The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[kyear2]

You severly underrate Gilly's keeping. The guy was an excellent keeper and the best combination of the 2 skills, and as you can see from my sig in what order I rate the rest. Lindsay is up there as well.

 

[Jager]

Tough on Sangakkara seeing as though he's ripened and hit his prime in recent times - I would imagine it would be much higher even if he'd kept the gloves, but that is pure speculation. I'll always disagree on my childhood hero being the best all-round gloveman though. I have to take the stumper over the run-getter every time. Also, I am surprised you don't value pure wicketkeeping as highly as some seeing as you're a wicketkeeper by the way!

 

[Eds]

Larwood just looks so out of place in an ATG XI for me.

 

[fredfertang]

Larwood just looks so out of place in an ATG XI for me.

Heightist

 

[MrPrez]

Yeah, he's way overrated due to bodyline. If it hadn't taken place, he wouldn't be near ATXI discussions.

 

[Eds]

For me it's:

Hobbs
Hutton
Bradman
Tendulkar
Compton
Sobers
Gilchrist
Proctor
Warne
Marshall
Lillee/Larwood/some West Indian quick/some other bowler I'm not thinking of

Yeah, he's way overrated due to bodyline. If it hadn't taken place, he wouldn't be near ATXI discussions.

Righto.

 

[MrPrez]

Yeah, basically what I was saying is that the last spot is open depending on how I feel on the day. The point is that bodyline did happen and it has pushed him to being around ATG level, but whether he deserves a spot in a world XI is way more debatable than some care to believe.

Some days I'll lean towards a more consistently-strong bowler, but on others I'd go for a more enigmatic bowler.

I wasn't saying he isn't ATGXI level, just that I do see where you're coming from.

 

[Eds]

The point is that bodyline did happen and it has pushed him to being around ATG level

This is why I thought your previous post was very odd, ftr.

But even so, I rate Larwood more than most, he'd still be no-where near my ATG XI, ATG A XI, ATG B XI etc.

 

[kyear2]

One series and a good f/c career cannot make some one the greatest ever and counter an other wise ordinary test career.

 

[watson]

One series and a good f/c career cannot make some one the greatest ever and counter an other wise ordinary test career.

And Bradman rates Ken Farnes as the better fast bowler of the two.

 

[Dan]

And Bradman rates Ken Farnes as the better fast bowler of the two.

Bradman - clearly the most unbiased of 1930s cricket sources.

 

[Dan]

One series and a good f/c career cannot make some one the greatest ever and counter an other wise ordinary test career.

His Test career was far from ordinary.

 

[Prince EWS]

Bradman - clearly the most unbiased of 1930s cricket sources.

indeed

He probably thought he was a better bowler than Larwood.

 

[Jager]

And Bradman rates Ken Farnes as the better fast bowler of the two.

Bradman rates Morris and Richards as the best openers ever, do you accept his word for that as well?

 

[Red]

Bradman rates Morris and Richards as the best openers ever, do you accept his word for that as well?

I accept his rationale behind selecting them. He saw Barry Richards play plenty of FC cricket at South Aust, and he made some big innings against a WA bowling attack of the calibre of Lillee and McKenzie. He selected Barry Richards on the basis of needing to score quickly enough to bowl the opponents out twice. Morris was also a fluent scorer, and he was adamant on having a L/R opening combo. There aren't a heap of great LH openers: Morris, Lawry, Fredericks, Langer, Hayden. Morris had some brilliant series under Bradman's leadership, his first three series he averaged 72, 52 and 87 (Invinsibles tour).

Bradman's team was:

Richards
Morris
Bradman
Tendulkar
Sobers
Tallon
Lindwall
Lillee
Bedser
O'Reilly
Grimmett

I couldn't understand two things about this team:

Tallon never (really) batted at 6, he wasn't a top 6 batsman.

Considering there is Lindwall and Lillee to open the bowling, plus two spinners, why play Bedser? Would be better to play Imran (or Miller) instead to strengthen both the batting and the bowling.

Thought Bradman's XI would look better like this:

Richards
Morris
Bradman
Tendulkar
Sobers
Imran (or Miller, or even Botham or Kapil)
Tallon
Lindwall
Lillee
O'Reilly
Grimmett

 

[NUFAN]

Yeah it would look better/safer but I'm pretty certain that Bradman figured that the team only needed 5 batsman because the batsman (in particular the number 3) was so awesome.

Don, then figured 5 genuine bowlers would be an awesome advantage to have over other teams.

Also put it this way - Including only performances before 2000 (not sure exact year he named his side) and not including players from his team, can you name an XI that would defeat Bradman's?

 

[JBMAC]

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.

I can't speak about Larwood but I can speak about both Tallon and Bradman having seen them play.I can categorically state Tallon was a far superior gloveman to Gilchrist and Bradman was twice the batsman of anyone I have ever seen play the game.When you are using the term"ATG" the first two picked should be those two.

 

[Red]

Also put it this way - Including only performances before 2000 (not sure exact year he named his side) and not including players from his team, can you name an XI that would defeat Bradman's?

Maybe...

Jack Hobbs
Sunil Gavaskar
George Headley
Brian Lara
Viv Richards
Imran Khan
Alan Knott
Wasim Akram
Malcolm Marshall
Shane Warne
SF Barnes


Would give them a fair shake I reckon....

 

[Dan]

Yeah it would look better/safer but I'm pretty certain that Bradman figured that the team only needed 5 batsman because the batsman (in particular the number 3) was so awesome.

Don, then figured 5 genuine bowlers would be an awesome advantage to have over other teams.

Also put it this way - Including only performances before 2000 (not sure exact year he named his side) and not including players from his team, can you name an XI that would defeat Bradman's?

Hobbs
Hutton
Headley
Pollock
Richards
Miller
Ames/Knott
Imran
Marshall
Warne
Larwood

Still leaves out Holding, Hadlee, Procter, Lara et al.

 

[Dan]

Changing the topic - where does CW rate Clem Hill (and other early 20th Century players)?