Page 183 of 224 FirstFirst ... 83133173181182183184185193 ... LastLast
Results 2,731 to 2,745 of 3346
Like Tree176Likes

Thread: The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

  1. #2731
    U19 12th Man
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Bondi, NSW
    Posts
    260
    Does anybody wonder whether Holding gets consistently picked over Garner on these ATG lists because he had a more menacing nickname? (Whispering Death vs Big Bird)


    Because i'm racking my brain trying to figure out what other criteria people here are using.....almost identical record expect Garner averages nearly 3 runs less than Holding.

  2. #2732
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,618
    Quote Originally Posted by Second Spitter View Post
    Does anybody wonder whether Holding gets consistently picked over Garner on these ATG lists because he had a more menacing nickname? (Whispering Death vs Big Bird)


    Because i'm racking my brain trying to figure out what other criteria people here are using.....almost identical record expect Garner averages nearly 3 runs less than Holding.
    I think it has a lot more to do with the fact that Holding was better to watch (for most).

    Furthermore, I think the way most learned judges watch cricket lends itself much more to judging the strike rates of bowlers than the averages. They both struck once every 51 balls or so; the statistical difference between them is basically that once every 75 deliveries Holding offered a four ball where Garner would've bowled a dot. That's not something we naturally judge very well; what we do judge is how likely a a bowler is to take a wicket - how dangerous they are.
    Hurricane likes this.
    ~ Cribbage ~

    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since December 2009

  3. #2733
    U19 12th Man
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    West Coast Canada
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by Second Spitter View Post
    Does anybody wonder whether Holding gets consistently picked over Garner on these ATG lists because he had a more menacing nickname? (Whispering Death vs Big Bird)


    Because i'm racking my brain trying to figure out what other criteria people here are using.....almost identical record expect Garner averages nearly 3 runs less than Holding.

    I dont know about the reasons for others, but Garner, like McGrath misses out in my first list because of Ambrose. These three were similar type of bowlers- extremely accurate, channel bowlers but Ambrose was a tad bit more menacing and more capable of blowing apart the top order than McGrath/Garner were.

    If you'd look carefully, i pick my bowlers not merely on averages but also the roles they play. A complete pace attack has a left armer to create the weird angle ( there arn't any of the 70s-90s era that displace righties), a menacing channel bowler ( Ambrose/Lillee) and an outright thunderbolt ( Holding/Marshall/Steyn).

    The case for Garner in the 70s-90s era would be, in my mind, against Lillee. And its close but I'd take Lillee for his explosiveness, since Lillee, like Garner could also be a workhorse.

    If the comparison is between Holding and Garner, well, Holding has a worse average but then again, Holding, like Roberts and Lillee, had less support through their careers ( WI till 79 used to be Holding-Roberts for the most part).
    Garner had the sweetest lineup to play for: his partners were either Roberts, Holding, Marshall, Ambrose & Walsh for 99% of his career, so he had to carry less of a workload himself.

    Holding was more destructive, ie, capable of taking wickets in heaps than Garner, who like McGrath was rarely ever turning out figures like 5-20 or 7-40 but mostly taking wickets in regular intervals to end up with 4-60 kinda numbers.
    Ultimately, strike bowlers are not about strike rates IMO but about their ability to take wickets in a heap.
    Last edited by Muloghonto; 03-03-2014 at 01:50 AM.

  4. #2734
    U19 12th Man
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Bondi, NSW
    Posts
    260
    I understand where both of you are coming from. My big difficulty in selecting Holding (apart from the fact he was more of a thug) was his sheer propensity to get injured in the latter part of his career. The 1984/5 series in Australia was a testament to this -- MoM performance in the 1st test, missed the next 3 tests, ordinary performance in the 5th.

    Indeed, most people seem to remember Holding's earlier career more fondly than the latter. Whereas Garner had a more even career path.

    The "outright thunderbolt" factor was not really there after he decided to bowl from the shorter run (1983?). This is evidenced by the fact he rarely took the new ball after Marshall asserted himself on the scene. Subsequently, both Lloyd and Richards used him in a support role.


