Page 30 of 218 FirstFirst ... 2028293031324080130 ... LastLast
Results 436 to 450 of 3260
Like Tree168Likes

Thread: The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

  1. #436
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,799
    Quote Originally Posted by LongHopCassidy View Post
    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)
    Last edited by watson; 23-09-2012 at 03:25 PM.
    Tendulkar - M.Waugh - Ponting - Richards - Dhoni - Bevan - Kapil Dev - Hadlee - Akram - Garner - Muralitharan

  2. #437
    Eds
    Eds is online now
    International Debutant Eds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    2,124
    I'd almost always play Laker over Snow when you've got Wally Hammond [and Botham, of course] in the team.
    "If that Swann lad is the future of spin bowling in this country, then we're ****ed." - Nasser Hussain, 1997.

  3. #438
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Eds View Post
    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.
    Last edited by watson; 23-09-2012 at 03:36 PM.

  4. #439
    Cricketer Of The Year The Sean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    7,518
    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.
    Last edited by The Sean; 23-09-2012 at 03:47 PM.
    Member of the Twenty20 is Boring Society

    Quote Originally Posted by grecian View Post
    C'mon Man U.
    RIP Craigos


  5. #440
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,799
    Quote Originally Posted by The Sean View Post
    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.
    Last edited by watson; 23-09-2012 at 03:59 PM.

  6. #441
    International Vice-Captain Monk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,584
    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.

  7. #442
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    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.

  8. #443
    International Vice-Captain Monk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,584
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    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!

  9. #444
    International Regular kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    3,991
    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?
    Aus. XI
    Simpson^ | Hayden | Bradman | Chappell^ | Ponting | Border* | Gilchrist+ | Davidson3 | Warne4^ | Lillee1 | McGrath2


    W.I. XI
    Greenidge | Hunte | Richards^ | Headley* | Lara^ | Sobers5^ | Walcott+ | Marshall1 | Ambrose2 | Holding3 | Garner4

    S.A. XI
    Richards^ | Smith*^ | Amla | Pollock | Kallis5^ | Nourse | Waite+ | Procter3 | Steyn1 | Tayfield4 | Donald2

    Eng. XI
    Hobbs | Hutton*^ | Hammond^ | Compton | Barrington | Botham5^ | Knott | Trueman1 | Laker4 | Larwood2 | Barnes3

  10. #445
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    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?

  11. #446
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    18,007
    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.

  12. #447
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,799
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    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.

  13. #448
    International Vice-Captain Monk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,584
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    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....
    Last edited by Monk; 23-09-2012 at 08:40 PM.

  14. #449
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    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.

  15. #450
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    18,007
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    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.



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Thread Hijacks
    By sledger in forum Site Discussion
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 10-02-2010, 04:32 PM
  2. Sri Lanka Thread
    By chaminda_00 in forum 2009 ICC World Twenty20
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-05-2009, 05:29 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •