• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

MartinB

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Greg Chappell is really under rated, in WSC he averaged just about the same as Viv and his test career was just spectacular added to his graceful batting was his useful legspin and he was probably the best second slip of all time. He was to Viv as Lara was to Tendulkar, not that far behind and some thought the better player.
Slight correction, Greg Chappell started as Leg spinner but swapped to Medium pace (Swing / cutters) around the start of his Test career. If you have a closer look at Gregs bowling average, it starts high for the first 2/3 years then gets better (with odd bad year)
to 82 then drops again

I suggest looking at his season by season averages:
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Through the period 75 -> 81/2 his bowling average was around 27, He took wickets at the at the rate of a wicket every 2 tests. Not enough wickets to be classed as an allrounder, but a handy bowler.

In WSC as well as averaging 57 with the bat he also averaged 25 with the ball (although only around 6 wickets).
 

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
I'd go for Brett Lee as the McGrath-Lee-Warne trio was the most successful trio of bowlers in the history of cricket. Incidently, the McGrath-Gillespie-Warne trio was the second most succesful and that makes your overall attack even better.

It Figures | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo
Nothing wrong with selecting Lee, he obviously played an intimidation role with success on many occasions and is batting at 8 will be helpful.

However, I really dislike the reasoning as Siddle had no opportunity to partner the ATG's in McGrath and Warne. I'm pretty sure I've had this discussion with you regarding selecting Haynes and Greenidge as WI openers and some other occasions.
 

watson

Banned
Nothing wrong with selecting Lee, he obviously played an intimidation role with success on many occasions and is batting at 8 will be helpful.

However, I really dislike the reasoning as Siddle had no opportunity to partner the ATG's in McGrath and Warne. I'm pretty sure I've had this discussion with you regarding selecting Haynes and Greenidge as WI openers and some other occasions.
Close. It was Simpson and Lawry.

For me it is a matter of 'proof', for you it is a matter of 'fairness'. That is, let's not punish a capable bloke just because he happened to play in a different decade from the other player(s).
 
Last edited:

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Its very easy for me to prefer Sid, but even looking objectively for a minute (and only a minute) there records are almost identical:

Billy
ave 28.63
econ 3.01
sr 56.9

vs

Big Heart
ave 28.51
econ 3.02
sr 56.6

Records aren't the only thing to consider, its team dynamics and since I've already included a terrific opening ball pairing in McGrath and Gillespie I'm happy to select a bowler used to bowling first change like Siddle and I like how often he takes important wickets.
Its very interesting how similar those figures are. Of course, McDermott's are over a much longer time and cover more than twice as many victims - 291 versus 141. Another difference when one tries to probe further is that Siddle takes 7 percent more of his wickets in the tail (8 - 11) as compared to McDermott who takes exactly 7 percent more in the top order (1 to 3) with both being tied for the middle order. Of course, this has to do with Siddle bowling first change more often while McDermott was the spearhead. But it should have reflected in the middle order more which it doesn't.

Just a small point I guess.

The fact that the figures are similar and McDermott;s figures are for a complete career and twice as many victims would make me give the nod to him. The fact that he was the spearhead should go in his favour and not held against him. He was a good enough bowler to be the spearhead of a major Test playing country. If Sidddle has senior partners above him, it can be an asset for they soften up the opposition before he comes on.

I would tend to give it to McGermott at this stage between these two. Later, when Siddle is through with his career, who knows :o)
 

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
Close. It was Simpson and Lawry.

For me it is a matter of 'proof', for you it is a matter of 'fairness'. That is, let's not punish a capable bloke just because he happened to play in a different decade from the other player(s).
Why not just settle for Lee, McGrath and Warne in your All Time XI as the proof shows that no other 3 bowlers performed as well together.

@ SJS, I find it cool that Siddle is even being talked about as a legitimate option in this discussion, I clearly picked him as I'm a fan of his work and its my team, the same reason I picked Mark Waugh ahead of say Hussey, Boon, Jones, Martyn or Border (although AB played a large portion of his career before the criteria).
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Why not just settle for Lee, McGrath and Warne in your All Time XI as the proof shows that no other 3 bowlers performed as well together.