  5. #2735
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,618
    Quote Originally Posted by Second Spitter View Post
    I understand where both of you are coming from. My big difficulty in selecting Holding (apart from the fact he was more of a thug) was his sheer propensity to get injured in the latter part of his career. The 1984/5 series in Australia was a testament to this -- MoM performance in the 1st test, missed the next 3 tests, ordinary performance in the 5th.

    Indeed, most people seem to remember Holding's earlier career more fondly than the latter. Whereas Garner had a more even career path.

    The "outright thunderbolt" factor was not really there after he decided to bowl from the shorter run (1983?). This is evidenced by the fact he rarely took the new ball after Marshall asserted himself on the scene. Subsequently, both Lloyd and Richards used him in a support role.
    Oh yeah I absolutely agree that he's a little over-rated on here. Great bowler no doubt but I wouldn't consider him for my top ten. I was just offering up explanations for why he's rated higher rather than trying to excuse his record.

  6. #2736
    U19 12th Man
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    West Coast Canada
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by Second Spitter View Post
    I understand where both of you are coming from. My big difficulty in selecting Holding (apart from the fact he was more of a thug) was his sheer propensity to get injured in the latter part of his career. The 1984/5 series in Australia was a testament to this -- MoM performance in the 1st test, missed the next 3 tests, ordinary performance in the 5th.

    Indeed, most people seem to remember Holding's earlier career more fondly than the latter. Whereas Garner had a more even career path.

    The "outright thunderbolt" factor was not really there after he decided to bowl from the shorter run (1983?). This is evidenced by the fact he rarely took the new ball after Marshall asserted himself on the scene. Subsequently, both Lloyd and Richards used him in a support role.
    Holding was done after 1982 IIRC. The other thing about Holding that people who've seen him are fond of, is that he is the greatest pure speedster ever. Why ? Well, he is the guy who might've been slower than the fastest balls bowled by the likes of Waqar, Akhtar, Lee, Thommo, Imran but he was the extremely rare guy ( along with Marshall, who was a bit slower) who could bowl at the same speed all day. Holding, even after bowling 20 overs in a day, would bowl six balls at 93-94mph. this lack of a drop in his speed, owing to his athletics background, was simply stunning ( not many people are aware that as a 17 year old, holding was in contention to represent the Jamaican 400m & 1 mile team in olympics. he missed the cut but one needs to see the context: he barely missed the cut for olympic level athletics from a nation that is historically a track and field powerhouse!)

    And Holding-Marshall were a newball pairing for a while, Marshall replaced Roberts to become Holding's partner, a scenario that persisted for 3-4 seasons before Garner replaced Holding to become Marshall's partner.
    Unfortunately for Garner, the West Indies cocked it up a bit by relegating him to support bowler, being intoxicated by the rapid rise of the faster (but less lethal) Patrick Patterson.
    smalishah84 likes this.

  7. #2737
    U19 12th Man
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Bondi, NSW
    Posts
    260
    Yeah, i knew about Holding's athletic achievements, although Jamaica were not same force in track they are today......I'm sure if Holding was born in the mid-80's he would be on that team now.

    My memory may be a bit hazy but Marshall/Holding took the new ball together only during the tour of India in 83/84 (which Garner missed) for the first 3 tests and then they brought Roberts back to open with Marshall. In the 1984 drubbing of England, Garner established himself as the opening partner to Marshall. When Marshall missed the 4th test, Lloyd preferred to open the bowling with Garner and Winston Davis over Holding

    Garner and Marshall were the perfect compliment for each other. I've heard stories that Garner was such a nice guy, nobody cared if they upset him....hence the shenanigans with Patto.

  8. #2738
    Dan
    Dan is offline
    Global Moderator / Cricket Web Staff Member Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse
    Posts
    6,577
    Empiric evidence of those 93/94mph speeds at the end of the day pls.

  9. #2739
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,935
    Quote Originally Posted by kyear2 View Post
    Looking at Watson's signature and he has 5 superb teams. Not identical to what by selections would be, but close enough. Which would have the best chance of winning a competition between them.
    Here are the team rankings after tallying the 'Highest Ratings' achieved by each player according to the ICC. The respective teams are therefore made-up of players operating at their peak performance. The ICC does not give a Wicketkeeper Rating to Wicketkeepers as it sees the task as too subjectively difficult.

