The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[smalishah84]

Let me dig up some useful threads for you to realize how useful Davo really was

[Flametree]

Questions for KYear...

So was it "intellectually dishonest" of the Australian selectors in the 90s to pick David Boon at 3? or the English selectors when they picked Vaughan or Butcher to play and not open....

(Given the bowling line-ups these alltime sides will be facing in the mythical contest we're considering, I think having a 3rd opener to come in at 3 is a pretty sensible strategy myself...)

If you can't play Hutton and Sutcliffe together because you don't want them at the crease at the same time, does this mean you didn't pick Dravid in your all-time Indian xi because you wouldn't want him batting with Gavaskar? (later edit... oh I see you did?)

If players can only be picked to play in their best positions, does this mean I can only pick one of Bradman, Ponting and Harvey in an all-time Aussie xi, since they all batted at 3?

And re the McGrath/Davidson discussion, who's this "we" who picked McGrath in an all-time xi?

Bowlers I consider better than McGrath :
Marshall, Lillee, Trueman, Ambrose (plus Barnes though I'm a bit confused still if they perform similar roles)

Bowlers as good as McGrath who offer more to the whole team due to batting/fielding/variety :
Procter, Miller, Lindwall, Davidson, Hadlee, Imran, Wasim

He was a great, but he's nowhere near my all time xi. And I happily pick Davidson ahead of McGrath in an all-time Australian side, for the left-arm variety and the batting.

[Flametree]

Oh, and I see you picked Zaheer at number 3 for Pakistan. Average in that position 39.

I think I'd trust Hutton at 3 for England over Zaheer at 3 for Pakistan....

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by Flametree

Questions for KYear...

So was it "intellectually dishonest" of the Australian selectors in the 90s to pick David Boon at 3? or the English selectors when they picked Vaughan or Butcher to play and not open....

(Given the bowling line-ups these alltime sides will be facing in the mythical contest we're considering, I think having a 3rd opener to come in at 3 is a pretty sensible strategy myself...)

If you can't play Hutton and Sutcliffe together because you don't want them at the crease at the same time, does this mean you didn't pick Dravid in your all-time Indian xi because you wouldn't want him batting with Gavaskar? (later edit... oh I see you did?)

If players can only be picked to play in their best positions, does this mean I can only pick one of Bradman, Ponting and Harvey in an all-time Aussie xi, since they all batted at 3?

And re the McGrath/Davidson discussion, who's this "we" who picked McGrath in an all-time xi?

Bowlers I consider better than McGrath :
Marshall, Lillee, Trueman, Ambrose (plus Barnes though I'm a bit confused still if they perform similar roles)

Bowlers as good as McGrath who offer more to the whole team due to batting/fielding/variety :
Procter, Miller, Lindwall, Davidson, Hadlee, Imran, Wasim

He was a great, but he's nowhere near my all time xi. And I happily pick Davidson ahead of McGrath in an all-time Australian side, for the left-arm variety and the batting.

:

[Jager]

Originally Posted by Flametree

Questions for KYear...

So was it "intellectually dishonest" of the Australian selectors in the 90s to pick David Boon at 3? or the English selectors when they picked Vaughan or Butcher to play and not open....

(Given the bowling line-ups these alltime sides will be facing in the mythical contest we're considering, I think having a 3rd opener to come in at 3 is a pretty sensible strategy myself...)

If you can't play Hutton and Sutcliffe together because you don't want them at the crease at the same time, does this mean you didn't pick Dravid in your all-time Indian xi because you wouldn't want him batting with Gavaskar? (later edit... oh I see you did?)

If players can only be picked to play in their best positions, does this mean I can only pick one of Bradman, Ponting and Harvey in an all-time Aussie xi, since they all batted at 3?

And re the McGrath/Davidson discussion, who's this "we" who picked McGrath in an all-time xi?

Bowlers I consider better than McGrath :
Marshall, Lillee, Trueman, Ambrose (plus Barnes though I'm a bit confused still if they perform similar roles)

Bowlers as good as McGrath who offer more to the whole team due to batting/fielding/variety :
Procter, Miller, Lindwall, Davidson, Hadlee, Imran, Wasim

He was a great, but he's nowhere near my all time xi. And I happily pick Davidson ahead of McGrath in an all-time Australian side, for the left-arm variety and the batting.

So many great points there.

Also kyear I don't understand how you classify Hobbs as a greater runscorer than Sutcliffe when the latter averages more and had a better conversion rate of fifties to hundreds as well.

[AndyZaltzHair]

Originally Posted by fredfertang

Always an interesting exercise - I had a go here last year - we're on the same wavelength

Thanks for the article; enjoyed it

I wanted to ask about your opinion on Mahadevan Sathasivam; all I know Garry Sobers said him as "the greatest batsman ever on earth" and Frank Worrell said, "the best batsman he had ever seen." I found a short article on him though: http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/tourdi...olourful_t.php

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Jager

Dujon was the only wicketkeeper I came to a compromise on, because a WI XI is always heavily based around pace bowling. I wanted someone with experience to the modern WI giants.

I reckon we think in dichotomies too much with wicketkeepers. If they batted well, they must be **** with the gloves and vice versa.

Just my $0.02 for the day.

[kyear2]

Originally Posted by Flametree

Questions for KYear...

