Page 35 of 201 FirstFirst ... 2533343536374585135 ... LastLast
Results 511 to 525 of 3002
Like Tree114Likes

Thread: The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

  1. #511
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Pakistan
    Posts
    21,094
    Quote Originally Posted by kyear2 View Post
    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.
    I hope you didn't miss out on Davidson's standardized average and SR which is easily comparable to McG. Secondly, his batting (and fielding?) was considerable better than McGrath too. So, as I said, Davo haters can suck it
    And smalishah's avatar is the most classy one by far Jan certainly echoes the sentiments of CW

    Yeah we don't crap in the first world; most of us would actually have no idea what that was emanating from Ajmal's backside. Why isn't it roses and rainbows like what happens here? PEWS's retort to Ganeshran on Daemon's picture depicting Ajmal's excreta

  2. #512
    Dan
    Dan is offline
    Global Moderator / Cricket Web Staff Member Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse
    Posts
    5,260
    Quote Originally Posted by smalishah84 View Post
    lawl.....
    Care to add something to the discussion?

    I love good old Davo, but there is definitely merit to suggesting Lindwall or McGrath in his place; McGrath dominated the modern era in a similar way to Davidson, whereas Lindwall was a statistical equal to them both, by all accounts a yard quicker and could bat as well. All three are in and around consideration if we lock O'Reilly, Warne and Lillee as three of the four bowlers.

    Lindwall has the benefit of combining best with Miller; McGrath has the sheer volume of wickets and Davidson has the variety of being left armed. All have benefits, and none would weaken the XI.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hurricane View Post
    I hate s smith.
    *Quote may or may not read differently in context.

  3. #513
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Harsh Reality
    Posts
    4,051
    Quote Originally Posted by rvd619323 View Post
    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)
    I think that if you're going to do an 'Out-there' XI then Frank "I AM the Attack" Woolley should be in it. He would strengthen the bowling a little bit too.
    PRE WWI
    Grace-Trumper-Hill-Taylor-Ranjitsinhji-Faulkner-Noble-Lilley-Turner-Richardson-Barnes
    PRE WWII
    Hobbs-Sutcliffe-Bradman-Hammond-Headley-Macartney-Ames-Gregory-Larwood-O'Reilly-Grimmett
    POST WWII
    Hutton-Simpson-Kanhai-Pollock-Harvey-Sobers-Waite-Benaud-Davidson-Lindwall-Trueman
    PACKER ERA
    Gavaskar-Greenidge-Richards-Chappell-Lloyd-Botham-Imran-Knott-Lillee-Holding-Underwood
    MODERN ERA
    Hayden-Langer-Ponting-Tendulkar-Lara-Kallis-Gilchrist-Marshall-Warne-Ambrose-McGrath

  4. #514
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Pakistan
    Posts
    21,094
    Quote Originally Posted by rvd619323 View Post
    Care to add something to the discussion?

    .
    I did add these points on why Davo over McG. Care to read?

    Quote Originally Posted by smalishah84 View Post
    I hope you didn't miss out on Davidson's standardized average and SR which is easily comparable to McG. Secondly, his batting (and fielding?) was considerable better than McGrath too. So, as I said, Davo haters can suck it


  5. #515
    U19 Captain Flametree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    679
    Quote Originally Posted by Days of Grace View Post
    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.
    But Bill Bowes has an even better first class average and a test average of 22, and no-one picks him in their best all-time England sides.... Maurice Tate is another who averaged sub-20 in first class cricket but had (much) better test figures than Larwood.

  6. #516
    International Debutant Jager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    The land of Siddle
    Posts
    2,889
    Quote Originally Posted by Eds View Post
    Don't see how you can leave Sydney Barnes out of an England XI tbh.
    Oh **** I forgot Barnes!

    03. Hammond
    06. Botham
    08. Verity
    09. Larwood
    10. Trueman
    11. Barnes
    Oh for a strong arm and a walking stick

  7. #517
    Dan
    Dan is offline
    Global Moderator / Cricket Web Staff Member Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse
    Posts
    5,260
    Quote Originally Posted by smalishah84 View Post
    I did add these points on why Davo over McG. Care to read?
    Was in the process of posting when you put up your message. Can't see why it needed to be split into two posts, in fairness.

  8. #518
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Pakistan
    Posts
    21,094
    because the first post deserved a "lawl....." seperately

  9. #519
    Dan
    Dan is offline
    Global Moderator / Cricket Web Staff Member Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse
    Posts
    5,260
    Quote Originally Posted by Flametree View Post
    But Bill Bowes has an even better first class average and a test average of 22, and no-one picks him in their best all-time England sides.... Maurice Tate is another who averaged sub-20 in first class cricket but had (much) better test figures than Larwood.
    Because the game isn't all about statistics.

