The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by watson

In a straight McGrath Vs Davidson contest I would agree that McGrath is the better bowler. Although by not that much.

However, some RH batsman don't like facing left-armers who swing the ball back into the stumps. So, you might like to include Davidson for the sake of some left-arm variety if you already have Lillee and Miller in the team.

So the question is not really McGrath Vs Davidson but rather;

Lillee-McGrath-Miller Vs Lillee-Davidson-Miller Vs McGrath-Davidson-Miller, as your Aussie pace attack. And that's a tougher question than the original proposition!

This too

[Days of Grace]

I'll share my adjusted averages and strike-rates for McGrath and Davidson:

McGrath: 22.40 ave, 57.7 s/r (standardised from 21.64, 51.9)
Davidson: 22.06 ave, 54.2 s/r (standardised from 20.53, 62.2)

Hopefully, this will add some perspective. Both have higher averages, but Davo has improved his strike-rate immensely due to the slow-scoring/high strike-rate era he played in.

[Monk]

Originally Posted by rvd619323

Well, isn't it exactly the same as comparing their average anyway, since no additional variables have been taken into account? All you've done is multiply it by 10.

Very true, and the only realistic way you can compare players on raw stats is if they played for the same team in the same era against the same opposition.

However, we can conclude that both have outstanding bowling averages in their own era (or any era post 1910-20 for that matter). There is a substantial difference in their career SRs though.

It'd be interesting to compare their SRs within their own eras. I may well be proven wrong. Anyway, I'll be back in a few hours, after a scratch footy match with mates and a few beers!

[Monk]

Originally Posted by Days of Grace

I'll share my adjusted averages and strike-rates for McGrath and Davidson:

McGrath: 22.40 ave, 57.7 s/r (standardised from 21.64, 51.9)
Davidson: 22.06 ave, 54.2 s/r (standardised from 20.53, 62.2)

Hopefully, this will add some perspective. Both have higher averages, but Davo has improved his strike-rate immensely due to the slow-scoring/high strike-rate era he played in.

Method?

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by Days of Grace

I'll share my adjusted averages and strike-rates for McGrath and Davidson:

McGrath: 22.40 ave, 57.7 s/r (standardised from 21.64, 51.9)
Davidson: 22.06 ave, 54.2 s/r (standardised from 20.53, 62.2)

Hopefully, this will add some perspective. Both have higher averages, but Davo has improved his strike-rate immensely due to the slow-scoring/high strike-rate era he played in.

[smalishah84]

DoG, your analysis makes it easier for me to pick Davo.....

McG lovers can suck it

[Dan]

Referring to Cribb's Standardised Average Process:

Rank       Bowler                           Mat      Wkt      Avg         St. Avg         Lon            Value
8	        GD McGrath (Aus)	123	     560	  21.69	  23.30	       10.75	  3.326
15	        AK Davidson (Aus)	 44	     186	  20.53	  22.36	        8.31	  2.818

[Days of Grace]

Originally Posted by Monk

Method?

That would require a very long post. But just take my word on it that I did a lot of work to arrive at those numbers.

I will share all my ratings eventually, but for now, I am happy to post standardised averages of any players you want.

[kyear2]

I think people are trying to reinvent the wheel, just to be different. Mcgrath makes out AT XI first team, and was a key member of one of the greatest teams in history. I do think that in a way he benefitted from the overall lack of quality bowlers in the 00's but he is an automatic choice for the 11alobg with Lillee and Miller and if he had to make way for anyone it would be for Lindwall.

As far as England then is concerened, Larwood, Snow, Bedser or Tate? Also since it was raised Pietersen or Barrington. I would go for Pietersen and Snow myself, but know how highly some rate Larrwood, so would suggest Larwood and Pietersen.

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by kyear2

I think people are trying to reinvent the wheel, just to be different. Mcgrath makes out AT XI first team, and was a key member of one of the greatest teams in history.

Is this an admission of your ignorance of Alan Davidson?

[kyear2]

Late 50's - 60's med fast lh bolwer with a Garner like average and quite high s/r. Great bowler, not better than Lindwall or Mcgrath.

[Flametree]

Three points...

- am I right in saying everyone is picking Warne, O'Reilly and Lillee in the AT Australian side? In which case I think one of Lindwall or Davidson to bat at 8 is a pretty reasonable call, much as I admire McGrath.

- Barrington averaged 77 at number 3, and only 41 at number 5. So if you're going to pick him in an England all-time side, pick him at number 3. But then most people don't want to pick all of Hobbs, Hutton and Sutcliffe because having Hutton or Sutcliffe at number 3 will mean two very slow players in the top order. So how does Barrington fit into the mix?

- also don't understand the Larwood love. If you want to pick someone just because they're quick, pick Tyson, who averaged 10 runs per wicket less.

[Days of Grace]

I think people (including myself) are picking Larwood based on his domination of English country cricket in the 1930s, rather than his test record, which he was never allowed to build on after the Bodyline series.

[Dan]

Slightly Out-There English ATG XI
Jack Hobbs
Len Hutton
KS Ranjitsinhji
Denis Compton
Wally Hammond
Kevin Pietersen
Ian Botham
Maurice Tate
Godfrey Evans
Harold Larwood
Sydney Barnes
(Fred Trueman)

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by kyear2

Late 50's - 60's med fast lh bolwer with a Garner like average and quite high s/r. Great bowler, not better than Lindwall or Mcgrath.

lawl.....