The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[LongHopCassidy]

I'm going to post a less-than-conventional ODI XI:

1. Adam Gilchrist
2. AB de Villiers
3. Ricky Ponting
4. Paul Collingwood
5. Andrew Symonds
6. Jonty Rhodes
7. Tillakaratne Dilshan
8. Carl Hooper
9. Roger Harper
10. Heath Streak
11. Brett Lee

Average-looking XI on paper, but you might have noticed that they were all unbelievable in the field.

I firmly believe that this side would save 50-60 more runs in the field than an average ODI side if you factor in unlikely stops, the constant threat of run-outs and taking half-chances. The fact they can slog down to 11 (outfielders are fairly hard to rate) doesn't hurt, despite only having 3 frontline bowlers.

The only worry I have is who to put at backward point.

[Monk]

Originally Posted by LongHopCassidy

I'm going to post a less-than-conventional ODI XI:

1. Adam Gilchrist
2. AB de Villiers
3. Ricky Ponting
4. Paul Collingwood
5. Andrew Symonds
6. Jonty Rhodes
7. Tillakaratne Dilshan
8. Carl Hooper
9. Roger Harper
10. Heath Streak
11. Brett Lee

Average-looking XI on paper, but you might have noticed that they were all unbelievable in the field.

I firmly believe that this side would save 50-60 more runs in the field than an average ODI side if you factor in both unlikely stops and taking half-chances. The fact they can slog down to 11 (outfielders are fairly hard to rate) doesn't hurt, despite only having 3 frontline bowlers.

Only worry I have is who to put at backward point.

Love it. I would pay a lot of money to watch that. I'd trade one of the quicks for Garner, who was great in the gully. Then, watch batsman try to turn the strike over against this field with Garner bowling at them.

I'd also trade Hooper for V. Richards or Clive Lloyd.

Awesome!

You could make the combo really strong I reckon.

A. Gilchrist (wk)
M. Waugh- Slip, or anywhere in the infield. Best all round fielder I saw
V. Richards- Basically same as M. Waugh, great throw from short range
R. Ponting- Point/covers/slip- best at throwing down stumps
AB DeVilliers- All rounder, freakishly talented bastard!
P. Collingwood- Backward point. The best in that spot
J. Rhodes- Cover/point. Moved like no one else, best ground fielder. Good judge of a run out too.
A. Symonds- Mid on/off- So agile and powerful
H. Streak- "a magnificent outfielder with a howitzer-like throw".
B. Lee- Same as Streak
J. Garner- Gully, very sharp for a massive man


Others- Clive Lloyd: midwicket
Harper- anywhere.

[AndyZaltzHair]

I think we can't leave out Trueman from England XI that easily;

Trueman's career lasted twenty seasons, an extremely long span for a fast bowler, and John Arlott noted of him that he maintained his form and ability "much longer than the peak period (i.e., a decade) of even the best of the kind (and) he was, when the fire burned, as fine a fast bowler as any".

Wisden described Fred Trueman as "probably the greatest fast bowler England has produced"

In Kilburn's view, "(Trueman's) place among the truly great bowlers of cricket history is beyond question". He had a "resilience of spirit (that was) as marked as the physical power that gave him such remarkable freedom from injury over the years". Trueman's method was a long, accelerating run-up ending in a wide delivery stride with a "cartwheel" swing of the arms and a balanced follow-through. Technically, he was "highly accomplished" as he had much more than mere speed at his command, for he learned in-swing, out-swing and variation of pace and length.[103] Kilburn's final analysis of Trueman's contribution to Yorkshire cricket is: "In an XI representing all the county history he would be selected".

[NUFAN]

Originally Posted by watson

What's fairness got to do with selecting an ATG team? I don't see how it is relevant. Either an opening combination is good because it averages 60.94 runs and runs brilliantly between the wickets, or it isn't.

There is nothing morally wrong about selecting something that you know will work because you have hard evidence. Hard evidence is a fine thing, not a negative.

Well everything actually. The object of the game is to pick the eleven best players. Its not like football or rugby league where combinations are more vital.

Agree there is nothing morally wrong of course, but if Morris was born later could he have done what Lawry did? Could Trumper or Barnes have done what Simpson did??

Originally Posted by Monk

I think NUFAN's point is that selecting a combo like that might not necessarily reward other players who weren't as fortunate to have a great opening partner, but were quite possibly better players.

That's exactly what I was getting at. Again I have no problem if you can't split say a Lawry and a Morris for the second spot, but I've just felt reading posts from the last week or two players are moving up the pecking order of teams due to their combination, personally I don't like it.

[Mike5181]

NZ:

Tests
1.Glenn Turner
2.Stewie Dempster
3.Bert Sutcliffe
4.Martin Crowe
5.Martin Donnelly
6.John R Reid (c)
7.Christopher Cairns
8.Richard Hadlee
9.Ian Smith+
10.Shane Bond
11.Jack Cowie

[kyear2]

I think that trueman has to be included over Bedser, and using Bradmans team comes with accepting that he had preferences with players who he played with, got him out or that reminded him of him self. He left out Hobbs for Morris and that in itself speaks volumes.

