The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[ankitj]

I'm being picky here. I don't think that any of those players are in the same class as Imran, Hadlee, or even Botham. I'll also throw in Miller, Procter and Kapil Dev. By and large, all the really great allrounders bowl fast for some reason. No offence to Richie.

(OK, I'm technically wrong, but I'm sure people know what I mean)

Faulkner pretty good bat but he was more of a batting all rounder unlike the match winners you mentioned. So I kinda agree with you.

 

[Howe_zat]

Playing for any other side Faulkner would likely be a batting allrounder, but there's no doubt he was crucial to both his side's batting and bowling. During his career he took more wickets than any South African. Despite being a legspinner opened the bowling in over a third of his matches, and was first or second change for a further half.

 

[harsh.ag]

Faulkner was a class act for sure, and as good an all-rounder as Hadlee at least. Plus, Mushtaq Mohammad, Vinoo Mankad and Richie Benaud were quite superb. And lest anyone forget......

And if you could count Sir Garfield Sobers as a spinner, then we have a winner

 

[harsh.ag]

Not to get off the track, but how is the combination of Len Hutton and Barry Richards as the best ever opening partnership? Hutton was a better technician than Hobbs and Gavaskar I feel, and Richards was like Sehwag with a good technique. Wonderful combo I think. Opinions?

 

[Red]

Not to get off the track, but how is the combination of Len Hutton and Barry Richards as the best ever opening partnership? Hutton was a better technician than Hobbs and Gavaskar I feel, and Richards was like Sehwag with a good technique. Wonderful combo I think. Opinions?

I can't go past Jack Hobbs as first choice opener. I'm not sure how Hutton was a better technician, from what I've read, Hobbs was an absolute master batsman.

My other favourites, like yours, are Hutton, Gavaskar, B. Richards (and Greenidge).

 

[Flametree]

Vino Mankad, Aubrey Faulkner, FS Jackson and Richie Benaud come to mind . . .

Not sure you can have Jackson in that list. Cricinfo lists him as fast-medium, though his Obit rather muddies the waters a bit with :

"A right-handed rather fast-medium bowler with a nice easy action and plenty of spin, he kept a good length and often got on a sharp off-break. "

 

[ankitj]

Playing for any other side Faulkner would likely be a batting allrounder, but there's no doubt he was crucial to both his side's batting and bowling. During his career he took more wickets than any South African. Despite being a legspinner opened the bowling in over a third of his matches, and was first or second change for a further half.

Wow. Didn't know that.

 

[harsh.ag]

I can't go past Jack Hobbs as first choice opener. I'm not sure how Hutton was a better technician, from what I've read, Hobbs was an absolute master batsman.

My other favourites, like yours, are Hutton, Gavaskar, B. Richards (and Greenidge).

Hutton is regarded in many quarters as the most technically correct batsman of his time in the sense of having a sound defence, at the same time having a touch of genius. Hobbs and Hutton are obviously the two best English openers. Most people would vote for Hobbs and I get it. I do too. Hobbs is much more like the minimalist defence and footwork model that Bradman, Tendulkar, Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock (among many others) use and which is more attacking (and more awesome to watch) than the Hutton, Gavaskar, Dravid style of batting. Hutton was reserved in his showmanship, and took his role as a defensive opener seriously, having been under the tutelage of Sutcliffe in his early years. Hobbs is the superior batsman in standalone without a doubt, but I guess my question was basically along the lines that if you had to reserve a place for Barry Richards in the XI, who would be an ideal partner for him? Sir John Hobbs, who is very much from the same school of batting, or Sir Len Hutton, who might be more complementary.

 

[Coronis]

Was looking at watson's sig, and my Aussie XI is fairly different from his.

Ponsford
Morris
Bradman*
Ponting
Chappell
Gilchrist+
Miller
Warne
Lillee
Grimmett
McGrath

I don't rate Simpson and Lawry as high as some people on here do, and I've seen that some people here tend to underrate Ponsford, vastly. Always rated Grimmett > O'Reilly.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think I'd roll with something like

Trumper, Simpson, Bradman, Chappell, Border, Miller, Gilchrist, Davidson, Warne, O'Reilly, McGrath

 

[Red]

Trying to squeeze all my favourites in to one balanced Australian team...

Trumper
Morris
Bradman
Chappell
Ponsford
Miller
Gilchrist
Davidson
Warne
Lillee
McGrath

 

[Red]

I think I'd roll with something like

Trumper, Simpson, Bradman, Chappell, Border, Miller, Gilchrist, Davidson, Warne, O'Reilly, McGrath

No room for Lillee?