So was it "intellectually dishonest" of the Australian selectors in the 90s to pick David Boon at 3? or the English selectors when they picked Vaughan or Butcher to play and not open....

(Given the bowling line-ups these alltime sides will be facing in the mythical contest we're considering, I think having a 3rd opener to come in at 3 is a pretty sensible strategy myself...)

If you can't play Hutton and Sutcliffe together because you don't want them at the crease at the same time, does this mean you didn't pick Dravid in your all-time Indian xi because you wouldn't want him batting with Gavaskar? (later edit... oh I see you did?)

If players can only be picked to play in their best positions, does this mean I can only pick one of Bradman, Ponting and Harvey in an all-time Aussie xi, since they all batted at 3?

And re the McGrath/Davidson discussion, who's this "we" who picked McGrath in an all-time xi?

Bowlers I consider better than McGrath :
Marshall, Lillee, Trueman, Ambrose (plus Barnes though I'm a bit confused still if they perform similar roles)

Bowlers as good as McGrath who offer more to the whole team due to batting/fielding/variety :
Procter, Miller, Lindwall, Davidson, Hadlee, Imran, Wasim

He was a great, but he's nowhere near my all time xi. And I happily pick Davidson ahead of McGrath in an all-time Australian side, for the left-arm variety and the batting.

One, there is a distinction between moving up and down the middle order and moving from opening to the middle order. Two, Boon, Vaughn ect actually did those things, Hutton never batted at three and was BY FAR more succesful when opening. The example that everyone is ignoring is that, is it ok as The West Indies has a relatively weak second opener if I can just say open with Sir Everton instead of Sir Conrad, similarily replace Anwar with Mohammad Yousuf. It doesn't work that way. You have openers to choose from for the openers and middle order batsmen to choose from for the middle order. Keep it separate.

Again to state, I am not dissing Davidson, he was a Great fast bowler and one of the top two LHF bolwers in the history of the game. What I was saying is that he isn't mentioned when discussing who is the very Best Fast Bowler of All Time, Mcgrath is.

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by kyear2

What I was saying is that he isn't mentioned when discussing who is the very Best Fast Bowler of All Time, Mcgrath is.

[Flametree]

Originally Posted by kyear2

One, there is a distinction between moving up and down the middle order and moving from opening to the middle order. Two, Boon, Vaughn ect actually did those things, Hutton never batted at three and was BY FAR more succesful when opening.

I tend to agree, but I think a great opener is more likely to be able to bat at 3 than a
successful number 5. So I'm happy that Hutton was a great opener, and would have scored runs at 3. (Your last point is wrong. In his 7 innings for England where he didn't open, he averaged 57...)

[Eds]

I think kyear is missing the point of these teams. It's not just to put players in where they played. It's based on what we think would assemble the most successful possible side based upon only players from a single country. If you think Worrell would add more to the team than Roy Fredericks, even when out of position, then put him in. If you think Len Hutton would contribute more than Denis Compton, even when out of position, then put him in.

[fredfertang]

Originally Posted by Flametree

I tend to agree, but I think a great opener is more likely to be able to bat at 3 than a
successful number 5. So I'm happy that Hutton was a great opener, and would have scored runs at 3. (Your last point is wrong. In his 7 innings for England where he didn't open, he averaged 57...)

Hutton deals with this point in his autobiography - he wrote that he always, with one exception, wanted to go in at number one and he didn't like going in in the middle order - the one exception was against the West Indies in 1950 after he carried his bat for 202*, albeit not enough to help England avoid the follow on as the other 10 could only get 131 between them, so understandably keen on a break he asked to be excused opening duties second time round, was refused, and was out for 2 as Ram and Val shot England out in no time

[Jager]

I also can't understand that you complain about Hobbs-Sutcliffe-Hutton being too defensive yet place Ken Barrington your lineup

[NUFAN]

Originally Posted by kyear2

Captains decided on

Australia: Sir Don Bradman
West Indies: George Headley
South Africa: Graeme Smith
England: Sir Len Hutton
Pakistan: Imran Khan
India: Kapil Dev
New Zealand: Martin Crowe
Sri Lanka: Kumar Sangakkara ?
ROW: Frank Worrell

Surely Ranatunga is the SL captain from the XI you've picked. He doesn't deserve a spot, if you aren't going to make him captain.

Originally Posted by rvd619323

I reckon we think in dichotomies too much with wicketkeepers. If they batted well, they must be **** with the gloves and vice versa.

Just my $0.02 for the day.

Haha yep I agree.

Originally Posted by Jager

I also can't understand that you complain about Hobbs-Sutcliffe-Hutton being too defensive yet place Ken Barrington your lineup

Yeah, that's what I couldn't work out. Thought KP was a chance of making kyear's XI.

[kyear2]

Originally Posted by NUFAN

Surely Ranatunga is the SL captain from the XI you've picked. He doesn't deserve a spot, if you aren't going to make him captain.



Haha yep I agree.



Yeah, that's what I couldn't work out. Thought KP was a chance of making kyear's XI.

Question mark next to Sangakkara meant that didn't have a clue. Just recalled that his batting avrage went up when he was captain. The selections are not absolute, rather starting points for discussion. Not that big on S.L. or N.Z. Cricket history.
As far as K.P goes he does make my XI over Barrington, those teams were partially based on teams selected and conversations by Forum members here. Not a fan of Barrington.