    Reliance ICC Player Rankings

    I have tallied only 6 or 7 bowlers (Batting Allrounders plus frontline Bowlers) for each team as it seemed unfair to award points to players who probably wouldn't get to bowl in a real Test Match. The ICC also gives an Allrounder Rating to each player, and this number is in brackets. I have used the Allrounder rating for the 'Batting Allrounders' in the Top 6, and used just the Bowler Rating for the 4 frontline bowlers, rather than add-in any Allrounder Ratings to them as well.


    PRE WWI
    01. Grace- 679/(207)
    02. Trumper- 801
    03. Hill- 886
    04. Taylor- 844
    05. Ranjitsinhji- 689
    06. Faulkner- 877/(501)
    07. Noble- 586/808
    08. Lilley- 473
    09. Turner- 394/855
    10. Richardson- 161/809
    11. Barnes- 206/932

    TOTAL: 6596 + 3404 + 708 = 10,708

    PRE WWII
    01. Hobbs- 942
    02. Sutcliffe- 888
    03. Bradman- 961
    04. Hammond- 897/(386)
    05. Headley- 915
    06. Macartney- 809/(314)
    07. Ames- 619
    08. Gregory- 542/744
    09. Larwood- 277/720
    10. O'Reilly- 212/901
    11. Grimmett- 199/901

    TOTAL: 7261 + 3266 + 700 = 11, 227

    POST WWII
    01. Hutton- 945
    02. Simpson- 853/(377)
    03. Kanhai- 875
    04. Pollock- 927
    05. Harvey- 921
    06. Sobers- 938/(669)
    07. Waite- 613
    08. Benaud- 623/863
    09. Davidson- 526/908
    10. Lindwall- 413/897
    11. Trueman- 260/898

    TOTAL: 7914 + 3566 + 1046 = 12,526

    PACKER ERA
    01. Gavaskar- 916
    02. Greenidge- 844
    03. Richards- 938/(168)
    04. Chappell- 883/(195)
    05. Lloyd- 818
    06. Botham- 811/(646)
    07. Imran- 650/922
    08. Knott- 650
    09. Lillee- 252/884
    10. Holding- 259/860
    11. Underwood- 213/907

    TOTAL: 7234 + 3573 + 1009 = 11,816

    MODERN ERA
    01. Hayden- 935
    02. Lander- 780
    03. Ponting- 942
    04. Tendulkar- 898/(205)
    05. Lara- 911
    06. Kallis- 935/(616)
    07. Gilchrist- 874
    08. Marshall- 375/910
    09. Warne- 348/905
    10. Ambrose- 229/912
    11. McGrath- 123/914

    TOTAL: 7350 + 3641 + 821 = 11,812

    1st. POST WWII - 12,526
    2nd. PACKER ERA - 11,816
    3rd. MODERN ERA - 11,812
    4th. PRE WWII - 11,227
    5th. PRE WWI - 10,708


    The POST WWII team wins fairly comfortably, with virtually nothing between the MODERN and PACKER ERAs.

    The best team made-up from all the players listed above is;

    01. Jack Hobbs- 942
    02. Len Hutton- 945
    03. Don Bradman- 961
    04. Ricky Ponting- 942
    05. Viv Richards- 938
    06. Garry Sobers- 938/(669)
    07. Adam Gilchrist- 874
    08. Imran Khan- 650/922
    09. Curtly Ambrose- 229/912
    10. Derek Underwood- 213/907
    11. Glenn McGrath- 123/914

    I have made the inclusion of a spinner mandatory, and resisted the temptation to include Kallis even though he would rack-up Allrounder points. This is because The Top 5 should always be the best batsman available, and one Batting Allrounder is enough.