@ SJS, I find it cool that Siddle is even being talked about as a legitimate option in this discussion, I clearly picked him as I'm a fan of his work and its my team, the same reason I picked Mark Waugh ahead of say Hussey, Boon, Jones, Martyn or Border (although AB played a large portion of his career before the criteria).
:D

By the way, I think Mark Waugh is one of Australia's most under-rated cricketers. I too would rate him ahead of all those you mentioned except Border. who, even though not as gifted as Waugh had other qualities that raised him to a higher level. If Mark Waugh had the tenacity of his brother or put as high a price on his wicket, we would have been talking of him in completely different terms.
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
:D

By the way, I think Mark Waugh is one of Australia's most under-rated cricketers. I too would rate him ahead of all those you mentioned except Border. who, even though not as gifted as Waugh had other qualities that raised him to a higher level. If Mark Waugh had the tenacity of his brother or put as high a price on his wicket, we would have been talking of him in completely different terms.
Yep. Best player to watch. Just majestic.
 

watson

Banned
Why not just settle for Lee, McGrath and Warne in your All Time XI as the proof shows that no other 3 bowlers performed as well together.

@ SJS, I find it cool that Siddle is even being talked about as a legitimate option in this discussion, I clearly picked him as I'm a fan of his work and its my team, the same reason I picked Mark Waugh ahead of say Hussey, Boon, Jones, Martyn or Border (although AB played a large portion of his career before the criteria).
Because we are comparing Siddle-McDermott-Lee, NOT Lee-Lillee-Lindwall which can't make your team because of the criteria.

As I've said before, the reason for considering a known successful partnership is to help select a player when all other things are equal (Ave, SR etc). Therefore, since I can't split Siddle-Lee-McDermott is terms of individual performance it seems reasonable to bring Lee's partnership with McGrath and Warne into the equation.

But I wouldn't use a similar selection process when trying to decide between Lee and say, Lillee because Lillee is so obviously the better bowler. It would be pointless.
 

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
Graveney's India post-1945

Sunil Gavaskar
Farokh Engineer
Nawab of Pataudi Jnr (captain)
Gundappa Viswanath
Vijay Hazare
Polly Umrigar
Vinoo Mankad
Kapil Dev
Erapalli Prasanna
Bishan Bedi
Bhagwat Chandrasekhar

Graveney notes that the pace-attack is too heavily reliant on the ever-willing Kapil Dev, with medium pace support from Umrigar and to a lesser extent Hazare, but makes no apologies for the fact that the majority of India's greatest bowlers have been spinners and that the quicker they are into the attack, the more effective the team will be.
 

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
Because we are comparing Siddle-McDermott-Lee, NOT Lee-Lillee-Lindwall which can't make your team because of the criteria.

As I've said before, the reason for considering a known successful partnership is to help select a player when all other things are equal (Ave, SR etc). Therefore, since I can't split Siddle-Lee-McDermott is terms of individual performance it seems reasonable to bring Lee's partnership with McGrath and Warne into the equation.

But I wouldn't use a similar selection process when trying to decide between Lee and say, Lillee because Lillee is so obviously the better bowler. It would be pointless.
That's fine, you think they are equal or close to equal so you found a good reason to pick him which is great. Before it sounded like you picked him solely on the basis of being part of the best trio.
 

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
Slight correction, Greg Chappell started as Leg spinner but swapped to Medium pace (Swing / cutters) around the start of his Test career. If you have a closer look at Gregs bowling average, it starts high for the first 2/3 years then gets better (with odd bad year)
to 82 then drops again

I suggest looking at his season by season averages:
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Through the period 75 -> 81/2 his bowling average was around 27, He took wickets at the at the rate of a wicket every 2 tests. Not enough wickets to be classed as an allrounder, but a handy bowler.

In WSC as well as averaging 57 with the bat he also averaged 25 with the ball (although only around 6 wickets).
Meant to say seamer, mind must have been thinking of Bobby Simpson at that exact moment.
 

watson

Banned
So far..........

