-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread
- Thread starter Red
- Start date
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
WG Grace
Victor Trumper
George Headley
Walter Hammond
Greg Chappell
Jacques Kallis
Keith Miller
Richard Hadlee
Jack Blackham
Dennis Lillee
Sydney Barnes
Barney to take the up the spinner mantle once he's finished swinging and seaming it with the newer ball.
kyear2
Cricketer Of The Year
If Barnes or O'Reilly were in the team sure, but he has kept superbly to Warne during his career and nothing to suggest this match would be any different.
That being said, I have become a huge fan of Oldfield.and the more I read about him the more I am impressed.
Hobbs
Hutton
Bradman
Richards
Tendulkar
Sobers
Gilchrist
Marshall
Warne
Steyn
McGrath
Even with a higher average, Sutcliffe was the clear number two to Hobbs, while Hutton was the number one opener of his and most eras. Sutcliffe supposedly had a strike rate in the low 30th despite opening with the master.
Hammond had a similar strike rate to Sutcliffe and struggled in Tests vs fast bowling. Can't quite put him in the same bracket as Richards and Tendulkar or even Lara or Chappell.
Steyn has really progressed and has surpassed Lillee, Hadlee etc as my third pacer.
Last edited:
JBMAC
State Captain
While I agree with Warne being the greatest spinner of all time why did you pick him Twice
watson
Banned
HARD LUCK XI - Batsman RUN OUT on 99, Bowlers RUN OUT without scoring.
01. Graham Gooch
02. Arthur Morris
03. Rohan Kanhai
04. Jacques Kallis
05. Mahela Jayawardene
06. Mushtaq Mohammad
07. MS Dhoni
08. Wasim Akram
09. Bishan Bedi
10. Curtly Ambrose
11. Glenn McGrath
12th Mike Atherton
01. Graham Gooch
02. Arthur Morris
03. Rohan Kanhai
04. Jacques Kallis
05. Mahela Jayawardene
06. Mushtaq Mohammad
07. MS Dhoni
08. Wasim Akram
09. Bishan Bedi
10. Curtly Ambrose
11. Glenn McGrath
12th Mike Atherton
Last edited:
Coronis
Cricketer Of The Year
Hammond because he has a better record than any of them, despite playing tests when 40+, which none of them did, for his outstanding fielding, and his more than useful bowling. Before you say it, I don't believe that **** about his supposed weakness to pace. Also especially with regard to Viv, he wasn't as consistent over his career as Hammond, or the other two for that matter. 40 more innings yet only 2 more centuries? Richards and Lara probably had higher peaks, but I'd still rather Hammond. (I say probably because c'mon, 905 runs in a series)
Sutcliffe, I've yet to see a convincing argument shown that he is in any way less of a batsman than Hutton or Gavaskar. Played in arguably tougher conditions, was a great player on sticky wickets, and faced great opposition in Gregory, Mcdonald, Mailey, Grimmett, O'Reilly. Yes I know its not the Windies of the 80's or maybe not even quite the same as Lindwall, Miller and Johnston, but its good enough for me.
Last edited:
kyear2
Cricketer Of The Year
I rate Hammond equally to Weekes and Walcott, great records overall but weaknesses that are too obvious to ignore.
With regards to comparing Hammond to Richards, try comparing the attacks, especially the pace attacks they both faced. Additionally Hammonds strike rate (I know, more important to me than you), was rather pedestrian at best.
It's rather telling that even Widen, a British publication that placed Knott over Gilchrist and included Barnes in their ATG team, still had Viv over Hammond.
I do agree though that Hammond's bowling and slip fielding elevates his status and makes an a very under rated all rounder. Still would prefer Chapel to him in that role though.
With regards to comparing Hammond to Richards, try comparing the attacks, especially the pace attacks they both faced. Additionally Hammonds strike rate (I know, more important to me than you), was rather pedestrian at best.
It's rather telling that even Widen, a British publication that placed Knott over Gilchrist and included Barnes in their ATG team, still had Viv over Hammond.
I do agree though that Hammond's bowling and slip fielding elevates his status and makes an a very under rated all rounder. Still would prefer Chapel to him in that role though.
smash84
The Tiger King
It is rather telling since it agrees with your views of course.
kyear2
Cricketer Of The Year
You do know you are approaching trolling territory.
smash84
The Tiger King
no, this isn't trolling. This is calling out double standards.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
It's dangerous to take someone's opinion seriously if you consider them partial at the first place. If I think Ian Chappell is unnecessarily partial towards aggressive batsmen (I do FTR), I won't attach any importance to his opinion on the 'aggression' aspect fo the game. For example, when he mildly praises a defensive batsman like Kallis, I'll take it as just that - mild praise. A dangerous thing will be to think Kallis should get brownie points because in spite of being a defensive batsman he's got mild praise from Chappell. I used to make this mistake; but I later understood that I shouldn't attach more importance to a specific comment just because of the commentator's known bias. Someone was making the point that when GIMH said 'Sangakkara is a fine player' in the other thread he got more likes than other people who also praised Sanga. It's apparently because GIMH seldom praises Sri Lankan players. If that's true, that's most unfortunate and a dangerous thing to do (attaching more importance to it).
It's the same with kyear's point with Wisden and Viv vs Hammond. You say Wisden is partial to English players. But what if Wisden is also partial to attackign players? What if Wisden attaches extra importance to peer opinion etc.? What if Wisden is partial to players whose colorful personal life can make good stories? All these points can go in Viv's favor.
It's the same with kyear's point with Wisden and Viv vs Hammond. You say Wisden is partial to English players. But what if Wisden is also partial to attackign players? What if Wisden attaches extra importance to peer opinion etc.? What if Wisden is partial to players whose colorful personal life can make good stories? All these points can go in Viv's favor.