The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[LongHopCassidy]

Each Test Playing Nation's Greatest Player

1. Jack Hobbs (Eng)
2.
3. Don Bradman (Aus)
4. Sachin Tendulkar (Ind)
5. Garry Sobers (WI)
6. Graeme Pollock (SA)
7.
8. Imran Khan (Pak)
9. Richard Hadlee (NZ)
10.
11. Muttiah Muralitharan (SL)

Perhaps Kapil over Sachin, and Pollock debatable, but I think the rest are pretty uncontentious.

Flower for Zimbabwe, surely.

 

[Prince EWS]

There's no way Pollock was a greater player than Kallis. Even on batting alone it's somewhat debatable, but Kallis as an overall cricketer leaves him for dead. Not sold on Hobbs either.

1. WG Grace (England)
2. Jacques Kallis (South Africa)
3. Don Bradman (Australia)
4. Sachin Tendulkar (India)
5. Garry Sobers (West Indies)
6. Andy Flower (Zimbabwe)
7. Shakib al Hasan (Bangladesh)
8. Imran Khan (Pakistan)
9. Richard Hadlee (New Zealand)
10. Bart King (non Test playing nations)
11. Muttiah Muralitharan (SL)

I think Kallis would have to open if you did it like that.

 

[JBMAC]

The batting line up for the All Time XI seems much easier to choose than the bowling attack.
The always consensus picks being Hutton, Hobbs, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar and Sobers, with the occasional smattering of Headley, Hammond, Lara, Pollock, Gavaskar and Chappell.
The bowling attack seems to consistently have only two names in Warne and Marshall with a list of: Mcgrath, Lillee, Miller, lindwall, Ambrose, Holding, Akram, Imran, Procter, Hadlee, Trueman, Barnes, Muralitharan, Verity, O'Reilly, Laker fighing it out for the last two spots.
The Wicketkeeping spot realistically is between two men and selection depends if you want a wicket-keeperbatsman or the other way around, but realistically you loose little in either catergory with Gilchrist and Knott or even Les Ames if one were to strech the pool.

You got to be kidding.You have lineups including all the greats and you would not select a specialist stumper. You are obviously younger or would have selected between Tallon, Grout,Engineer or Maclean.From your own country Walcott was no slouch and neither was Dujon. Both the latter are in front of Ames at least

 

[watson]

There's no way Pollock was a greater player than Kallis. Even on batting alone it's somewhat debatable, but Kallis as an overall cricketer leaves him for dead. Not sold on Hobbs either.

1. WG Grace (England)
2. Jacques Kallis (South Africa)
3. Don Bradman (Australia)
4. Sachin Tendulkar (India)
5. Garry Sobers (West Indies)
6. Andy Flower (Zimbabwe)
7. Shakib al Hasan (Bangladesh)
8. Imran Khan (Pakistan)
9. Richard Hadlee (New Zealand)
10. Bart King (non Test playing nations)
11. Muttiah Muralitharan (SL)

I think Kallis would have to open if you did it like that.

Are we after 'great' or 'best'?

Kallis might be the greater cricketer, but Pollock is the better batsman of the two South Africans IMO.

Same goes for Grace and Hobbs. Grace is probably the greater cricketer, but Hobbs would have to be the better English batsman IMO.

 

[watson]

You got to be kidding.You have lineups including all the greats and you would not select a specialist stumper. You are obviously younger or would have selected between Tallon, Grout,Engineer or Maclean.From your own country Walcott was no slouch and neither was Dujon. Both the latter are in front of Ames at least

Knott is definitely a specialist stumper, and possibly the best wicket-keeper of all time according to commenators like Dickie Bird who saw an aweful lot of keepers. The fact that Knott could bat as well is an added bonus.

Gilchrist was probably not as skillful as Knott behind the stumps, but I didn't hear Warne or McGrath complaining.

 

[Prince EWS]

Are we after 'great' or 'best'?

Kallis might be the greater cricketer, but Pollock is the better batsman of the two South Africans IMO.

Same goes for Grace and Hobbs. Grace is probably the greater cricketer, but Hobbs would have to be the better English batsman IMO.

From the original post: "Each Test Playing Nation's Greatest Player"

It's an entirely different exercise to the old "pick one player from each country in an attempt to get the best balanced side" thing.

 

[watson]

From the original post: "Each Test Playing Nation's Greatest Player"

It's an entirely different exercise to the old "pick one player from each country in an attempt to get the best balanced side" thing.

In that case it should be Kallis and Grace (just).

 

[NUFAN]

Captain Obvious here, but man Bangladesh have been **** when you try and work out who the second best player of theres has been!