Cricketweb Australia All Time XI
Victor Trumper
Arthur Morris
Sir Donald Bradman *
Greg Chappell
Allan Border
Keith Miller
Adam Gilchrist +
Shane Warne
Denis Lille
Bill O'Reilly
Glenn Mcgrath

Ricky Ponting
Allan Davidson

Cricketweb West Indies All Time XI
Gordon Greenidge
Sir Conrad Hunte
George Headley *
Sir I.V.A. Richards
Brian Lara
Sir Garfield Sobers
Sir Clyde Walcott +
Malcolm Marshall
Michael Holding
Curtly Ambrose
Joel Garner

Frank Worrell
Lance Gibbs

Cricketweb England All Time XI
Sir Jack Hobbs
Sir Len Hutton *
Wally Hammond
Ken Barrington
Denis Compton
Sir Ian Botham
Allan Knott +
Jim Laker
Harold Larwood
Fred Trueman
Syd Barnes

Hedley Verity
Kevin Pietersen

Cricketweb South Africa All Time XI
Barry Richards
Graeme Smith *
Jacques Kallis
Graeme Pollock
Dudley Nourse
Aubrey Faulkner
Mike Procter
John Waite +
Dale Steyn
Hugh Tayfield
Allan Donald

Shaun Pollock
Herbie Taylor

Cricketweb Pakistan All Time XI
Hanif Mohammad
Saeed Anwar
Younis Khan
Javed Miandad
Inzamam-ul-Haq
Mushtaq Mohammad
Imran Khan *
Rashid Latif +
Wasim Akram
Fazal Mahmood
Waqar Younis

Mohammad Yousuf
Saqlain Mushtaq

Cricketweb India All Time XI
Sunil Gavaskar
Vijay Merchant
Rahul Dravid *
Sachin Tendulkar
Vijay Hazare
Vinoo Mankad
Kapil Dev
Farokh Engineer +
Anil Kumble
Javagal Srinath
Erapalli Prasanna

Mohammad Azharuddin
Amar Singh
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Latif and Srinath the worst players of the 78 players listed above.
How come people have forgotten about Wasim Bari ?

By the way, these are very good sides as any seides chosen as all time great sides would have to be but there are a couple of choices that do not belong in such rarefied circles and one such is Younis Khan. To include him and not include Zaheer Abbas is blasphemy and I do not use the word lightly. I have read all there is to read which is to read which is negative about him and so much more, much much more, which is positive. But more importantly, I have seen him bat and that guy could bat.

I know things have been said about his batting against the fastest bowling in the world. There could be some merit in that but the same holds for so many of the finest batsmen in the world against the really top class fast bowlers at their peak.

I wrote once about Gavaskar's over hyped prowess agaisnt the best fast bowlers at a time when the world had its richest sources of the fast stuff ; and with statistics for people find it difficult to accept, But like Gavaskar Zaheer was an awesome batsman. The fact that hw may not have relished the best of fast bowling does not deny that he was one of the world's best of almost every other type of bowling and arguably amongst the handful who could play the best spinners on all tracks and murder them.

Why should these qualities not count?

Younis Khan is not fit to hold a candle to Zaheer and against the fast bowling Zaheer had to face, Younis would not have survived.

I am sorry but it is true,

The sad bit is that people from Pakistan have forgotten this great player and that makes me feel that in the sub-continent at least it is more important to continue to live in the news and media and be hyped to have a lasting legacy.
 

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
It's one thing not to relish fast bowling, it's another when some belive that he was actually scared at the crease, especially batting at No. 3, and especially agints the fast bowling he would be up againts in this scenario. If he were to be included, and factoring in his prowess againts spin it would have to have been batting lower down the order, and there was no other proven No. 3 who could fill that critical and specialist batting position better than Younis.
Srinath on the other hand has no right in any All Time XI, and is the weakest player this far selected.

Changes that I would have made to the teams are no many, but I would replace Boder with Ponting, Barrington with Pietersen, Srinath with Nissar/Singh and Kumble with Chandra.
 

watson

Banned
How come people have forgotten about Wasim Bari ?

By the way, these are very good sides as any seides chosen as all time great sides would have to be but there are a couple of choices that do not belong in such rarefied circles and one such is Younis Khan. To include him and not include Zaheer Abbas is blasphemy and I do not use the word lightly. I have read all there is to read which is to read which is negative about him and so much more, much much more, which is positive. But more importantly, I have seen him bat and that guy could bat.

I know things have been said about his batting against the fastest bowling in the world. There could be some merit in that but the same holds for so many of the finest batsmen in the world against the really top class fast bowlers at their peak.

I wrote once about Gavaskar's over hyped prowess agaisnt the best fast bowlers at a time when the world had its richest sources of the fast stuff ; and with statistics for people find it difficult to accept, But like Gavaskar Zaheer was an awesome batsman. The fact that hw may not have relished the best of fast bowling does not deny that he was one of the world's best of almost every other type of bowling and arguably amongst the handful who could play the best spinners on all tracks and murder them.

