Page 163 of 202 FirstFirst ... 63113153161162163164165173 ... LastLast
Results 2,431 to 2,445 of 3021
Like Tree116Likes

Thread: The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

  1. #2431
    State Captain
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    1,884
    Miller's XI = one of the best team's to play the game.

    Shakib's XI could only beat our current ashes squad.

  2. #2432
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    17,470
    I'm just highlighting that Miller isn't unique.

  3. #2433
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    1,189
    Shakib's quite underrated. Be nice if Bang played some more tests.
    ATG World XI
    1. J.B Hobbs 2. H. Sutcliffe 3. D.G Bradman 4. R.G Pollock 5. W.R Hammond 6. G.S Sobers 7. A.C Gilchrist 8. M.J Procter 9. M.D Marshall 10. S.K Warne 11. G.D McGrath

  4. #2434
    International Regular Monk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,944
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    I'm just highlighting that Miller isn't unique.
    I think he's quite unique. How many other cricketers in test history would command a place in a good test XI on their batting OR their bowling, while being very proficient in both? As in, able to bat in the top six of a high quality test side, as well as be one of the four main bowlers?


  5. #2435
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    1,189
    Depends on how you'd define a good test XI.

  6. #2436
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    17,470
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    I think he's quite unique. How many other cricketers in test history would command a place in a good test XI on their batting OR their bowling, while being very proficient in both? As in, able to bat in the top six of a high quality test side, as well as be one of the four main bowlers?
    I suppose we are all unique.

    I'll answer your question with a strawman (lol) and say how many cricketers in test history have the opportunity to command a place in a good test XI on either batting or bowling? Chris Cairns, Jacques Kallis, Andrew Flintoff, Shakib Al Hasan, Daniel Vettori, Kapil Dev, Imran Khan, Garry Sobers, Tony Greig, Brian McMillan and Vinoo Mankad are 11 cricketers who could demand a spot as either bowler or batsman at various times in their careers.

    I rate Miller highly, he is clearly one of the best out of the names I've just mentioned, but I think you overrate his batting a little, 7 tons in close to 90 bats doesn't command a spot in a top 6 at ATG level. I rate his bowling highly though, sometimes I think he is underrated with his bowling.

  7. #2437
    Hall of Fame Member Howe_zat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Top floor, bottom buzzer
    Posts
    15,596
    Sounds easy to rate players highly when you decide they were better than how they actually played.

    Why not pick players who delivered on their intangible "ability"?
    Flem274* likes this.
    I'm always suspicious of shops that sell bait.

  8. #2438
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Pakistan
    Posts
    21,096
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    Shakib makes the XI he actually plays in as a batsman or bowler too EASILY. He would actually make the Bangladesh all time team EASILY as just a batsman or just a bowler.
    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

  9. #2439
    International Regular Monk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,944
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    I suppose we are all unique.

    I'll answer your question with a strawman (lol) and say how many cricketers in test history have the opportunity to command a place in a good test XI on either batting or bowling? Chris Cairns, Jacques Kallis, Andrew Flintoff, Shakib Al Hasan, Daniel Vettori, Kapil Dev, Imran Khan, Garry Sobers, Tony Greig, Brian McMillan and Vinoo Mankad are 11 cricketers who could demand a spot as either bowler or batsman at various times in their careers.

    I rate Miller highly, he is clearly one of the best out of the names I've just mentioned, but I think you overrate his batting a little, 7 tons in close to 90 bats doesn't command a spot in a top 6 at ATG level. I rate his bowling highly though, sometimes I think he is underrated with his bowling.
    Yeh, I get your point. I'm not a blind advocate for Miller, but I think he was pretty special in terms of being a cricketer. And in my opinion, he is the complete all-rounder.

    Had he not been a bowler, he would've been selected as a top 6 batsman. And I can only speculate on this, but I think his test average as a batsman unburdened by bowling would've been a lot closer to 50 than it was. He was a proper top 6 batsman, unlike some others mentioned.

    Also, he was without doubt second choice bowler for Australia in his era, and some would argue he was a better pace bowler than Lindwall.

    Regarding his wickets per match ratio, he was actually very cleverly captained by Bradman and Hassett. Used as an opening strike bowler for fewer overs than he might've bowled, with Bill Johnston and Lindwall doing the heavy work. Admittedly he had back problems which probably stopped him bowling more than he did as well.

    Many of the players listed (Dev, Vettori, Cairns, Khan) were not really top 6 batsmen, and spent a lot of their careers at 7 or 8 in the batting order. Similarly, it's debatable whether Greig or Sobers or some others would be selected as bowlers without their batting. Possibly, but maybe not.

    As an overall package Miller was undeniably good though. Top 6 bat, genuine opening bowler. True all rounder. Giving a team the ability to play two spinners and three quicks.





    Quote Originally Posted by Howe_zat View Post
    Sounds easy to rate players highly when you decide they were better than how they actually played.

    Why not pick players who delivered on their intangible "ability"?
    I don't think i'm really saying Miller was better than he was. I'm mostly saying that as a cricketer he adds a ridiculous amount of versatility to a team.

  10. #2440
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,305
    How does he add more versatility than someone like Kallis?

    I personally would pick Kallis over him in this sort of exercise, which says a lot.
    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.