    Someone might like to create the 'Highest ICC Rated Team' from all available Test match players.
    Last edited by watson; 03-03-2014 at 03:49 AM.
    "Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong" - Oscar Wilde

  10. #2740
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    21,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Muloghonto View Post
    Holding was done after 1982 IIRC. The other thing about Holding that people who've seen him are fond of, is that he is the greatest pure speedster ever. Why ? Well, he is the guy who might've been slower than the fastest balls bowled by the likes of Waqar, Akhtar, Lee, Thommo, Imran but he was the extremely rare guy ( along with Marshall, who was a bit slower) who could bowl at the same speed all day. Holding, even after bowling 20 overs in a day, would bowl six balls at 93-94mph. this lack of a drop in his speed, owing to his athletics background, was simply stunning ( not many people are aware that as a 17 year old, holding was in contention to represent the Jamaican 400m & 1 mile team in olympics. he missed the cut but one needs to see the context: he barely missed the cut for olympic level athletics from a nation that is historically a track and field powerhouse!)

    And Holding-Marshall were a newball pairing for a while, Marshall replaced Roberts to become Holding's partner, a scenario that persisted for 3-4 seasons before Garner replaced Holding to become Marshall's partner.
    Unfortunately for Garner, the West Indies cocked it up a bit by relegating him to support bowler, being intoxicated by the rapid rise of the faster (but less lethal) Patrick Patterson.
    Very well said. I mentioned it in my favorite XI (which needs to be completed btw ) that of all the bowlers that I have seen over the years Michael Holding was the one who could bowl consistently quick for a fair period of time. Sure the Akhtars and the Lees were quicker but they couldn't maintain that sort of speed for too long in test match conditions but Holding could. I don't really see much of a difference between Holding and Marshall in terms of the quality that they offered and I am pretty sure that most of the people who saw them bowl will agree with me. Additionally there are also the points that PEWS mentions. Holding definitely much more enjoyable to watch and who can forget that glide to the crease? There is a reason that Michael Holding is called the Rolls Royce of fast bowlers.

  11. #2741
    U19 12th Man
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Bondi, NSW
    Posts
    260
    That's a fantastic piece of mythology..

  12. #2742
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    21,737

  13. #2743
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,935
    Quote Originally Posted by Muloghonto View Post
    Probably, but he probably won't flat out die like Hobbs or Sutcliffe would, who were used to opening against spinners and military medium pacers. Hammond faced real pace,but those that are pitched fast & full or short of good length, with the occasional 'warning' bouncers. Not the headhunting barrage that Marshall could conjure at will.
    Computer simulations have accurately clocked available footage of Larwood deliveries as ranging between 137 to 142 kph. Albert Cotter was claimed by contemporaries to be every bit as fast as Larwood. Gregory and McDonald operated at speeds only a little slower than Larwood. The point being that early 20th century batsman had the skill and technique to handle true fast bowling.

    Also, there are only two fast bowlers who have hit the side-screen on the half volley after bouncing the batsman - Kortright and Thomson. And Kortright played from 1889 to 1907.

  14. #2744
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    1,318
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    Someone might like to create the 'Highest ICC Rated Team' from all available Test match players.
    1. Hutton - 945
    2. Hobbs - 942
    3. Bradman - 961
    4. Ponting - 942
    5. May - 941
    6. Sobers - 938/715 (669)
    7. Flower - 895
    8. Imran - 922
    9. Lohmann - 931
    10. Barnes - 932
    11. Muralitharan - 920

    Couldn't bring myself to pick Walcott, Sanga or de Villiers for the w/k spot, despite their higher batting ratings.
    ATG World XI
    1. J.B Hobbs 2. H. Sutcliffe 3. D.G Bradman 4. W.R Hammond 5. G.S Sobers 6. M.J Procter 7. A.C Gilchrist 8. M.D Marshall 9. S.K Warne 10. M. Muralitharan 11. G.D McGrath

  15. #2745
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,935
    Quote Originally Posted by Coronis View Post
    1. Hutton - 945
    2. Hobbs - 942
    3. Bradman - 961
    4. Ponting - 942
    5. May - 941
    6. Sobers - 938/715 (669)
    7. Flower - 895
    8. Imran - 922
    9. Lohmann - 931
    10. Barnes - 932
    11. Muralitharan - 920

    Couldn't bring myself to pick Walcott, Sanga or de Villiers for the w/k spot, despite their higher batting ratings.
    Wow, never would have predicted that Peter May's peak would top Viv Richard's, or even Weekes' for that matter.



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
  •