Why should these qualities not count?

Younis Khan is not fit to hold a candle to Zaheer and against the fast bowling Zaheer had to face, Younis would not have survived.

I am sorry but it is true,

The sad bit is that people from Pakistan have forgotten this great player and that makes me feel that in the sub-continent at least it is more important to continue to live in the news and media and be hyped to have a lasting legacy.
There is no doubting Zaheer's skill as a batsman. But as far as temperment is concerned Younis Khan wins hands down and is therefore more suited to the No.3 spot overall.

Zed Takes a Raincheck

By Jeff Dujon

We were playing this festival one-day game in Jamaica one time in the early 1980s. It was West Indies against a World XI, a bunch of international players that the sponsors had got together. Zaheer Abbas, the stylish Pakistan batsman, was one of the members of the World XI side.

Now Zaheer had a reputation of not liking to field. I remember we were pretty confident that he wasn't going to come back out to field after he batted. So I went up to Andy Roberts and said, "Andy, he's just going to have a bat and go and sit down inside. He's not going to come back out." Andy, cool as ever, looked at me and said, "He's not going to come out to field? Okay, he's going to feel it now."

Andy ran up and let Zaheer have a barrage of short balls - really rattled him. He sent down some really fast deliveries. Zaheer couldn't handle too many of them and got out after a few uncomfortable moments. We could see that he'd had enough.

Sure enough, like we'd predicted, he didn't come out to field. We chatted about it after the game and everyone, including the normally quiet Andy, had a good laugh.

Zed takes a raincheck | Cricket Features | Cricinfo Magazine (online) | ESPN Cricinfo
By Imran Khan

Statistically one of Pakistan's all time greats, Zaheer Abbas, was certainly the best timer of the ball I have ever seen. There may have been harder hitters, but no one could match his timing. At Karachi in 1982-3, during his 186, he went to drive a ball from Kapil Dev and found that it was not quite up to him. He checked his shot and played defensively, and his innate timing sent the ball away for four past cover. The cricket commentators kept replaying this shot on television, pointing out that Zaheer had'nt even followed through. His exquisite timing meant that he was a great player of spin bowling, which he could take apart on any wickets. Zaheer could play off either foot, and through either side of the wicket, but his main problem was one of temperament. As soon as he was under pressure, he found it hard going, and often fell into a bad patch. Once in a poor run of form, he often found it difficult to break out again. He also had a problem with pace bowling. It didn't seem to worry him early in his career, but in the early 1980s he
suffered a form of shellshock. He was never the same after Sylvester Clarke had hit him on the head during the West Indies tour of Pakistan in 1980-1, often making excuses or taking the easy option by hitting out wildly against the slower bowlers. He was also very conscious of his average, which counts against him in my view. I can't really rate him in the top flight of batsmen.

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?t=108539

Note: Admittedly the source is a bit dodgy but the article seems genuine enough.
 
Last edited:

watson

Banned
Here is an interesting interview with Imran Khan on the the great West Indian fast bowlers of the 70s-80s. Here's a snippet;

Imran Khan talks: Those great West Indian pacers

......On his day, no one could beat Michael Holding. He was out and out the most devastating fast bowler ever. When he was on song, I can say he was the best fast bowler ever seen. Number two… Malcolm Marshall. He was a complete fast bowler too. They had variety. Garner could attract steep bounce. Then there was his yorker. He perfected the yorker. Andy Roberts could run through a team, Sylvester Clarke too. And then came Curtly Ambrose… he was one of the best ever. For a while, Ian Bishop was as fast as anyone, although he didn't last long. There were fast bowlers who couldn't get into the team regularly like Clarke and Wayne Daniel. Clarke destroyed the South Africans single handedly on the rebel tour in the early 1980s and there were some great batsmen playing in that series like Graeme Pollock and so on.....

Imran Khan talks: Those great West Indian pacers
 
Last edited:

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
Holding is really under rated on CW, for me one of the top 10 fast bowlers of All TIME, proved in on dead pitches and especially on the Indian tour of '83/84 along with Marshall againts a very strong batting lineup. His only draw back was his inability to stay healthy, partly brought on by trying to sustain his amazing pace.
 

Top