    On CW we tend to rule by the numbers - a bowler with an average .02 runs lower must be exponentially better than the other, X didn't perform in India so Y gets the gig, if we adjust Stat A for era and narrow it down to matches beginning on a Wednesday Bowler X has a hole in his record, so Bowler Y gets selected - it ends up getting completely ridiculous.

    There's an element of the rose tint, sure, but what would humans be as a species without romanticism? Why can't we look back at a man like Larwood, who bowled with fire before bowling with fire was cool, and rate him above a bowler with a slightly better average? Why can't we look past the numbers and see that he tamed Bradman, that his career was cut hopelessly short by injury and administrators? Why must we be ruled by the statistics?

    If we were purely ruled by numbers, how boring would selecting XIs be? Where would the game be? "So, promising young bowler A paid 27 runs per wicket in the CC this year. Old County Pro B paid 26. He gets the gig".

    Larwood had an aura about him that no other bowler can match. His name struck fear into batsmen, and he changed the game forever. Forget the statistics, forget bowling averages. He reformed cricket in a way no bowler ever has, or ever will do.

    Its another reason why Frank Worrell always makes my WI All Time XI. His value is far more than can be expressed in statistical analysis. Larwood is the same.

    Ask Tangy, ask Jager. Ask any of the Larwood supporters and I'm sure they'll agree (at least to an extent). The statistics of Harold Larwood paint a picture wholly different to reality. He cannot be expressed in numbers (as beautiful as mathematics is).

    In my mind, he was the greatest bowler of all time, bar none. And no amount of numbers being thrown at me will change my mind. Ever.

  10. #520
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Harsh Reality
    Posts
    4,051
    Quote Originally Posted by rvd619323 View Post
    Because the game isn't all about statistics.

    On CW we tend to rule by the numbers - a bowler with an average .02 runs lower must be exponentially better than the other, X didn't perform in India so Y gets the gig, if we adjust Stat A for era and narrow it down to matches beginning on a Wednesday Bowler X has a hole in his record, so Bowler Y gets selected - it ends up getting completely ridiculous.

    There's an element of the rose tint, sure, but what would humans be as a species without romanticism? Why can't we look back at a man like Larwood, who bowled with fire before bowling with fire was cool, and rate him above a bowler with a slightly better average? Why can't we look past the numbers and see that he tamed Bradman, that his career was cut hopelessly short by injury and administrators? Why must we be ruled by the statistics?

    If we were purely ruled by numbers, how boring would selecting XIs be? Where would the game be? "So, promising young bowler A paid 27 runs per wicket in the CC this year. Old County Pro B paid 26. He gets the gig".

    Larwood had an aura about him that no other bowler can match. His name struck fear into batsmen, and he changed the game forever. Forget the statistics, forget bowling averages. He reformed cricket in a way no bowler ever has, or ever will do.

    Its another reason why Frank Worrell always makes my WI All Time XI. His value is far more than can be expressed in statistical analysis. Larwood is the same.

    Ask Tangy, ask Jager. Ask any of the Larwood supporters and I'm sure they'll agree (at least to an extent). The statistics of Harold Larwood paint a picture wholly different to reality. He cannot be expressed in numbers (as beautiful as mathematics is).

    In my mind, he was the greatest bowler of all time, bar none. And no amount of numbers being thrown at me will change my mind. Ever.
    In Praise of Pragmatism - Why being Best is Better than being Great.

    There is a difference between being great, and being the best. So while something can be the greatest of it's type, it is not necessarily the best of its type.

    Cars are a good example of this. The Model-T Ford is probably the greatest car of all time because it transformed the automotive industry, but in a quarter mile drag race it would be thrashed by a 1976 Datsun 120-Y. We can all admire the beauty and V8 rumble of a 1980 Corvette, but it would be no match for any contemporary Porche 911 in a race around a Formula 1 circuit. The Corvette may be a great in terms of style and animal magnetism, but the Porsche handles better and goes around the hair-pin bends of a track faster.

    In cricketing terms we could use the example of Bernard Bosenquet. It could argued that while Larwood is the greatest fast-bowler of all-time, Bosenquet is the greatest spin-bowler of all time. Why? Because he transformed the art of spin bowling by inventing the googly. Leg-spin bowling was never the same after Bosenquet.

    However, I've never seen Bosenquet selected for any All Time Great team. Instead cricket lovers choose the likes of O'Reilly, Grimmett, Benaud, and Warne. The answer for this is simple - in all probability they bowled the googly better, and applied their trade of leg-spin better. In other words we choose these men because they represent the best.

    Which brings me to the point. Larwood maybe the greatest fast bowler in the last 150 years because he is an archtetypal demigod, but Malcolm Marshall, Dennis Lillee, Curtly Ambrose, Richard Hadlee, Imrans Khan, and Alan Donald all have one thing in common - they are simply better than Larwood at getting batsman out. The records and numbers say so.
    Last edited by watson; 24-09-2012 at 12:34 PM.

