The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Flametree]

I grew up in NZ in the 70's/80's, and I'd take Smith as my keeper every time. It may be some of the earlier keepers like Wadsworth or Mooney were better keepers, but having never seen them play I can't really choose them. Smith hardly missed a chance and he scored some pretty handy runs. I agree he's not as good a batsman as McCullum but in a lower order with some or all of Reid/Cairns/Hadlee/Vettori likely to be selected, I'd happily give up 10 runs per innings to have him behind the sticks.

My NZ team :

Dempster
Turner
Sutcliffe
Crowe
Donnelly
Reid
Hadlee
Vettori
Smith (wk)
Bond
Cowie

Second xi :

Richardson
Wright
Jones
Fleming
Taylor R
McCullum (wk)
Cairns
Taylor B
Nash
Collinge
Boock

Fair to say the spin stocks aren't too impressive....

 

[fredfertang]

Largely agree with those sides, though to show my age Hedley Howarth and Bev Congdon a bit unlucky not to be in the seconds

 

[NUFAN]

Is Chris Martin close to making NZ's second best XI of all time?


Zim XI
1. Grant Flower
2. Kevin Arnott
3. Murray Goodwin
4. Dave Houghton
5. Andy Flower
6. Sean Ervine
7. Tatenda Taibu
8. Heath Streak
9. Paul Strang
10. Henry Olonga
11. Ray Price

12. Brendan Taylor

 

[Red]

I didn't include Jack Cowie. Hardly heard of him. He was obviously a decent bowler though...test and FC stats very good.

Hadlee, Bond and Cowie sounds ok, with Cairns for support...

 

[Flametree]

Is Chris Martin close to making NZ's second best XI of all time?[UNQUOTE]

No.

Longevity isn't enough to make up for the fact that he's pretty ordinay... And it's not like he brings anything else to the table in terms of his fielding and batting.

 

[NUFAN]

Is Chris Martin close to making NZ's second best XI of all time?[UNQUOTE]

No.

Longevity isn't enough to make up for the fact that he's pretty ordinay... And it's not like he brings anything else to the table in terms of his fielding and batting.

Yeah fair enough. Just wanted to see if you considered him or not.

 

[kyear2]

We are still no closer to selecting who we want to be the.England Openers?

 

[Eds]

I'd have all three in there personally. Probably Hutton at three.

 

[kyear2]

Despite the fact that he never batted at three, that he and Sutcliffe batting together would slow the run rate to a crawl and that Hobbs basically made everyone he batted with better. To me it has to be Hobbs and Hutton, two out right no. 1 openers with Hammond at three.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

If an England ATG XI is to be truly English, we have to pick the captain first.

Brearley at 3.

 

[Eds]

1. Jack Hobbs
2. Herbert Sutcliffe
3. Len Hutton
4. Wally Hammond
5. Douglas Jardine*
6. Ian Botham
7. Les Ames+
8. Harold Larwood
9. Fred Trueman
10. Sydney Barnes
11. Jim Laker

 

[kyear2]

Jack Hobbs
Len Hutton
Wally Hammond
Dennis Compton
Ken Barrington
Ian Botham
Allan Knott
Harold Larwood
Fred Trueman
Jim Laker
Syd Barnes

Peter May
Herbert Sutcliffe
John Snow

Hutton was a good captain who was very forward thinking with his ideas who just didn't stick with them long eneough.
Also the same way one doesn't weaken the middle order of the West Indies to play Worrell, or play him or Headley in positions that they didn't play by opening with them, shouldn't do the same here either.

 

[Eds]

Ahhhh, Syd Barnes. Of course. He'll come in for Tate.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

No idea why nobody seems to rate Bedser. He'd probably be my second pick of the bowlers after Trueman.

 

[The Sean]

Jack Hobbs
Len Hutton
Wally Hammond
Dennis Compton
Ken Barrington
Ian Botham
Allan Knott
Harold Larwood
Fred Trueman
Jim Laker
Syd Barnes

Peter May
Herbert Sutcliffe
John Snow

Aside from swapping the order of Compton and Barrington I reckon this is pretty much exactly my XI. I'd probably take Statham or Bedser over Snow - assuming that I've decided not to include Lohmann.

Comfortably the third strongest all time national side for mine, and would give both of the teams I rank above them a real shake.

 

[watson]

No idea why nobody seems to rate Bedser. He'd probably be my second pick of the bowlers after Trueman.

The guiding principle is that a pair of fast bowlers is the most effective mechanism for knocking over the opposition's top order. If you establish that principle then Larwood and Trueman must hold their position. Or in my case, Trueman and Snow.

This means that Bedser is contesting a bowlers spot with SF Barnes and Jim Laker. SF Barnes was the most dominant bowler of his era and therefore should be retained in the team.

The bowling attack we are left with is;

Botham
Larwood
Bedser
Trueman
Barnes

But I would argue that both John Snow and Jim Laker are more effective bowlers than Bedser in most conditions. The inclusion of Botham also makes Bedser less relevant as the team already has a first-rate swing bowler.

Therefore my preference is;

Botham (medium-fast swing)
Larwood (fast) OR Laker (off-spin) - depends on the pitch
Snow (fast)
Trueman (fast)
Barnes (medium-pace leg-spin)

However, unlike most people, I think that Botham is not a good enough batsman to hold down the No.6 spot.

And since the bowling skills of Hammond and Botham aren't that far removed I would be more than happy with the following attack;

Hammond (medium-pace swing)
Larwood (fast)
Snow (fast)
Trueman (fast)
Barnes (medium-pace leg-spin)

 

[Eds]

I'd almost always play Laker over Snow when you've got Wally Hammond [and Botham, of course] in the team.

 

[watson]

I'd almost always play Laker over Snow when you've got Wally Hammond [and Botham, of course] in the team.

Yes, that would work.

But it depends on whether you want variety in your attack or West Indian style fire-power (ie. 3 genuine quicks). Neither Botham or Hammond are quick, and I would argue that Hammond makes Botham almost superfluous anyway. Therefore, I would go for batting-depth and play Peter May at No.6 rather than Botham.

 

[The Sean]

Hammond was a very useful bowler, and probably underachieved at Test level due to not caring enough about it - but there is no way on God's earth that he is any way comparable to Beefy at his peak.

 

[watson]

Hammond was a very useful bowler, and probably underachieved at Test level due to not caring enough about it - but there is no way on God's earth that he is any way comparable to Beefy at his peak.

Then Botham is being wasted as a 4th or 5th bowler. Assuming that SF Barnes (and then maybe Laker) would come on before him after Larwood and Trueman have finished with the new ball.

May as well play the extra batsman and be happy with Hammond's more limited talents as the back-up bowler.