The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[NUFAN]

Originally Posted by Jager

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

This is one of those exercises where its impossible to win all the time. For my West Indies and South African teams I picked them with the assumption that I'm tight with the groundsman and can make the pitch tailor made to suit my bowlers. I didn't pick the team with a Chennai dustbowl in mind.

Also, no I didn't look at everyone's home stats in picking my XI's. Realistically 15 man touring parties is probably the easiest way to fix this so you could change your starting XI depending on conditions and series situation.

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by 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.

McG also had Warne at the other end which Davo didn't.

Secondly, he only takes what 8 or 9 balls more than McG to strike? Additionally he brings so much more to the team with his batting and fielding. Not to forget that even if he does strike at a slower rate than McG he also gets them out cheaper. Davo is greater value for money

[Prince EWS]

Davo's strike rate needs to be taken into context a bit as well, for he played in an era which much slower scoring rates across the board. His performances were the equivalent of someone with a higher average but a lower strike rate in today's game.

[NUFAN]

Originally Posted by 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.

Ever get the feeling that if his captain didn't bowl and bowl and bowl him, that his strike rate might be a little lower?

In an all time team he's not going to be the main go to guy, but having an economical, skillful left arm quick with top stamina who averages 20 is only going to help his bowling partners.

[AndyZaltzHair]

Originally Posted by smalishah84

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)

For me Abdul Qadir is still the best spinner for Pakistan, he's above Mushtaq Ahmed for sure and may be neck and neck/slightly above Saqlain and Ajmal

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by AndyZaltzHair

For me Abdul Qadir is still the best spinner for Pakistan, he's above Mushtaq Ahmed for sure and may be neck and neck/slightly above Saqlain and Ajmal

exactly why do you say this?

[Monk]

Originally Posted by NUFAN

Ever get the feeling that if his captain didn't bowl and bowl and bowl him, that his strike rate might be a little lower?

In an all time team he's not going to be the main go to guy, but having an economical, skillful left arm quick with top stamina who averages 20 is only going to help his bowling partners.

Yeh, good point. I do get the feeling that he wasn't quite as potent as Lindwall, but perhaps if he didn't shoulder such a load he'd be better....

I personally think Lillee and McGrath are non-negotiables. Lindwall and Davidson for the last spot, but if you play Miller, neither of them are probably included.

[AndyZaltzHair]

Originally Posted by smalishah84

exactly why do you say this?

Abdul Qadir was down right legend and revolutionized spin for Pakistan; he was the leading leg spinner at the time and from what I've read many including Imran Khan spoke highly of him and about his variations. He was very aggressive and always looked to pick up wickets. Batsmen he got- Viv Richards (3), Sunil Gavaskar (3), Gordon Greenidge (3), Martin Crowe (3)- speaks volume about his ability. Although his and Mushy's stats run close and Mushy has slightly better SR, I tend to believe Qadir was better than Mushy.

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by AndyZaltzHair

Abdul Qadir was down right legend and revolutionized spin for Pakistan; he was the leading leg spinner at the time and from what I've read many including Imran Khan spoke highly of him and about his variations. He was very aggressive and always looked to pick up wickets. Batsmen he got- Viv Richards (3), Sunil Gavaskar (3), Gordon Greenidge (3), Martin Crowe (3)- speaks volume about his ability. Although his and Mushy's stats run close and Mushy has slightly better SR, I tend to believe Qadir was better than Mushy.

having seen a bit of both (much more so of Mushy) I would say that Qadir was decent and nothing extraordinary. He was the first of his kind in a way (with his flippers and googlies) but he was not very effective in a lot of away series that he played. He was very hot and cold. Mushy learned his trade from Qadir and I thought was slightly more accurate than Qadir (which isn't saying much )

Saqlain and Ajmal are better than both the leggies IMO. Both Ajmal and Saqlain also attack most of the time and get wickets quicker and cheaper.

[Spooony]

So basically you guys are arguing who was the better chucker. Qadir, Ajmal or Saqlain?

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by Spooony

So basically you guys are arguing who was the better chucker. Qadir, Ajmal or Saqlain?

hahahahhaha......man, you are hilarious

[Jager]

I really think the whole bias against Davidson might be down to the fact he wasn't express. For me that doesn't make any sense at all

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by Jager

I really think the whole bias against Davidson might be down to the fact he wasn't express. For me that doesn't make any sense at all

indeed.

That's like saying that Lillee was better than McGrath because he could do everything that McGrath could (except take wickets cheaper) and he could do it 10 miles quicker

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Jager

I really think the whole bias against Davidson might be down to the fact he wasn't express. For me that doesn't make any sense at all

From everything I've read, he was never described as a medium pacer. I think he was a bit above mid-range in terms of pace.

[Flametree]

I'll weigh in on the Pakistan spinner debate... I've never quite understood the status Qadir has. Yes he was the first decent leggie in a while, and when he got his googly right it was a thing of beauty (still remember him bowling Jeff Crowe with one, Crowe probably still doesn't have a clue what happened), and yes, numbers aren't everything.... but he still bowled alongside two other spinners, Tauseef and Iqbal Qasim, who had better numbers (and in Qasim's case, considerably better - 28.1 vs 32.8 and barely a difference in strike rate). Most of the arguments in Qadir's favour (overseas pitches, umpires not being kind to spinners) also apply to the others.