  11. #521
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Pakistan
    Posts
    21,094
    :

  12. #522
    Eds
    Eds is offline
    International Debutant Eds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    2,028
    Watson bang on the money for me. Exactly what I'd like to say if I were sufficiently eloquent.
    "If that Swann lad is the future of spin bowling in this country, then we're ****ed." - Nasser Hussain, 1997.

  13. #523
    International Regular Monk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,905
    Quote Originally Posted by rvd619323 View Post
    Because the game isn't all about statistics.

    On CW we tend to rule by the numbers - a bowler with an average .02 runs lower must be exponentially better than the other, X didn't perform in India so Y gets the gig, if we adjust Stat A for era and narrow it down to matches beginning on a Wednesday Bowler X has a hole in his record, so Bowler Y gets selected - it ends up getting completely ridiculous.

    There's an element of the rose tint, sure, but what would humans be as a species without romanticism? Why can't we look back at a man like Larwood, who bowled with fire before bowling with fire was cool, and rate him above a bowler with a slightly better average? Why can't we look past the numbers and see that he tamed Bradman, that his career was cut hopelessly short by injury and administrators? Why must we be ruled by the statistics?

    If we were purely ruled by numbers, how boring would selecting XIs be? Where would the game be? "So, promising young bowler A paid 27 runs per wicket in the CC this year. Old County Pro B paid 26. He gets the gig".

    Larwood had an aura about him that no other bowler can match. His name struck fear into batsmen, and he changed the game forever. Forget the statistics, forget bowling averages. He reformed cricket in a way no bowler ever has, or ever will do.

    Its another reason why Frank Worrell always makes my WI All Time XI. His value is far more than can be expressed in statistical analysis. Larwood is the same.

    Ask Tangy, ask Jager. Ask any of the Larwood supporters and I'm sure they'll agree (at least to an extent). The statistics of Harold Larwood paint a picture wholly different to reality. He cannot be expressed in numbers (as beautiful as mathematics is).

    In my mind, he was the greatest bowler of all time, bar none. And no amount of numbers being thrown at me will change my mind. Ever.
    So, if that's the case, and considering this is an ATG discussion thread, would you include Larwood in your World all time ATG team?

    Great, eloquent post, and I agree with most of it. Numbers can be very misleading. They can also be very revealing though. And Larwood's contemporaries, in the same teams as him, against the same opposition, had better numbers.
    Hutton - Gavaskar - Bradman - Tendulkar - V.Richards - Sobers - Knott - Warne - Marshall - Lillee - Ambrose

  14. #524
    International Regular kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    3,597
    I agree that he is over rated, but why does Benaud ect rate him so highly based purely on his first class record. I acknowledge that I largely do the same with Richards and Procter, but what Test Cricket they did play they excelled in and they also proved themselves in WSC. Larwood struggled in test cricket, which is, pardon the pun, the greatest test for a cricketer.
    1st XI
    Hutton | Hobbs | Bradman* | Richards^ | Tendulkar | Sobers5^ | Gilchrist+ | Khan3 | Marshall1 | Warne4^ | McGrath2
    2nd XI
    Sutcliffe | Gavaskar* | Headley | Chappell^ | Lara^ | Kallis5^ | Knott+ | Hadlee3 | Ambrose2 | Lillee1 | Muralitharan4
    3rd XI
    Greenidge | Richards^ | Ponting^ | Pollock | Hammond^ | Worrell5* | Waite+ | Akram3 | Steyn1 | Holding2 | O'Reilly4
    4th XI
    Morris | Simpson^ | Sangakkara | Weekes^ | Border*^ | Walcott+ | Faulkner5 | Laker4 | Trueman1 | Garner3 | Donald2

  15. #525
    Cricket Web Staff Member fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Cloud Cuckoo Land
    Posts
    11,358
    Quote Originally Posted by kyear2 View Post
    I agree that he is over rated, but why does Benaud ect rate him so highly based purely on his first class record. I acknowledge that I largely do the same with Richards and Procter, but what Test Cricket they did play they excelled in and they also proved themselves in WSC. Larwood struggled in test cricket, which is, pardon the pun, the greatest test for a cricketer.
    No he didn't - he actually played very little Test cricket but he succeeded twice, once spectacularly, on the fast bowler's graveyards that Australia produced between the wars, under the old lbw law. The fact that he was humbled by Bradman in 1930, when he was never properly fit is, to me, neither here nor there

    If Larwood had played just after the war (new ball every 55 overs and seaming wickets) then I rather think that his average would have been a long way south of 20, and the casualty list a long one



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 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
  •