The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[watson]

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

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.

I think that you're probably right, but let's not forget Roger Harper; 25 tests, 46 wickets at 28.06.

[vic_orthdox]

True, although he did play some games as a fifth bowler.

[Dan]

Mohammad Nissar and Amar Singh deserve to be in the bowling debate.

[NUFAN]

I'm not so keen on Gupte, Chandra and Mankad all taking the ball across RH bats. I would be picking someone who spins the ball the other way such as Prasanna, most likely instead of Gupte.

[fredfertang]

Originally Posted by rvd619323

Mohammad Nissar and Amar Singh deserve to be in the bowling debate.

Either or even both of them would be well worth a place

[kyear2]

Excellent points by rvd and Nufan with regard to the Indian bowling options. S.A not getting enough respect as I belive that they are easily better than England.

They are ten batsmen overall, and seven middle order batsmen who are legitimate challengers to be called the best after Bradman. Four of the seven middle order challengers are in the West Indian line up. Also we are picking players are at their best, and the only advantage Bradman had was that he maintained his form through out his career.
As far as bolwers go, Lillee and Holding are equal, so are Ambrose and Mcgrath and their is no competition between Miller and Marshall. Gibbs is not on the level of O'Reilly and Warne, but he is in the level right below. The openers are under rated and Walcott was a very good keeper. Great team that.

[Monk]

Originally Posted by kyear2

Excellent points by rvd and Nufan with regard to the Indian bowling options. S.A not getting enough respect as I belive that they are easily better than England.

True, they should be included. Who do we have?

Smith
B. Richards
Kallis
G. Pollock
Nourse
Taylor
Procter
D.Lindsay
S. Pollock
H. Tayfield
A. Donald

Cracking side. Steyn not far off.

Originally Posted by kyear2

They are ten batsmen overall, and seven middle order batsmen who are legitimate challengers to be called the best after Bradman. Four of the seven middle order challengers are in the West Indian line up.

You're right, and perhaps it's interesting that we're leaving a couple out of the Australian side to accomodate Miller as an AR and the two spinners. If we didn't include Miller (heresy, I know), Aust might have...

Trumper
Simpson
Bradman
G.Chappell
Ponting or Harvey
Border
Gilchrist
Lindwall
Lillee
Warne or O'Reilly
McGrath

...and Aust would have 3 legitimate contenders (plus THE MAN AT 3) as well.

Originally Posted by kyear2

As far as bolwers go, Lillee and Holding are equal, so are Ambrose and Mcgrath and their is no competition between Miller and Marshall. Gibbs is not on the level of O'Reilly and Warne, but he is in the level right below. .

Agree with you on he comparison between the bowlers. Miller and Marshall are somewhat comparable imo, Marshall is no doubt better as a quick, but not by a maaaaaaassive stretch.

[watson]

Originally Posted by NUFAN

I'm not so keen on Gupte, Chandra and Mankad all taking the ball across RH bats. I would be picking someone who spins the ball the other way such as Prasanna, most likely instead of Gupte.

It's true that they all bowl across the RH batsman, but the techniques are all different. Gupte was a leg-break googly bowler, Chandra bowled at medium pace, and Mankad was a left-armer. Hence the ball would be pitching on different areas of the wicket and have different trajectories. I don't think that any batsman could settle into any sort of routine easily with 2-3 of those bowlers operating.

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by kyear2

Gibbs is not on the level of O'Reilly and Warne, but he is in the level right below. The openers are under rated and Walcott was a very good keeper. Great team that.

With Sobers in the team I don't see much utility for Gibbs.

[watson]

Originally Posted by Monk

True, they should be included. Who do we have?

Smith
B. Richards
Kallis
G. Pollock
Nourse
Taylor
Procter
D.Lindsay
S. Pollock
H. Tayfield
A. Donald

Cracking side. Steyn not far off.



You're right, and perhaps it's interesting that we're leaving a couple out of the Australian side to accomodate Miller as an AR and the two spinners. If we didn't include Miller (heresy, I know), Aust might have...

Trumper
Simpson
Bradman
G.Chappell
Ponting or Harvey
Border
Gilchrist
Lindwall
Lillee
Warne or O'Reilly
McGrath

...and Aust would have 3 legitimate contenders (plus THE MAN AT 3) as well.




Agree with you on he comparison between the bowlers. Miller and Marshall are somewhat comparable imo, Marshall is no doubt better as a quick, but not by a maaaaaaassive stretch.

