The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by kyear2

All Great teams nufan, especially like your Pakistan team. The only trend that is evident is that you consistently went quick over spin for every close decision. Faulkner, and please correct me if I am wrong, was a batsman who could bowl spin a bit and was greatly aided by the matting pitch. Not sure if the W.I would get through 90 overs playing four quicks and to add to that Sobers was a better seamer than spinner. If you do go 4 quicks Dujon is the better keeper choice. Don't want to be accused of Davo hating, but to me Linwall was a bit better, but if one is looking for variety to make up for the loss of the second spinner, Davo is a good pick. Great England team, no romatism picks and Tyson was soooo good.

Yep, I also think NUFAN's Pakistan team looks really good. Its main weakness was batting which has been addressed to some extent.

you davo hater

[NUFAN]

Fair enough mate, that explains the lack of Herath.

You can post them in there if you want, don't really see the point of having another thread that's exactly related to this one.

[NUFAN]

Originally Posted by smalishah84

Yep, I also think NUFAN's Pakistan team looks really good. Its main weakness was batting which has been addressed to some extent.

you davo hater

Pakistan's team was really easy for me. I picked the 3 best bowlers, six best bats and went for the spinner and keeper combo.

[Jager]

Originally Posted by kyear2

Don't want to be accused of Davo hating, but to me Linwall was a bit better, but if one is looking for variety to make up for the loss of the second spinner, Davo is a good pick.

I don't understand why Lindwall is better than Davidson to you...

[kyear2]

On due reflection if Abbas is batting at 6, might replace him with Mushtaq Mohammad. Gives the team that 5th bowler they need and doesn't hurt the batting that much.

[NUFAN]

Originally Posted by kyear2

On due reflection if Abbas is batting at 6, might replace him with Mushtaq Mohammad. Gives the team that 5th bowler they need and doesn't hurt the batting that much.

The sixth spot is always the hardest. For Pakistan I decided the four main bowlers were enough, while for India I went Mankad over better batsman in Hazare/Laxman.

For Pakistan, I feel as though Imran, Wasim and Qadir are very durable bowlers. If necessary Abbas, Younis Khan and Hanif Mohammad can bowl an over or two if the situation ever arrived.

Definitely the fifth bowling spot is weaker compared to say the West Indies and Australia lineups, but I felt Pakistan needed the extra batting to give them a very realistic chance of beating any of the other teams.

[Jager]

Don't reckon Qadir would be good enough when outside the subcontinent.

[kyear2]

Originally Posted by Jager

I don't understand why Lindwall is better than Davidson to you...

Davidson's strike rate gives me pause, and while Lindwall's was also high Lindwall went to the West Indies on some pretty flat pitches and destroyed the batting line up with the exception of Walcott, similar to what he and Miller had done in '51 without exception. Lindwall also lost some of his great years to the war. Davidson also benefitted from some weak South African and Indian batting which is always a critism of Sir Everton.
Most importantly speed kills and Lindwall drove fear into his opponents and was the key factor to what was one of the three greatest teams of All Time and in a recent thread we had, it was acknowledged that until Lillee came around, Lindwall was seen as the Greatest Ever Fast Bowler.

Before someone asks about Mcgrath, as I have continuously said, both Mcgrath and Tendulkar makes my All Time XI basically because of their overall weight of numbers and sustained excellence which are impossible to ignore, and Mcgrath's contribution once again to one of the All Time Great teams. I think that Lara and Ambrose, among others were better at their peak and Akram more talented, but Mcgrath just kept going and was a winner.
I do not dislike Davidson, he was an ATG fast bowler, his left hand variety and lower order batting add even more to his value, but like Garner, the average doesn't tell the entire story. For the record was also an ATG bowler, but even tough he has a lower average I still see Holding as being his superior.

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by NUFAN

The sixth spot is always the hardest. For Pakistan I decided the four main bowlers were enough, while for India I went Mankad over better batsman in Hazare/Laxman.

For Pakistan, I feel as though Imran, Wasim and Qadir are very durable bowlers. If necessary Abbas, Younis Khan and Hanif Mohammad can bowl an over or two if the situation ever arrived.

Definitely the fifth bowling spot is weaker compared to say the West Indies and Australia lineups, but I felt Pakistan needed the extra batting to give them a very realistic chance of beating any of the other teams.

Yep. Which is what makes your Pakistan team look quite competitive. I think at their peak Imran, Wasim, and Waqar should be able to give any team a run for their money (I think Imran has the best peak of all post war bowlers and Waqar is right up there too)

Originally Posted by Jager

Don't reckon Qadir would be good enough when outside the subcontinent.

Agree with you

Actually I feel that all the spinners succeeding Qadir were somewhat better than him. I mean I would probably pick Mushy, Saqlain, and Ajmal over them. I think Ajmal is a really good spinner. Should be an ATG in the coming few years (assuming he plays until 40)

[kyear2]

Originally Posted by Jager

Don't reckon Qadir would be good enough when outside the subcontinent.

Agreed, but I always feel he is over rated anyway. For me personally I would even take Gibbs over him.

Just my take.

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by kyear2

Agreed, but I always feel he is over rated anyway. For me personally I would even take Gibbs over him.

Just my take.

For once we agree on something

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by kyear2

Davidson's strike rate gives me pause, and while Lindwall's was also high Lindwall went to the West Indies on some pretty flat pitches and destroyed the batting line up with the exception of Walcott, similar to what he and Miller had done in '51 without exception. Lindwall also lost some of his great years to the war. Davidson also benefitted from some weak South African and Indian batting which is always a critism of Sir Everton.
Most importantly speed kills and Lindwall drove fear into his opponents and was the key factor to what was one of the three greatest teams of All Time and in a recent thread we had, it was acknowledged that until Lillee came around, Lindwall was seen as the Greatest Ever Fast Bowler.

.

I doubt Lindwall would be driving fear into the heart of batsmen like Greenidge or Viv. It might be the other way around

Davo will get the job done because he will get Viv bored as **** and then he will get impatient and play a loose shot and get out.

hence

davo > lindwall

[Jager]

Lindy had the benefit of a new ball every 55 overs and was also exceedingly successful when bowling on the flat pitches of the subcontinent.

[kyear2]

As far as I understand that was just for one series in '48.

[Monk]

Davidson was a real workhorse. He got his wickets through attrition and frustrating the batsmen. He was very economical and skilful , but had a high SR because he lacked real strike power. Benaud would bowl and bowl and bowl him, and is on record saying how he'd coerce more and more overs out of him (Largely because the attack was often not much more than Benaud & Davo, with guys like MacKay for support, until McKenzie came along).

Davo is a reasonable choice. But he really lacked the firepower and ability to strike that Lindwall, Lillee and McGrath had.