The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[watson]

Originally Posted by NUFAN

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]

Originally Posted by watson

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.

[Monk]

Originally Posted by watson

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]

Originally Posted by NUFAN

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.

[Monk]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by Monk

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]

Originally Posted by watson

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.

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by watson

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.

.

That's the Ian Chappell school of thought.

"Lillee was better than McGrath because he could do everything that McGrath could and he could do it 10 miles quicker."

[Monk]

Originally Posted by smalishah84

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

If we reasonably expect him to take 4-6 wickets per match, that's an extra 6-10 overs he will add to the time it takes to bowl the opposition out over the test match. I think for a quick bowler, his SR is not quite good enough.

McGrath only concedes one more run per wicket, yet takes wickets 10 balls sooner.

Most teams would prefer to concede 4-6 runs a test and have an extra 6-10 overs to bowl the opposition out in.

[NUFAN]

Originally Posted by smalishah84

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

Significantly? Nope.

Smali, whenever I read these threads, I always have to ask myself, what exactly did the current/recently retired player need to achieve to be ranked above the player who was in the large ranked above him.

I think McGrath vs Lindwall or Davidson and just wonder what else could he have possibly achieved bowling wise? For mine its bugger all, so unless people aren't picking McGrath due to his poor batting, he makes my all time Aussie team because he was incredible.

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by NUFAN

Significantly? Nope.

Smali, whenever I read these threads, I always have to ask myself, what exactly did the current/recently retired player need to achieve to be ranked above the player who was in the large ranked above him.

I think McGrath vs Lindwall or Davidson and just wonder what else could he have possibly achieved bowling wise? For mine its bugger all, so unless people aren't picking McGrath due to his poor batting, he makes my all time Aussie team because he was incredible.

As far as I am concerned in a test match there is plenty of time so the SR of anything around 10 balls is fine by me. So opposition will take 15 more overs at the crease. At the same time they will get 10 to 15 runs less with Davidson. Simple as

Now don't get me wrong. I rate McGrath very highly but if you are going for the best team then might as well go for the person who will get you the cheapest wickets in a reasonable time frame.

And yes, Davidson brings a little bit of batting with him as well

[NUFAN]

Originally Posted by smalishah84

As far as I am concerned in a test match there is plenty of time so the SR of anything around 10 balls is fine by me. So opposition will take 15 more overs at the crease. At the same time they will get 10 to 15 runs less with Davidson. Simple as

Now don't get me wrong. I rate McGrath very highly but if you are going for the best team then might as well go for the person who will get you the cheapest wickets in a reasonable time frame.

And yes, Davidson brings a little bit of batting with him as well

10 to 15 runs less with Davidson, how'd you work that out? Far from simple as mate. I like how you went balls per wicket and then went for overall runs to help out your argument.

I call bull**** on the less runs for Davo compared to McGrath. The bloke (Pidge) took wickets for fun or many lifeless pitches.