Page 150 of 224 FirstFirst ... 50100140148149150151152160200 ... LastLast
Results 2,236 to 2,250 of 3346
Like Tree176Likes

Thread: The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

  1. #2236
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    21,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Flem274* View Post
    You're kidding yourself if you think whatever minimal difference there may be between the top ten to twenty best ever bowlers cancels out the gulf in batting ability between a few top bowlers and the rest.

    .
    precisely

  2. #2237
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    18,075
    Look Pidge and Curtly, I think you guys are great, I really do, in fact I rate you the second and third best bowlers of all time narrowly ahead of a few others. BUT.. Even though we have Bradman and we've gone for the extra batting in Gilchrist, I really think its important that our number 10 and number 11 can make some more runs because I know if we don't make enough runs from Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, etc our number 10 and 11 will save us!


    FTR, I don't believe McGrath and Ambrose are number 2 and 3 - but I think the above situation shows that you can't just think about batting when deciding on the eleven, there comes a time when picking the best bowlers is actually going to be very useful.
    kyear2 likes this.
    NRL Tipping Champion 2014

  3. #2238
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    18,075
    Quote Originally Posted by Gowza View Post
    procter for hadlee would make it better but obviously his lack of test match cricket is understandably an issue for most.
    Procter to be added for batting in an ATG Test team? The guy has as many Test half centuries as an inanimate carbon rod.

  4. #2239
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    21,737
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    Look Pidge and Curtly, I think you guys are great, I really do, in fact I rate you the second and third best bowlers of all time VERY VERY narrowly ahead of a few others. BUT.. Even though we have Bradman and we've gone for the extra batting in Gilchrist, I really think its important that our number 10 and number 11 can make some more runs because I know if we don't make enough runs from Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, etc our number 10 and 11 will save us!

    .
    Fixed


  5. #2240
    School Boy/Girl Captain
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    Procter to be added for batting in an ATG Test team? The guy has as many Test half centuries as an inanimate carbon rod.
    how many genuine fast bowlers have a test bowling average of 15, strike rate 37 and a batting average of 25? as said understandably he's left out by many but he could clearly bat very well, and was a very very good bowler.

  6. #2241
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,923
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    Look Pidge and Curtly, I think you guys are great, I really do, in fact I rate you the second and third best bowlers of all time narrowly ahead of a few others. BUT.. Even though we have Bradman and we've gone for the extra batting in Gilchrist, I really think its important that our number 10 and number 11 can make some more runs because I know if we don't make enough runs from Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, etc our number 10 and 11 will save us!


    FTR, I don't believe McGrath and Ambrose are number 2 and 3 - but I think the above situation shows that you can't just think about batting when deciding on the eleven, there comes a time when picking the best bowlers is actually going to be very useful.
    Agreed.

    Or to be a bit more precise - there comes a time when picking the best combination of bowlers is actually going to be very useful.
    "Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong" - Oscar Wilde

  7. #2242
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    18,075
    Quote Originally Posted by Gowza View Post
    how many genuine fast bowlers have a test bowling average of 15, strike rate 37 and a batting average of 25? as said understandably he's left out by many but he could clearly bat very well, and was a very very good bowler.
    One.

    How many genuine fast bowlers have had an excellent series and a half? Many.

  8. #2243
    School Boy/Girl Captain
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    One.

    How many genuine fast bowlers have had an excellent series and a half? Many.
    dodging the point that he was a very capable batsman.

  9. #2244
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Flem274*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    ksfls;fsl;lsFJg/s
    Posts
    28,446
    A lot of you are assuming Bowler X or Y is the best bowler ever by a clear margin.

    There is very little difference between a collection of ATG bowlers on pure bowling alone. Every time we have a thread on the greatest bowler we get Marshall, Imran, Lillee, Barnes, McGrath, Hadlee, Larwood, Murali, Warne and more named as the greatest. Granted, depending on the flavour of the month or what age group you talk to sometimes you will get a consensus, but the difference is minimal. There is no Bradman of bowlers.

    Most of us agree averages don't tell the entire story when it comes to batsmen. Many (actually probably most) for example rate Viv higher than Kallis despite Kallis having the superior average. I don't want to get into a Viv v Kallis debate here, I just pulled those names from the top of my head. My point is the small differences in career records, or who was faster, or who had the biggest outswinger mean very little because results wise the top echelon of bowlers are pretty much equal. I think Glenn McGrath is the best specialist bowler of all time but I could argue for days with someone who believes Marshall, Hadlee or Murali is and neither of us would ever be proven right. Find me a thread where someone won one of those arguments and I'll show you Sledger is a decent human being. Those bowlers did everything everywhere (cue Lillee-in-subcontinent argument...).

    So say you pick McGrath because you think he is the best bowler, but you can't conclusively prove it, and in doing so you exclude a bowler who could also make a case for being the best but who is definitely superior with the bat. In my opinion you made the wrong call. If you have players of equal ability with equal records in one field then you choose the best in the others. Even if we're not selecting for PEWS' theoretical level above test cricket where you can't assume the other team doesn't have their own Bradman, or the bowling version of him, plus they have their own selection of all time greats, I would still argue for just a fun paper exercise ATG bowlers who can bat or field are more valuable and make the team better than ATG bowlers who can't.