Separate note, once we get these teams selected who is for some simmed series, either all 8, or just the top 4 or 6. Since we are currently discussing England we can come to a consensus there first, then conclude the Aussie team and go on from there.

Sounds fun?

[Mike5181]

Originally Posted by Mike5181

NZ:

Tests
1.Glenn Turner
2.Stewie Dempster
3.Bert Sutcliffe
4.Martin Crowe
5.Martin Donnelly
6.John R Reid (c)
7.Christopher Cairns
8.Richard Hadlee
9.Ian Smith+
10.Shane Bond
11.Jack Cowie

ODIs
1.Glenn Turner
2.Nathan Astle
3.Stephen Fleming (c)
4.Martin Crowe
5.Ross Taylor
6.Roger Twose
7.Christopher Cairns
8.Brendon McCullum+
9.Richard Hadlee
10.Daniel Vettori
11.Shane Bond

[watson]

Originally Posted by kyear2

I think that trueman has to be included over Bedser, and using Bradmans team comes with accepting that he had preferences with players who he played with, got him out or that reminded him of him self. He left out Hobbs for Morris and that in itself speaks volumes.

Separate note, once we get these teams selected who is for some simmed series, either all 8, or just the top 4 or 6. Since we are currently discussing England we can come to a consensus there first, then conclude the Aussie team and go on from there.

Sounds fun?

I agree. We are under no obligation to accept McGilvray's opinion, but merely throw everything into the mix, and then draw our own conclusions - right or wrong.

I tend to think that Trueman could do most of what Bedser did, but 20-30 kms faster. Trueman also had a bouncer and Bedser didn't.

So, given the choice between Bedser and Trueman, I would choose Trueman anyday.

Ergo - Trueman is a must in any England line-up. As is SF Barnes.

It is Larwood, Snow.....etc etc who are the variables IMO.

[kyear2]

The one that I cannot fathom (besides for sure what Barnes bowled, I think we are now accepting the theory of spin) is why is Larwood rated so highly, Benaud rates him in his 6 best fast bolwers ever ahead of ever W.I who ever played. Its easy to use first class stats to bak up great test numbers (Headley, B. Richards, Procter ect) but not to contridict ordinary/poor test stats.

[watson]

Originally Posted by NUFAN

Well everything actually. The object of the game is to pick the eleven best players. Its not like football or rugby league where combinations are more vital.

Agree there is nothing morally wrong of course, but if Morris was born later could he have done what Lawry did? Could Trumper or Barnes have done what Simpson did??




That's exactly what I was getting at. Again I have no problem if you can't split say a Lawry and a Morris for the second spot, but I've just felt reading posts from the last week or two players are moving up the pecking order of teams due to their combination, personally I don't like it.

I don't think that it's quite like that. Anyone could make a reasonable case as to why Simpson or Lawry could make an ATG Aussie team on their OWN merits. Indeed, they could have been 20 years apart and still be front runners.

However, the 'Simpson-Lawry Combo Thing' is merely an added factor like a great cover drive, immaculate defence, good slips catching, or average over 50. By sheer coincidence it gives both players an edge over other openers when all things are equal.

How else am I supposed to split the left-handers Lawry and Morris? I can't otherwise because they are really that close in talent and effect.

[kyear2]

Good compelling argument, all other factors being equal.

[watson]

Originally Posted by kyear2

The one that I cannot fathom (besides for sure what Barnes bowled, I think we are now accepting the theory of spin) is why is Larwood rated so highly, Benaud rates him in his 6 best fast bolwers ever ahead of ever W.I who ever played. Its easy to use first class stats to bak up great test numbers (Headley, B. Richards, Procter ect) but not to contridict ordinary/poor test stats.

The inclusion of Larwood would give the England pace attack added balance because Larwood is comfortably the fastest bowler that England has produced.

In other words the captain could use him as a 'shock bowler' like Shoaib Akhtar. Due to Larwood's speed and accuracy the Captain would merely issue the instruction, "I give you 5 overs to kill the batsman. Bowl flat-out". Trueman or Snow would then obtain the actual wicket of said batsman with a decent leg-cutter once the batsman is on the defensive.

We should rarely look at a bowler in isolation but conceive him as part of a trio or quartet. In my opinion Larwood would combine very nicely with either Trueman or Snow, or even Bedser for that matter.

[kyear2]

Top 10 all time though?

[watson]

Originally Posted by kyear2

Top 10 all time though?

Let me think about it for a minute;

01. Marshall
02. McGrath
03. Hadlee
04. Lillee
05. Ambrose
06. Imran
07. Trueman
08. Lindwall
09. Garner
10. Donald
11. Davidson
12. Akram
13. Roberts
14. Holding
15. Larwood

No, more like Top 15 I think.

Larwood's standing would no doubt improve if we include domestic cricket. But I am ranking according to international cricket.

[Jager]

sounds good kyear.

Gee whiz, it's so hard to rank bowlers. Think I'd probably have Larwood in my top five though.