The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Zinzan]

Huh? Did I forget to mention the sponsors?


Nah that's fair enough...

Incidentally HB, strongest side for you between your Indian XI and this NZ side?...


Glenn Turner
Martin Guptill
KW 6
Martin Crowe*
Ross Taylor
Brendon McCullum+
Chris Cairns 4
Dan Vettori 5
Richard Hadlee 1
Kyle Mills 2
Shane Bond 3

 

[OverratedSanity]

An India AT XI is nowhere near one of the weakest imo. ODIs have always had ATG batsmen influence the team more than bowlers imo, and India have no shortage of those. In tests, we absolutely would be weaker because of our ****e fast bowling history. It just is not that much of a problem in ODIs, especially when you have the best opener ever, and the two best finishers the game has ever seen.

 

[Prince EWS]

You could possibly make a case for including Agarkar. We should do it IMO.

 

[Zinzan]

Think you're under-estimating ODI bowling there OS. That Indian bowling attack would likely go for far too many runs in a hypothetical match vs. any of the other non-minnow XIs for mine, and too many for their very strong batting lineup to make up imho. In terms of ATG ODI bowlers, only Kumble of those bowlers would be a decent shout.

 

[Red]

if you think having McGrath, Lee and Starc; or Garner, Ambrose and Holding in your team is overrated, then ok .

 

[Red]

Zaheer Abbas opening wouldn't be very good for himself or the side

Wasn't sure how to go there. Needed to fit all the batsmen into the side that are there.

 

[OverratedSanity]

if you think having McGrath, Lee and Starc; or Garner, Ambrose and Holding in your team is overrated, then ok .

I don't think you understood what my point was at all.

 

[Red]

Great side. Only change I would do is bat Bevan at 4 instead of having Maugh out of position there.

That's fair enough. I'd have MWaugh for the extra fielding and bowling options.

Bevan has always been a bit of a myth to me. Seeing him named the greatest ODI batsman irks me. He had a massive amount of not outs in his career which inflated his average. I know being not out is a good thing but it's not always the best thing. He did do well in a couple of games finishing, but I think that sort of got blown out of proportion.

 

[Red]

I don't think you understood what my point was at all.

You said having ****e fast bowlers

just is not that much of a problem in ODIs

It actually is. How many times did you see McGrath or Ambrose or Garner bowl their ten for virtually nothing, while taking a couple of top order wickets. Makes it very hard to recover an innings when it starts that way.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I don't think it's as much of a problem as it is in tests.

My point was that having a great batting lineup is more important than having a great bowling lineup. If I was given a choice between having Richards-Tendulkar or McGrath-Wasim, I'd choose Viv and Sachin in a heartbeat for an odi team since I believe having two batsmen of that caliber has a massive impact on the game. In tests, obviously I'd take the great bowlers in a heartbeat.

It's not a coincidence that India and SL have generally done well in odis throughout their history despite not having a great attack. A brilliant odi batting lineup can carry a team with a relatively poor bowling lineup, while I don't think the vice versa situation is true to that extent.

 

[Red]

Exactly. My point was/is that India are weaker due to their lack of bowlers.

Let's be realistic, the Indian batting line up isn't particularly better than any of the other ATG teams, so the bowlers are actually going to be what makes the difference.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Oh I never said AT India are better than Australia and West indies. No way. Better than England and new Zealand for sure though. Because of their batting.

 

[Red]

Fair enough. I agree that England are probably the weakest of all the teams posted.

NZ would definitely be tough opposition though.

 

[Zinzan]

Oh I never said AT India are better than Australia and West indies. No way. Better than England and new Zealand for sure though. Because of their batting.

Nah, think that's just your natural bias coming through influencing your view that batting line-ups > bowling attacks in ODIs, when there's a strong argument for both.

Heck, I'm sure I'm naturally unconsciously a bit biased as well since my immediate thought of that match-up were the 30 overs of Hadlee, Bond & Vettori in particular.

Interested in how neutrals see the India vs. NZ match-up.

 

[harsh.ag]

Speaking as a neutral, I think India would kick NZ's ass.

 

[Zinzan]

Sorry mate, your vote was negated by Kiwivictor who predicted KW to score a triple off 10 deliveries, effectively sealing the win for NZ.

 

[harsh.ag]

Sorry mate, your vote was negated by Kiwivictor who predicted KW to score a triple off 10 deliveries, effectively sealing the win for NZ.

10 hahaha. Kohli would do it off 3, just saying.

 

[honestbharani]

Think a lot would depend on the conditions, Z... I do not see that NZ ATG side defeating the India ATG side in an ODI in the SC, for example. Maybe in NZ and Eng, and maybe Windies that NZ will win but honestly, in any other country I see India defeating that NZ side easily simply because of the batting power.

 

[Red]

India's batting power is good, but why underestimate Williamson, Crowe and Ross Taylor, along with McCullum and Cairns in the middle order? They are as good as anyone. In addition, there are Vettori and Hadlee in the lower order, and Bond was far from the worst #11 ever.

NZ's ATG ODI XI is no pushover.

 

[Burner]

Except for the fact that they are not as good as anyone. Seriously, COME ON.