The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Mike5181]

Originally Posted by Flametree

I grew up in NZ in the 70's/80's, and I'd take Smith as my keeper every time. It may be some of the earlier keepers like Wadsworth or Mooney were better keepers, but having never seen them play I can't really choose them. Smith hardly missed a chance and he scored some pretty handy runs. I agree he's not as good a batsman as McCullum but in a lower order with some or all of Reid/Cairns/Hadlee/Vettori likely to be selected, I'd happily give up 10 runs per innings to have him behind the sticks.

My NZ team :

Dempster
Turner
Sutcliffe
Crowe
Donnelly
Reid
Hadlee
Vettori
Smith (wk)
Bond
Cowie

Second xi :

Richardson
Wright
Jones
Fleming
Taylor R
McCullum (wk)
Cairns
Taylor B
Nash
Collinge
Boock

Fair to say the spin stocks aren't too impressive....

Vettori would be useless in an all-time eleven. His bowling hardly troubles regular test match quality batsmen, let alone all-time greats. Cairns, despite the fact he's another seamer, would be a much more useful player and for the last 6-7 years of his test career was world class. He's a legit match winner.

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by NUFAN

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.

Whatever you have called out in favor of McG can be said in favor of Davidson. And you know what, Davidson could do everything that McG could and do 10 deliveries slower (and conceding less runs too )

[Monk]

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

A SR difference of 10 balls per wicket is massive if we expect McGrath or Davo to take 5 wickets for the game. That's an extra 50 balls (8 overs) Davo has to bowl to take the same amount of wickets. And in that same time (the time it takes to take 5 wickets) McGrath will only concede 5 more runs than Davidson.

In an all time great team selection, if you have the choice between two bowlers with virtually identical averages, the one with the far better SR surely has to be chosen. Bowlers taking wickets quicker wins matches.

[watson]

Originally Posted by NUFAN

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.

Obviously over-estimated Larwood's Test career. It just felt as though he should have played more than 21 tests over 7 years (1926-33). On the other hand his FC career was lengthy - 14 years from 1924 to 1938 and 361 matches.

I can understand why Larwood played only 21 Tests because he was banned after the Bodyline series. But why did Tyson play so few Tests when he obviously had the talent to last more than 5 years. Was it injury or did he just give up?

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by Monk

In an all time great team selection, if you have the choice between two bowlers with virtually identical averages, the one with the far better SR surely has to be chosen. Bowlers taking wickets quicker wins matches.

But a difference of 1 run in average at that level can be a lot and not IDENTICAL. This is where we disagree. There are 90 overs to be bowled in a day. 10 extra deliveries won't make that much of a difference. The added benefit of Davidson is that he will keep things tighter from one end allowing Warne and Lillee (or even McG) to attack better.

[NUFAN]

Originally Posted by smalishah84

Whatever you have called out in favor of McG can be said in favor of Davidson. And you know what, Davidson could do everything that McG could and do 10 deliveries slower (and conceding less runs too )

Nice to see you alive and blinking. Surely you have heard a thing or two about batsman cashing in during favourable batting conditions during the McGrath era.

BTW, your post reminded me of this.. Davo is in red

Originally Posted by watson

Obviously over-estimated Larwood's Test career. It just felt as though he should have played more than 21 tests over 7 years (1926-33). On the other hand his FC career was lengthy - 14 years from 1924 to 1938 and 361 matches.

I can understand why Larwood played only 21 Tests because he was banned after the Bodyline series. But why did Tyson play so few Tests when he obviously had the talent to last more than 5 years. Was it injury or did he just give up?

Yeah injuries mate.

[NUFAN]

Originally Posted by smalishah84

But a difference of 1 run in average at that level can be a lot and not IDENTICAL. This is where we disagree. There are 90 overs to be bowled in a day. 10 extra deliveries won't make that much of a difference. The added benefit of Davidson is that he will keep things tighter from one end allowing Warne and Lillee (or even McG) to attack better.

FFS. Batsman in McGrath's era batted fasted compared to when Davidson played!

[Eds]

Don't see how you can leave Sydney Barnes out of an England XI tbh.

[watson]

Originally Posted by Eds

Don't see how you can leave Sydney Barnes out of an England XI tbh.

Who's advocating leaving out SF Barnes?

[watson]

Originally Posted by NUFAN

FFS. Batsman in McGrath's era batted fasted compared to when Davidson played!

How do you know that?

What's the runs-per-over scored in the 1950s-60s compared to the 1990s-00s ?

[Eds]

Originally Posted by Jager

Eng XI bowling
03. Hammond
06. Beefy
08. Verity
09. Larwood
10. Laker
11. Trueman

Watson.

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by NUFAN

Nice to see you alive and blinking. Surely you have heard a thing or two about batsman cashing in during favourable batting conditions during the McGrath era.

BTW, your post reminded me of this.. Davo is in red



Yeah injuries mate.

What time in the video? I am at work and find it difficult to watch the whole video

Originally Posted by NUFAN

FFS. Batsman in McGrath's era batted fasted compared to when Davidson played!

That is also why it was easy for McG to cash in. Reckless batting. You can't have it both ways

[NUFAN]

Originally Posted by watson

How do you know that?

What's the runs-per-over scored in the 1950s-60s compared to the 1990s-00s ?

By following Cricket.

Look at some scorecards. Not sure on the exact runs per over figures.

[Monk]

Originally Posted by smalishah84

But a difference of 1 run in average at that level can be a lot and not IDENTICAL. This is where we disagree. There are 90 overs to be bowled in a day. 10 extra deliveries won't make that much of a difference. The added benefit of Davidson is that he will keep things tighter from one end allowing Warne and Lillee (or even McG) to attack better.

Average is runs per wicket.

Strike rate is balls per wicket.

McGrath only concedes one run more per wicket than Davidson.

Davidson takes ten more balls to take a wicket than McGrath.

Multiply these by 5 wickets per test and you can see how you'd always take McGrath over Davidson (based on stats). Surely...

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by Monk

Average is runs per wicket.

Strike rate is balls per wicket.

McGrath only concedes one run more per wicket than Davidson.

Davidson takes ten more balls to take a wicket than McGrath.

Multiply these by 5 wickets per test and you can see how you'd always take McGrath over Davidson (based on stats). Surely...

No **** Sherlock

btw if Davidson was to bowl out a team he would bowl them out for 204 in 100 overs.

McG would bowl a team out for 216 runs in 87 overs.

Now choose