Bashar, Tamim or Rafique are the only contenders which sums it up.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Gilchrist was probably not as skillful as Knott behind the stumps, but I didn't hear Warne or McGrath complaining.

What made Knott such a class apart from Gilchrist? Would you rather keep to Warne or Underwood?

And if we're looking for a specialist stumper, then Ames is your man (highest FC stumping/catching ratio by a mile).

 

[smash84]

Captain Obvious here, but man Bangladesh have been **** when you try and work out who the second best player of theres has been!

Bashar, Tamim or Rafique are the only contenders which sums it up.

Mashrafe Murtaza might be the contender as well......they have been that ****

 

[Mike5181]

What made Knott such a class apart from Gilchrist? Would you rather keep to Warne or Underwood?

And if we're looking for a specialist stumper, then Ames is your man (highest FC stumping/catching ratio by a mile).

I often wonder where Mark Boucher is rated when we talk about keepers. Is he that far behind guys like Knott?

 

[Red]

I often wonder where Mark Boucher is rated when we talk about keepers. Is he that far behind guys like Knott?

Knott is definitely a specialist stumper, and possibly the best wicket-keeper of all time according to commenators like Dickie Bird who saw an aweful lot of keepers. The fact that Knott could bat as well is an added bonus.

Gilchrist was probably not as skillful as Knott behind the stumps, but I didn't hear Warne or McGrath complaining.

General opinion of a lot of people seems to be that wicketkeeping standards have declined in the modern era. I'm not sure how true this is.

Older generations seem to rate Tallon very highly. They say you never heard the ball hit his gloves because his actions were so supple and clean. Likewise Knott is rated very highly as a keeper, particularly for his work to Underwood on some ordinary pitches. Engineer is spoken of very highly as well, and he kept to a lot of spinners on Indian pitches, which I imagine is a tough task. Bert Oldfield has a very large amount of stumpings, and is also regarded as a fine craftsman. Godfrey Evans was renowned for keeping up to the stumps to Bedser and making many stumpings from his medium fast bowling.

I never saw those guys, but the best keeper I saw was Healy. Healy was exceptional to pace and spin, and set a very high standard in what became a great fielding side.

There is an opinion that Gilchrist wasn't a great keeper. I dispute this. I don't think he was as graceful as some others, but I think he was very effective. I didn't see a heap of Boucher, but I don't think he was ever really tested keeping to a great spinner as some others were. He was certainly effective to high quality pace bowling. Similar to Dujon, very athletic keeper when standing back, but not tested extensively up at the stumps.

 

[JBMAC]

General opinion of a lot of people seems to be that wicketkeeping standards have declined in the modern era. I'm not sure how true this is.

Older generations seem to rate Tallon very highly. They say you never heard the ball hit his gloves because his actions were so supple and clean. Likewise Knott is rated very highly as a keeper, particularly for his work to Underwood on some ordinary pitches. Engineer is spoken of very highly as well, and he kept to a lot of spinners on Indian pitches, which I imagine is a tough task. Bert Oldfield has a very large amount of stumpings, and is also regarded as a fine craftsman. Godfrey Evans was renowned for keeping up to the stumps to Bedser and making many stumpings from his medium fast bowling.

I never saw those guys, but the best keeper I saw was Healy. Healy was exceptional to pace and spin, and set a very high standard in what became a great fielding side.

There is an opinion that Gilchrist wasn't a great keeper. I dispute this. I don't think he was as graceful as some others, but I think he was very effective. I didn't see a heap of Boucher, but I don't think he was ever really tested keeping to a great spinner as some others were. He was certainly effective to high quality pace bowling. Similar to Dujon, very athletic keeper when standing back, but not tested extensively up at the stumps.

There are some pretty fair comments there.I was just a wee lad in '37 when Oldfield retired and can only go on what my late Dad told me.He must have been good to have kept to O'Reilly and Grimmett(70 odd catches,50 odd stumpings) and not off them before someone jumps on me from a great height. I have seen at first hand Tallon,Engineer,Evans,Grout and Maclean and been fortunate enough to be mentored by one of these gents so I am trying not to be biased.If I had to rate them as pure glovemen Don Tallon would be head and shoulders above the rest.Running a very close second would be Grout then Maclean.You have probably never heard of the latter but look him up.If history and a very serious finger injury had not had him dropped after a handful of tests then I's imagined him as an "ATG" and I hate that expression. As fpr you query re technique I will ponder over that and let you know

 

[Jager]

You got to be kidding.You have lineups including all the greats and you would not select a specialist stumper. You are obviously younger or would have selected between Tallon, Grout,Engineer or Maclean.From your own country Walcott was no slouch and neither was Dujon. Both the latter are in front of Ames at least

best post in forum history IMO

Also I will have to change my stance on Walcott a little I think!