The Australian side looks very different without Miller and O'Reilly (I think that you have to play Warne). In return we have gained a better fast bowler in the form of Lindwall and a significantly better batsman, Ponting/Harvey. The other plus is that Simpson and Chappell are OK with the ball. So if the wicket is turning at right-angles the side can still have a spinner operating at both ends of the wicket, albeit of the same variety.

On balance - about the same strength I suppose.

[watson]

Originally Posted by rvd619323

Mohammad Nissar and Amar Singh deserve to be in the bowling debate.

Amar Singh seems like an interesting character. Only 7 Tests but still gets big rap from Hutton and Hammond;

Amar Singh | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

Still hard to leave out Javagal Srinath/Zaheer Khan though because of their proven, although not brilliant, track records.

[kyear2]

Who are the three contenders Monk, to me the only middle order batsmen who can be seen as a legitimate contender for the title of best after Bradman are : Wally Hammond, Sachin Tendulkar, George Headley, Brian Lara, Viv Richards, Garry Sobers, Graeme Pollock, Greg Chappell.

[morgieb]

Australian XI with a twist:

Gilchrist
M Waugh
Ponting
Jones
Hussey
Bevan
Symonds
Warne
Lee
Lillee
McGrath

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by morgieb

Australian XI with a twist:

Gilchrist
M Waugh
Ponting
Jones
Hussey
Bevan
Symonds
Warne
Lee
Lillee
McGrath

This is twisting them out of shape

[LongHopCassidy]

Incoming heresy.


M.A. Taylor*
D.G. Bradman
R.T. Ponting
G.S. Chappell
A.R. Border
S.R. Waugh
A.C. Gilchrist+
A.K. Davidson
S.K. Warne
D.K. Lillee
G.D. McGrath

Let's address the controversial picks one by one in descending order of crazy.

Why the **** is Bradman opening?

Because nobody can decide who should open in this Australian side, and we have we far, far, too many middle order ATGs to leave out, especially in light of the insistence on two specialized non-ATG openers and the forum-wide hard-on for Miller.

Here's a flimsy argument by anecdote, by no less than The Don's well-known BFF Jack Fingleton:

'It was said of Bradman that he could not bat on a sticky. That is of course nonsense. Bradman could bat better than anyone on any sort of wicket.'

In that same vein, why would Bradman batting one position higher not still make him the best batsman, and by extension the best opener, of all time? It might shave 5-10 runs off his average, but 89.94 is regardless a heckuva lot more than his closest rival Barnes, and closest feasible rival Hayden.

Look at it this way: would you prefer Simpson batting for your life in his preferred position, or Bradman doing the same while out of position?

Why the **** did you pick Taylor as his partner?

He played in the era of the most vicious and diverse pace bowling of all time, even from England in Gough, and still averaged 44 despite a spectacular form slump (three less than Morris). I think that merits a little sympathy to his average on his part.

Moreover, at the risk of sounding English, he was tactically the best Test captain Australia has ever had, and that's worth far more to a team than people give it credit for (England won matches with Brearley batting FFS).

Why Border and Waugh over more talented players like Harvey and Trumper?

Their personal record of partnerships together was utterly jawdropping, and considering Border's decade long spell of being Australia's one-man act and Waugh facing the same bowling as Taylor while doing even better, it would be horribly demoralizing to any side to try and break that partnership, or even see one of them still there - given their records of marshalling the tail to score more runs than they otherwise would is also exemplary. Their respective records against the West Indies go without saying.

Why Davo over Lindwall?

Davidson offers variety to the attack as a left-armer, was an utter miser with his economy rate (giving Lillee and Warne license to bowl constantly aggressive Iines and capitalise on pressure built) and obviously could bat a bit. A secondary consideration: bowling stump-to-stump as a left armer would create a lot of footmarks right outside off-stump, which makes Warnie's job much more fun in the second innings - as opposed to him aiming for normal foot marks two meters outside leg where he almost always got padded away.

Where's Miller?

He's a liability in the middle order, averaging a good twenty less than everyone else, and I have absolute trust in the four front liners to take 20 wickets (it's also worth noting that Davidson had exceptional stamina bowling long spells, which was noticed during a tour of India). He can play at 12, I'm feeling magnanimous.

Other notes:

- Tremendous slip cordon with Taylor at first, Ponting at second and Chappell at third.
- High standard of sledging with Waugh, Warne, Chappell and Lillee (assuming mental disintegration is factored into simmed matches).