 

[Dan]

Was looking at watson's sig, and my Aussie XI is fairly different from his.

Ponsford
Morris
Bradman*
Ponting
Chappell
Gilchrist+
Miller
Warne
Lillee
Grimmett
McGrath

I don't rate Simpson and Lawry as high as some people on here do, and I've seen that some people here tend to underrate Ponsford, vastly. Always rated Grimmett > O'Reilly.

Simpson has to be looked at slightly differently because of the unique nature of his career. When you look at him only opening the batting, and remove his WSC schism comeback at 40, his average rockets to 55. Ponsford has a fantastic FC and Test record, but I tend to prefer Simpson on the basis of his all-round value - handy legspin on a turner (letting you play 3 quicks if you want) and his unparallelled slip fielding. Plus he could captain.

The corpse with pads I rate less so.

Grimmett definitely had more variety than O'Reilly, but the latter was such a unique legspinner in the pace he delivered it at and the mentality with which he bowled that I've always found it difficult to keep him out.

My Australian XI looks like this:

1. Bob Simpson
2. Victor Trumper
3. Donald Bradman
4. Greg Chappell
5. Keith Miller
6. Steve Waugh
7. Adam Gilchrist
8. Alan Davidson
9. Bill O'Reilly
10. Dennis Lillee
11. Glenn McGrath

And it absolutely pains me to leave out the likes of Lindwall, Grimmett, Macartney, Ponting, Border, Harvey et al.

Waugh slots in between Miller and Gilchrist to play the 'Roebuck Role' - preventing Miller from being at the crease with Gilly and trying to outhit him all day.

 

[kyear2]

Morris
Simpson
Bradman
Chappell
Ponting
Gilchrist
Miller
Davidson/ Lindwall
Warne
Lillee
Mcgrath

 

[Prince EWS]

No room for Lillee?

Indeed. If I was going to include him I'd probably include him for Warne and that'd most likely be even more surprising.

 

[Red]

Indeed. If I was going to include him I'd probably include him for Warne and that'd most likely be even more surprising.

Why Davo over Lillee? Variety, all round ability, or purely to do with bowling?

 

[Prince EWS]

Why Davo over Lillee? Variety, all round ability, or purely to do with bowling?

I find it very hard to split them as bowlers, although if I pushed I probably still would pick Davo. That he could also bat, was an ATG fielder and added left arm variety all just makes him an absolute lock as a package, but even on bowling alone he'd be up there for mine. I'd sooner drop McGrath.

 

[Red]

I find it very hard to split them as bowlers, although if I pushed I probably still would pick Davo. That he could also bat, was an ATG fielder and added left arm variety all just makes him an absolute lock as a package, but even on bowling alone he'd be up there for mine. I'd sooner drop McGrath.

Yeh, fair enough. I rate Lillee really highly, on par with Marshall as the greatest quick ever. He's my first picked in an World ATG and Australian ATG side. The comparison between McGrath and Davidson is a good one I reckon. Similar bowlers in a lot of ways.

 

[watson]

Simpson has to be looked at slightly differently because of the unique nature of his career. When you look at him only opening the batting, and remove his WSC schism comeback at 40, his average rockets to 55. Ponsford has a fantastic FC and Test record, but I tend to prefer Simpson on the basis of his all-round value - handy legspin on a turner (letting you play 3 quicks if you want) and his unparallelled slip fielding. Plus he could captain.

The corpse with pads I rate less so.

Grimmett definitely had more variety than O'Reilly, but the latter was such a unique legspinner in the pace he delivered it at and the mentality with which he bowled that I've always found it difficult to keep him out.

My Australian XI looks like this:

1. Bob Simpson
2. Victor Trumper
3. Donald Bradman
4. Greg Chappell
5. Keith Miller
6. Steve Waugh
7. Adam Gilchrist
8. Alan Davidson
9. Bill O'Reilly
10. Dennis Lillee
11. Glenn McGrath

And it absolutely pains me to leave out the likes of Lindwall, Grimmett, Macartney, Ponting, Border, Harvey et al.

Waugh slots in between Miller and Gilchrist to play the 'Roebuck Role' - preventing Miller from being at the crease with Gilly and trying to outhit him all day.

Very clever idea!

 

[watson]

With Miller in the team as the first change pace bowler there is no excuse for not playing both O'Reilly and Warne.

O'Reilly was comfortably the best and greatest bowler of his generation, and Warne was possibly the best and greatest bowler of his generation. The fact that they are very different leggies with O'Reilly employing a unique grip on the ball to spin it at pace is an added bonus.