 

[watson]

There are some pretty fair comments there.I was just a wee lad in '37 when Oldfield retired and can only go on what my late Dad told me.He must have been good to have kept to O'Reilly and Grimmett(70 odd catches,50 odd stumpings) and not off them before someone jumps on me from a great height. I have seen at first hand Tallon,Engineer,Evans,Grout and Maclean and been fortunate enough to be mentored by one of these gents so I am trying not to be biased.If I had to rate them as pure glovemen Don Tallon would be head and shoulders above the rest.Running a very close second would be Grout then Maclean.You have probably never heard of the latter but look him up.If history and a very serious finger injury had not had him dropped after a handful of tests then I's imagined him as an "ATG" and I hate that expression. As fpr you query re technique I will ponder over that and let you know

No, I hadn't heard of Maclean till now. Thanks.

John Alexander Maclean

John McLean was a staunch servant of Queensland cricket, leading them with distinction for much of the 1970s. A sturdy but surprisingly agile wicketkeeper, and a limited, albeit solid, batsman, McLean was considered to be a close rival to Rod Marsh for the Australian No. 1 slot, touring New Zealand with Australia in 1969-70. But in 1978-79 he was drafted into an Australian side decimated by defections to World Series Cricket, even though he was past his best. His keeping was dependable, but his batting limitations were exposed by England's spinners.
Martin Williamson April 2004

John Maclean | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[kyear2]

The number seven slot is a very important batting position for any line up and while you would want a quality keeper, you don't want to give up too much with the bat either. The two gentlemen named gives us the best of both worlds with out loosing quality with the gloves. One dowsn't achieve the career number that Gilly did with out being a geat gloveman, especially considering the bowlers he kept to, Warne, Mcgill, Lee ect.

 

[Dan]

The number seven slot is a very important batting position for any line up and while you would want a quality keeper, you don't want to give up too much with the bat either. The two gentlemen named gives us the best of both worlds with out loosing quality with the gloves. One dowsn't achieve the career number that Gilly did with out being a geat gloveman, especially considering the bowlers he kept to, Warne, Mcgill, Lee ect.

AWTA

Opportunity cost. By selecting say, Tallon ahead of Gilchrist, you lose ~30 runs but gain some wicketkeeping ability. By selecting Gilchrist, the converse is true.

Given wicketkeeping is impossible to analyse by statistics, but rather intuition and through player, official and fan accounts, the balance may be slightly skewed towards runs. By that I mean in the event of two wicketkeepers, and with very little evidence suggesting a large differential in wicketkeeping ability (say, Godfrey Evans vs Alan Knott; or Tallon vs Gilchrist), the selector leans towards the better batsman.

Gilchrist probably isn't an ideal example, since his average is so far ahead of anyone else's, and his wicketkeeping was pretty damn good overall (IMO, very little would separate him from Tallon in realistic terms - Gilchrist rarely dropped anything off ATG bowlers like McGrath and Warne). However, I think it is a no-brainer in the end; for a small differential in wicketkeeping ability, you get three times the Test batsman compared to Tallon.

The thing is, how can we categorically state that Tallon was that far superior with the gloves to Gilchrist? We can't - just like I can't categorically prove Larwood > all, or that Bradman truly was twice the batsman of anyone else in existence. We take estimations, we use the evidence available, we make judgements, we come to our own conclusions. Mine is that Gilchrist's batting (+30 runs an innings compared to Tallon) compensates for the slight drop off in wicketkeeping skill you get with him. And, I like to think, this is the mainstream view most hold; Gilchrist's batting was that exceptional that you accept slightly inferior wicketkeeping.

And ****, by slightly inferior we're still talking about fantastic glovework. He wasn't Kamran bloody Akmal behind the sticks.

 

[smash84]

AWTA

Opportunity cost. By selecting say, Tallon ahead of Gilchrist, you lose ~30 runs but gain some wicketkeeping ability. By selecting Gilchrist, the converse is true.

Given wicketkeeping is impossible to analyse by statistics, but rather intuition and through player, official and fan accounts, the balance may be slightly skewed towards runs. By that I mean in the event of two wicketkeepers, and with very little evidence suggesting a large differential in wicketkeeping ability (say, Godfrey Evans vs Alan Knott; or Tallon vs Gilchrist), the selector leans towards the better batsman.

Gilchrist probably isn't an ideal example, since his average is so far ahead of anyone else's, and his wicketkeeping was pretty damn good overall (IMO, very little would separate him from Tallon in realistic terms - Gilchrist rarely dropped anything off ATG bowlers like McGrath and Warne). However, I think it is a no-brainer in the end; for a small differential in wicketkeeping ability, you get three times the Test batsman compared to Tallon.

