron' is probably a mild exaggeration. The Cricinfo 'Jury' picked Marshall-Akram-Warne-Lillee as their ATG bowling attack, and I don't think that you could call Clive Lloyd or Ian Chappell 'abolsute morons'.

    All-time XI | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

    Obviously they picked the best available bowling attack as they saw it, and considered that the No.1 priority - as it should be.
    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

  12. #2217
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Flem274*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    ksfls;fsl;lsFJg/s
    Posts
    27,161
    And that's why you use all the ATG bowlers who can bat in the ATG XI, not spend hours and hours splitting them as pure bowlers and putting some muppet at eight.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Jeets doesn't really deserve to be bowling.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Well yeah Tendy is probably better than Bradman, but Bradman was 70 years ago, if he grew up in the modern era he'd still easily be the best. Though he wasn't, can understand the argument for Tendy even though I don't agree.
    Proudly supporting Central Districts
    RIP Craig Walsh

  13. #2218
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Harsh Reality
    Posts
    4,073
    Quote Originally Posted by Flem274* View Post
    And that's why you use all the ATG bowlers who can bat in the ATG XI, not spend hours and hours splitting them as pure bowlers and putting some muppet at eight.
    I agree that some 'muppet' should NOT be at No.8. But you'd hardly call Marshall, Akram, or Warne 'muppets'. Lillee at No.8 would be asking too much of Lillee, but not of the other 3 bowlers.

    I'm not saying that Imran isn't an excellent choice at No.8, but the fact remains some people don't consider him the best bowler for the job, and just so happen to think that an attack with 3 other quick bowlers is stronger. That could be right, or it could be wrong. Who knows?

  14. #2219
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The great state of New South Wales
    Posts
    42,682
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    I think that 'absolute moron' is probably a mild exaggeration. The Cricinfo 'Jury' picked Marshall-Akram-Warne-Lillee as their ATG bowling attack, and I don't think that you could call Clive Lloyd or Ian Chappell 'abolsute morons'.

    All-time XI | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

    Obviously they picked the best available bowling attack as they saw it, and considered that the No.1 priority - as it should be.
    I've met quite a few absolute morons who also happen to be excellent cricketers. I've even met a few are good captains, and - believe it or not - I've met a few who know a thing or two about the history of the game as well. This phenomenon would of course not be limited to people I've met, but former players and experts as well. This exercise is as much about conceptual understanding as it is about technical cricket knowledge or experience and it's of no surprise to me to learn that some former players fail at the former even when they excel at the latter.

    All that said, I don't actually have a great deal of issues with that particular lower order. It'd be weak tail no doubt; I reserve the right to roll my eyes at anyone who says it'd be decent based on their logic of imagining it in action against a national side in a fixed point in time or worse still arguing it didn't matter because of the supposed strength of the top order, and I'd be looking at that as a weakness of the side, but it's not a deal-breaking weakness in the way that picking, say, Marshall-Warne-Lillee-Ambrose would be. That'd be fine in a Test match but we need to stop thinking about this side as if it's going to play the Pakistan side of 1994 or the South Africa side of 2001 because that'd be pointless.
    Last edited by Prince EWS; 03-07-2013 at 06:02 PM.
    Cabinet96 likes this.

  15. #2220
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The great state of New South Wales
    Posts
    42,682
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    I agree that some 'muppet' should NOT be at No.8. But you'd hardly call Marshall, Akram, or Warne 'muppets'. Lillee at No.8 would be asking too much of Lillee, but not of the other 3 bowlers.

    I'm not saying that Imran isn't an excellent choice at No.8, but the fact remains some people don't consider him the best bowler for the job, and just so happen to think that an attack with 3 other quick bowlers is stronger. That could be right, or it could be wrong. Who knows?
    Warne would absolutely be a muppet with the bat at the theoretical level of cricket this would be played at. That's the point I'm making here. It's a couple of levels above. If we look a couple of levels below Test cricket, we see all sorts of players we'd consider muppets at Test level with the bat up at 7 or 8 making useful runs.



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
  •