  11. #2441
    International Regular kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    3,616
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    I think Miller isn't as good as Mock thinks and not as bad as kyear2 is making out.

    If you are going to play GIlchrist as your keeper and go in with 2 spinners, Miller at 7 is an excellent choice.
    But I agree with your anaylst as I would bat him at 7 and as a 3rd seamer in a 5 man attack, but thats the only way he plays. He is not strong enough of a batsman to earn a place in an ATG scenario and as a bowler his wpm showed he wasn't strong enough to be part of a traditional 4 man attack.

    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    Yeh, I get your point. I'm not a blind advocate for Miller, but I think he was pretty special in terms of being a cricketer. And in my opinion, he is the complete all-rounder.

    Had he not been a bowler, he would've been selected as a top 6 batsman. And I can only speculate on this, but I think his test average as a batsman unburdened by bowling would've been a lot closer to 50 than it was. He was a proper top 6 batsman, unlike some others mentioned.

    Also, he was without doubt second choice bowler for Australia in his era, and some would argue he was a better pace bowler than Lindwall.

    Regarding his wickets per match ratio, he was actually very cleverly captained by Bradman and Hassett. Used as an opening strike bowler for fewer overs than he might've bowled, with Bill Johnston and Lindwall doing the heavy work. Admittedly he had back problems which probably stopped him bowling more than he did as well.

    Many of the players listed (Dev, Vettori, Cairns, Khan) were not really top 6 batsmen, and spent a lot of their careers at 7 or 8 in the batting order. Similarly, it's debatable whether Greig or Sobers or some others would be selected as bowlers without their batting. Possibly, but maybe not.

    As an overall package Miller was undeniably good though. Top 6 bat, genuine opening bowler. True all rounder. Giving a team the ability to play two spinners and three quicks.




    I don't think i'm really saying Miller was better than he was. I'm mostly saying that as a cricketer he adds a ridiculous amount of versatility to a team.
    Sobers actually was burdened by a heavier bowling work loan than Miller (230 deliveries pm compared to 190 for Miller) and still maintained his batting average and againts better bowling atacks. But according to your theory wonder where Sobers average would have been without having to bowl all of those overs, plus the rediculous amount of first class cricket he played all over the world.
    Last edited by kyear2; 01-08-2013 at 05:01 AM.
    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

  12. #2442
    State Captain
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    1,884
    Some of the attacks Miller played against in the 50s were quality. Pitches were a bit crappy too.

  13. #2443
    International Captain The Sean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    7,268
    For me, when it comes to all-rounders it’s always the overall value they add to a cricket team which I consider when picking them, and what you’d gain or lose by picking specialists instead.

    There’s always going to be a compromise somewhere - there has never been an all-rounder who batted like Sobers and bowled like Imran, so invariably either your batting or bowling will be weakened to some degree when you pick an all-rounder over a specialist.

    It seems that we (CW collectively) are generally more forgiving of a loss of strength in bowling than batting. I suppose this is at least in part a product of the modern era where 6 batsmen/4 bowlers is the norm, the prevailing wisdom being that you need as much batting strength as possible but that four bowlers is enough to take the 20 wickets required. Projecting this into the mythical level-above-Test-cricket match against the Martian XI, the school of thought seems to be that you need a great batsman coming in at 6 – because a merely good one won’t cut it at that level – but that your four bowlers, whoever they are, will unquestionably be enough so that you can get away with Sobers, Kallis or even Hammond as the fifth bowler. A sixth great batsman is a necessity, the thinking seems to be, but a fifth world class bowler is redundant.

    I’m not sure I necessarily agree with that, and think the choice for me would often depend on the balance of the team and the opposition. Obviously, if you’ve got a player as great as Sobers available to you then you pick him – the relative loss of bowling quality through having a good rather than great fifth bowler is more than made up for by the extra runs he’ll contribute. But if you decide that this level above Test cricket is going to be run feast – and if, say, you’ve got someone like Gilchrist playing the role essentially of another specialist bat, then I can certainly see the point of playing someone like Miller or Botham. Not great batsmen, but good enough to play their role and score valuable runs and, importantly, giving the bowling attack five exceptional bowlers rather than four. Depending on the Alien XI you’re facing, that might make all the difference.
    smalishah84 and bagapath like this.
    Member of the Twenty20 is Boring Society

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

  14. #2444
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Pakistan
    Posts
    21,096
    Sean, I think at CW we are a little more forgiving for a loss in bowling because the way cricket is by design everybody might be needed to bat but not everybody might needed to bowl. Hence bowling all rounders (the good ones) are highly valued because they are at an ATG level in their core discipline and are competent in the discipline that everybody is required to do (batting).

  15. #2445
    International Regular Monk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,944
    Here's my point. I'm going to pick Miller, Sobers and Gilchrist in my ATG team. Here is how I'm going to bat them...

    5. Miller
    6. Sobers
    7. Gilchrist

    Because, for the majority of their test careers, these are the positions they batted in.

    If I bat them like this...

    5. Sobers
    6. Gilchrist
    7. Miller

    they all bat out of the position they batted most in during their test careers.

    I'm aware all of this doesn't matter a pinch of **** either way, but i'm batting them the way I see fit!



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 1 guests)

  1. harsh.ag

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
  •