The thing is, how can we categorically state that Tallon was that far superior with the gloves to Gilchrist? We can't - just like I can't categorically prove Larwood > all, or that Bradman truly was twice the batsman of anyone else in existence. We take estimations, we use the evidence available, we make judgements, we come to our own conclusions. Mine is that Gilchrist's batting (+30 runs an innings compared to Tallon) compensates for the slight drop off in wicketkeeping skill you get with him. And, I like to think, this is the mainstream view most hold; Gilchrist's batting was that exceptional that you accept slightly inferior wicketkeeping.

And ****, by slightly inferior we're still talking about fantastic glovework. He wasn't Kamran bloody Akmal behind the sticks.

awta. Richie Benaud has seen quite a few keepers and he found Gilchrist good enough to make a place for him in his side.

 

[Jager]

AWTA

Opportunity cost. By selecting say, Tallon ahead of Gilchrist, you lose ~30 runs but gain some wicketkeeping ability. By selecting Gilchrist, the converse is true.

Given wicketkeeping is impossible to analyse by statistics, but rather intuition and through player, official and fan accounts, the balance may be slightly skewed towards runs. By that I mean in the event of two wicketkeepers, and with very little evidence suggesting a large differential in wicketkeeping ability (say, Godfrey Evans vs Alan Knott; or Tallon vs Gilchrist), the selector leans towards the better batsman.

Gilchrist probably isn't an ideal example, since his average is so far ahead of anyone else's, and his wicketkeeping was pretty damn good overall (IMO, very little would separate him from Tallon in realistic terms - Gilchrist rarely dropped anything off ATG bowlers like McGrath and Warne). However, I think it is a no-brainer in the end; for a small differential in wicketkeeping ability, you get three times the Test batsman compared to Tallon.

The thing is, how can we categorically state that Tallon was that far superior with the gloves to Gilchrist? We can't - just like I can't categorically prove Larwood > all, or that Bradman truly was twice the batsman of anyone else in existence. We take estimations, we use the evidence available, we make judgements, we come to our own conclusions. Mine is that Gilchrist's batting (+30 runs an innings compared to Tallon) compensates for the slight drop off in wicketkeeping skill you get with him. And, I like to think, this is the mainstream view most hold; Gilchrist's batting was that exceptional that you accept slightly inferior wicketkeeping.

And ****, by slightly inferior we're still talking about fantastic glovework. He wasn't Kamran bloody Akmal behind the sticks.

Gilchrist was good, sure, but if you are placing so much emphasis on batting then why not a superior batsman like Walcott or perhaps Sangakkara? There's an extra 10 runs there and from all reports, the former was excellent with the gloves - Sangakkara fits the 'efficient' category in my eyes but is a colossus at the crease.

I'd never sacrifice a catch or stumping for a few extra runs myself (let's not forget Gilchrist was a little bit of a hit-and-miss type, either)

 

[Dan]

Gilchrist was good, sure, but if you are placing so much emphasis on batting then why not a superior batsman like Walcott or perhaps Sangakkara? There's an extra 10 runs there and from all reports, the former was excellent with the gloves - Sangakkara fits the 'efficient' category in my eyes but is a colossus at the crease.

I'd never sacrifice a catch or stumping for a few extra runs myself (let's not forget Gilchrist was a little bit of a hit-and-miss type, either)

I'm not placing so much of an emphasis on batting; I'm merely saying that a balance needs to be reached. There is no point walking in with a number 7 or 8 batsman who averages 15 to face the Martians. I struggle to recall a chance he dropped either - excluding the one that led to him retiring. He kept with distinction for 96 Tests to Warne and McGrath - hardly befitting of a wicketkeeper who would miss catches or stumpings. We all know from watching him, a Gilchrist error was extremely rare (and no wicketkeeper is perfect, as my ridiculous byes count last weekend attests ).

Onto your other point now. Walcott only averaged 40 while taking the gloves - which, incidentally, is roughly the same as Sangakkara (only Sanga can't be considered nearly as good a wicketkeeper as Walcott or Gilchrist) and Gilchrist in his later, comparatively worse years.

And Gilchrist, at the start of his career especially, was consistent. Inconsistent batsmen do not average 47. He had a gun period from 1999-2005 with the bat, then became comparatively inconsistent thereafter. From his debut to the end of 2004, he averaged 51. With the gloves, that is 11 points higher than Sanga or Walcott's career stats. From 2005-2008, he was at 39.85-ish, which is on par with their career stats.

Its not all about batting; nor all about glovework. In my mind, Gilchrist is the best combination for a World XI when his entire package is taken into account.