    I do the same thing with batsmen, hence Sobers, Kallis and Hammond all make my team.
    akilana likes this.
    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

  10. #2245
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,923
    I think that Mike Procter is a bona fide ATG. But I still think that there are other ATG bowling-allrounders who deserve to be in the First or Second ATG XIs due to their weight of Test match performances.

  11. #2246
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    18,075
    Quote Originally Posted by Gowza View Post
    dodging the point that he was a very capable batsman.
    Oh sorry I thought I addressed the point when I likened his ability to score Test half centuries to that of a carbon rod.

    But yes, Procter was a terrific first class cricketer who's batting was valuable at that level.

  12. #2247
    School Boy/Girl Captain
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    Oh sorry I thought I addressed the point when I likened his ability to score Test half centuries to that of a carbon rod.

    But yes, Procter was a terrific first class cricketer who's batting was valuable at that level.
    like i respectfully said understandable for people to leave him out due to lack of test match exposure but, that doesn't mean he wasn't capable at that level, unproven for an extended period at that level yes but doesn't mean he couldn't do it. i'm not trying to force my opinion on anyone simply just giving my opinion. imo he would have performed very well as an all rounder at test level, you don't have to think that and that's fine.

  13. #2248
    School Boy/Girl Captain
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    I think that Mike Procter is a bona fide ATG. But I still think that there are other ATG bowling-allrounders who deserve to be in the First or Second ATG XIs due to their weight of Test match performances.
    that's fair enough.

  14. #2249
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,923
    Quote Originally Posted by Flem274* View Post
    A lot of you are assuming Bowler X or Y is the best bowler ever by a clear margin.

    There is very little difference between a collection of ATG bowlers on pure bowling alone. Every time we have a thread on the greatest bowler we get Marshall, Imran, Lillee, Barnes, McGrath, Hadlee, Larwood, Murali, Warne and more named as the greatest. Granted, depending on the flavour of the month or what age group you talk to sometimes you will get a consensus, but the difference is minimal. There is no Bradman of bowlers.

    Most of us agree averages don't tell the entire story when it comes to batsmen. Many (actually probably most) for example rate Viv higher than Kallis despite Kallis having the superior average. I don't want to get into a Viv v Kallis debate here, I just pulled those names from the top of my head. My point is the small differences in career records, or who was faster, or who had the biggest outswinger mean very little because results wise the top echelon of bowlers are pretty much equal. I think Glenn McGrath is the best specialist bowler of all time but I could argue for days with someone who believes Marshall, Hadlee or Murali is and neither of us would ever be proven right. Find me a thread where someone won one of those arguments and I'll show you Sledger is a decent human being. Those bowlers did everything everywhere (cue Lillee-in-subcontinent argument...).

    So say you pick McGrath because you think he is the best bowler, but you can't conclusively prove it, and in doing so you exclude a bowler who could also make a case for being the best but who is definitely superior with the bat. In my opinion you made the wrong call. If you have players of equal ability with equal records in one field then you choose the best in the others. Even if we're not selecting for PEWS' theoretical level above test cricket where you can't assume the other team doesn't have their own Bradman, or the bowling version of him, plus they have their own selection of all time greats, I would still argue for just a fun paper exercise ATG bowlers who can bat or field are more valuable and make the team better than ATG bowlers who can't.

    I do the same thing with batsmen, hence Sobers, Kallis and Hammond all make my team.
    The margin of difference between bowlers is about as great as the margin of difference between Imran or Marshall batting at No.8 - that is, about 18.8 runs on average.

    Athough, to be fair, the amount of runs that Imran-Hadlee-Marshall-Warne combined would add to the team total (according to their batting averages) is 101.

    The amount of runs that Marshall-Warne-Lillee-Barnes (my preferred attack) would add to the team total (according to their batting averages) is 58; a difference of 43 runs per innings. It is tempting to get excited about those extra 43 runs - but nah, still not worth the trade.
    Last edited by watson; 04-07-2013 at 01:14 AM.

  15. #2250
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    18,075
    Quote Originally Posted by Gowza View Post
    like i respectfully said understandable for people to leave him out due to lack of test match exposure but, that doesn't mean he wasn't capable at that level, unproven for an extended period at that level yes but doesn't mean he couldn't do it. i'm not trying to force my opinion on anyone simply just giving my opinion. imo he would have performed very well as an all rounder at test level, you don't have to think that and that's fine.
    Yeah that's fair enough but batting wise unfortunately he didn't do it so since he didn't do it he has to be judged on his inability to score 50s at Test Cricket. Its similar to Garry Sobers and OD Cricket or a Subramaniam Badrinath in Test Cricket. Badrinath averages 60 in first class cricket, but I don't think he deserves to make an Indian Test team of the current century.



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
  •