The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Red]

Jack Hobbs
Sutcliffe or Hutton
Wally Hammond
Ken Barrington
Dennis Compton
Ian Botham
Alan Knott
Fred Trueman
Brian Statham
Jim Laker
SF Barnes


I posted this a while ago. I think the England all time XI is far more difficult to decide than the Aust and WI XIs...

My rationale:

- Hobbs is a must. Greatest opener of all time.
- Almost impossible to split Sutcliffe and Hutton. Similar players. Either fine. But only one.
- Hammond a must as well. Genius batsman, handy bowler and gun fielder.
- Barrington at 4 over a number of others. He compliments the attacking style of Hammond, Compton and Botham in the middle order.
- Compton. Seems to have had an attacking flair, and a solid record. Perfect for 5.
- Botham at 6. With the top four so sound, the flair of Compton at 5 and Botham at 6 means that things will not become stagnant. Find it hard to believe some leave him out.
- Knott at 6. Could go for Ames to strengthen the batting, but Knott is a great keeper, and a very decent bat.
- I think ATG teams have to pick the four greatest bowlers (one a spinner), plus one extra. Trueman, Statham, Barnes and Laker are all outstanding, but Larwood, Bedser and Snow are all unlucky to miss.
- A bowling attack of Trueman, Statham, Botham, Barnes and Laker has great variety. Bedser is the one I'd really like to include, in place of Statham possibly. One or the other.

 

[watson]

Jack Hobbs
Sutcliffe or Hutton
Wally Hammond
Ken Barrington
Dennis Compton
Ian Botham
Alan Knott
Fred Trueman
Brian Statham
Jim Laker
SF Barnes


I posted this a while ago. I think the England all time XI is far more difficult to decide than the Aust and WI XIs...

My rationale:

- Hobbs is a must. Greatest opener of all time.
- Almost impossible to split Sutcliffe and Hutton. Similar players. Either fine. But only one.
- Hammond a must as well. Genius batsman, handy bowler and gun fielder.
- Barrington at 4 over a number of others. He compliments the attacking style of Hammond, Compton and Botham in the middle order.
- Compton. Seems to have had an attacking flair, and a solid record. Perfect for 5.
- Botham at 6. With the top four so sound, the flair of Compton at 5 and Botham at 6 means that things will not become stagnant. Find it hard to believe some leave him out.
- Knott at 6. Could go for Ames to strengthen the batting, but Knott is a great keeper, and a very decent bat.
- I think ATG teams have to pick the four greatest bowlers (one a spinner), plus one extra. Trueman, Statham, Barnes and Laker are all outstanding, but Larwood, Bedser and Snow are all unlucky to miss.
- A bowling attack of Trueman, Statham, Botham, Barnes and Laker has great variety. Bedser is the one I'd really like to include, in place of Statham possibly. One or the other.

I think that your team is at least one genuine fast-bowler short. History shows time and time again that a pair of fast-men is the most effective combo against the top-order.

Provided that they both class acts of course.

 

[Red]

I think that your team is at least one genuine fast-bowler short. History shows time and time again that a pair of fast-men is the most effective combo against the top-order.

Provided that they both class acts of course.

I have Trueman and Statham. Both quicks. Plus Botham, fast medium swing. And SF Barnes with his pace/spin turn of the century hybrid!

 

[kyear2]

Since many here belive that Larwood is a top 10 fast bowler, I think he has to be included. So most of the team has slected themselves with Hobbs, Hammond, Barrington, Compton, Botham, Knott, Barnes, Laker, Trueman being consensus choices. We are left with Sutcliffe vs Hutton and the second opening bowler choice between Larwood, Bedser, Snow and Statham. Since Hutton was not only cricinfo's but also our choice for the All Time XI, he is automatic and with the attack lacking genuine pace Larwood or Snow should be the pick. So which one?

 

[watson]

I have Trueman and Statham. Both quicks. Plus Botham, fast medium swing. And SF Barnes with his pace/spin turn of the century hybrid!

Statham and Botham are both great bowlers, but they are not fast. By playing Larwood or Snow instead you get the same level of skill but at a pace that can intimidate the batsman if need be.

Statham and Botham didn't have the same level of 'menace' that Larwood, Snow, Lillee, Thomson, Holding, Roberts etc had.

If you were an opening batsman, or a tail-ender, then who would you rather face? Statham/Botham or Larwood/Snow?

 

[NUFAN]

If I were an opening batsman I wouldn't give a flying duck about facing the quicker bowler. The quicker it is, the quicker it gets to the boundary.

Why no KP love by the way? Big time performer with so many 100s for England.

 

[watson]

If I were an opening batsman I wouldn't give a flying duck about facing the quicker bowler. The quicker it is, the quicker it gets to the boundary.

Why no KP love by the way? Big time performer with so many 100s for England.

It's a lot more simple than that.

A leg-cutter, or in-swinging yorker bowled at 145 kph is a lot harder to hit than the same delivery bowled at 130 kph. A bouncer is also more easily gloved at 145 kph, especially if it's 'taken-off' from just short of a length. John Snow was renowned for his 'steep-bounce' which caused the Aussie batsman no end of grief home and away.

BTW - KP, a good bat.

 

[Red]

Statham and Botham are both great bowlers, but they are not fast. By playing Larwood or Snow instead you get the same level of skill but at a pace that can intimidate the batsman if need be.

Statham and Botham didn't have the same level of 'menace' that Larwood, Snow, Lillee, Thomson, Holding, Roberts etc had.

If you were an opening batsman, or a tail-ender, then who would you rather face? Statham/Botham or Larwood/Snow?

There is a lot of love for Larwood in this forum. I don't quite get it (esp between players in the same era, and the same nation). I can't see why Larwood would be considered above others. I know stats don't tell the whole story, but they tell a bit, and I can't see why Larwood is rated by some above other English quicks. His contemporary, Bill Voce, for instance, has far better raw stats this him. So does Gubby Allen, another contemporary. Both played in the same era as Larwood, and took wickets quicker, and for less runs, than Larwood.

I kind of wonder if it'll be the case in 80 years that on CW people will be saying Brett Lee should be an ATG selection over McGrath because he bowled at 160kms at times and McGrath was only about 135kms. Slightly facetious there, but you get my drift....

 

[watson]

There is a lot of love for Larwood in this forum. I don't quite get it (esp between players in the same era, and the same nation). I can't see why Larwood would be considered above others. I know stats don't tell the whole story, but they tell a bit, and I can't see why Larwood is rated by some above other English quicks. His contemporary, Bill Voce, for instance, has far better raw stats this him. So does Gubby Allen, another contemporary. Both played in the same era as Larwood, and took wickets quicker, and for less runs, than Larwood.

I kind of wonder if it'll be the case in 80 years that on CW people will be saying Brett Lee should be an ATG selection over McGrath because he bowled at 160kms at times and McGrath was only about 135kms. Slightly facetious there, but you get my drift....

I do get your drift.

However, the assumption is that Larwood is of the SAME skill level as Statham, Bedser, or Botham. Obviously they are different types of bowlers, but I'm thinking in terms of accuracy-endurance-tenacity-ability to 'beat the bat' -that sort of thing.

I have always been sceptical of Larwood because, as you have said, his numbers don't stack-up. But I have assumed that there are more knowledgable people than me on this forum, so I rely on their home-work and subsequent opinion somewhat.

Also, it is quite likely that if the 1980s generated half-a-dozen classy English quicks like it did in the West Indies then Larwood wouldn't get a look-in. The sad fact is, the dire shortage of English fast-bowlers means that we have little choice but to put Harold on our short-list. No end of stereotypical fast-mediums, but fast is another story.

 

[NUFAN]

It's a lot more simple than that.

A leg-cutter, or in-swinging yorker bowled at 145 kph is a lot harder to hit than the same delivery bowled at 130 kph. A bouncer is also more easily gloved at 145 kph, especially if it's 'taken-off' from just short of a length. John Snow was renowned for his 'steep-bounce' which caused the Aussie batsman no end of grief home and away.

BTW - KP, a good bat.

What you sound doesn't sound as simple as what I suggested.

Basically the main question should be picking the better bowler. The comparison you've provided sounds as if its a demon vs a quality club cricketer not two of the best English bowlers of all time. I don't mind you going for the quicker bowler, but I don't think the team needs 3 very fast bowlers.

 

[watson]

What you sound doesn't sound as simple as what I suggested.

Basically the main question should be picking the better bowler. The comparison you've provided sounds as if its a demon vs a quality club cricketer not two of the best English bowlers of all time. I don't mind you going for the quicker bowler, but I don't think the team needs 3 very fast bowlers.

Probably not three, although three worked extremely well for the West Indies in the 80s because all three were damned good.

So maybe, what we after is 2-3 English bowlers who were both fast and damned good at the same time. Or to put it another way - quick with good variety and control.

That would be Trueman (definitely), Snow (probably), and Larwood (possibly) IMO.

Willis?

 

[Days of Grace]

My England XI
Hobbs
Hutton (c)
Hammond
Compton
Pietersen
Botham
Knott (wk)
Larwood
Trueman
Laker
Barnes

Left out Barrington, since we have good enough batsmen in the team to make his modus operandi, i.e. stonewalling in the event of a crisis, kinda redudant. Also, Barrington padded his stats with a lot of scores in bore draws against teams that weren't that strong. Check his stats vs. the West Indies, the best bowling attack of his day.

Instead, I have gone for some entertainment in the middle order with Compton and Pietersen. Compton could also stonewall when the need arose. I almost selected May ahead of him, but went with the more romantic selection. Pietersen has done enough in my view to be selected, or at least be considered for an alltime XI. Wouldn't mind seeing him and Beefy together at 250/4, either.

As for the bowling attack, you have your firepower with the new ball (Larwood and Trueman), your spinner, and your two bowlers who can back up the quicks and bowl all day (Botham and Barnes).

If the the wind is howling from one end (overrated notion, since it hardly ever happens), then Barnes or Botham can easily bowl into it with the new ball.


<my two cents>

 

[NUFAN]

Probably not three, although three worked extremely well for the West Indies in the 80s because all three were damned good.

So maybe, what we after is 2-3 English bowlers who were both fast and damned good at the same time. Or to put it another way - quick with good variety and control.

That would be Trueman (definitely), Snow (probably), and Larwood (possibly) IMO.

Willis?

Yeah but were the WI quicks good because they were quick or quick because they were good? Sounds silly, but like your example of Snow earlier, being able to get that steep bounce helps make him appear quicker.

Willis was a fine bowler, but I'm thinking Frank Tyson fits into your criteria more so.

 

[Red]

Willis?

Worth a conversation...

 

[Jager]

An English XI without Larwood is like an Australian XI without Lillee to me

Aus XI bowling
05. Miller
08. Davidson
09. Warne
10. Lillee
11. O'Reilly

 

[Jager]

Eng XI bowling
03. Hammond
06. Beefy
08. Verity
09. Larwood
10. Laker
11. Trueman

 

[watson]

Yeah but were the WI quicks good because they were quick or quick because they were good? Sounds silly, but like your example of Snow earlier, being able to get that steep bounce helps make him appear quicker.

Willis was a fine bowler, but I'm thinking Frank Tyson fits into your criteria more so.

I'm fussy, I want quick AND good.

The assumption being that (quick plus good) is consistently more lethal to a batting order than just plain (good). If that makes sense.

Tyson was quick, but was he good? I have question marks about his endurance/tenacity as his career was quite short. Larwood's career wasn't short, and he was a tough SOB.

Also, could Tyson cut or swing the ball as well as Trueman or Snow? I'm not so sure, although I'm not an authority on Frank Tyson.

Lastly, steep-bounce doesn't make a bowler appear quick, it happens because the bowler IS quick. That is, the ball can only bounce high because it has hit the pitch hard, and this can only happen at good velocity. Unless the bowler is near 6 1/2 foot tall, which Snow wasn't.

 

[Red]

An English XI without Larwood is like an Australian XI without Lillee to me

Aus XI bowling
05. Miller
08. Davidson
09. Warne
10. Lillee
11. O'Reilly

Tough leaving McGrath out for Davidson. McGrath much more potent. Left arm variety is a nice thought, but most great attacks have done well without it.

McGrath and Lindwall are ahead of Davo for me, purely on the need to take wickets in as few balls as possible.

 

[smash84]

Tough leaving McGrath out for Davidson. McGrath much more potent. Left arm variety is a nice thought, but most great attacks have done well without it.

McGrath and Lindwall are ahead of Davo for me, purely on the need to take wickets in as few balls as possible.

Davidson will take significantly cheaper wickets than Lindwall and McG and only lose 10 more deliveries in the process.

 

[NUFAN]

I'm fussy, I want quick AND good.

The assumption being that (quick plus good) is consistently more lethal to a batting order than just plain (good). If that makes sense.

Tyson was quick, but was he good? I have question marks about his endurance/tenacity as his career was quite short. Larwood's career wasn't short, and he was a tough SOB.

Also, could Tyson cut or swing the ball as well as Trueman or Snow? I'm not so sure, although I'm not an authority on Frank Tyson.

Lastly, steep-bounce doesn't make a bowler appear quick, it happens because the bowler IS quick. That is, the ball can only bounce high because it has hit the pitch hard, and this can only happen at good velocity. Unless the bowler is near 6 1/2 foot tall, which Snow wasn't.

Yes of course he was good. Amazed that you would consider Tyson's career short and Larwood's not short. 4 tests overall difference and like a years time span is minimal.

No comment on the steep-bounce.