• 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

L Trumper

State Regular
Is Steyn approaching the point where he will be seen as a better bowler than Donald, or does some believe he is past him already?
I'd say better, unless he suddenly lost form and turns into crap. I don't think it will happen though. I think he would end up being the best after Marshall, and on par with Lillee, Hadlee et al.
 

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
That is high praise indeed.

I dont think that we give present day players the reconition they deserve, that being said, I think that at this time he and Donald are just about even, if I had to choose one, I would still give Donald the edge. Steyn is still definately on his way up though.
Definately an ATG already.
 
Last edited:

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
Donald-Steyn-S. Pollock-Procter. That pace attack of an all time SA XI is equaled (or marginally excelled) by only WI's. IMO. I therefore think, and keep asserting here, that an all time SA XI is level with any other all time XI (or marginally behind the Bradman side).
 

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
Pollock is a class below any of the W.I. pace men and there is none of them quite the equal of Ambrose far less Marshall, but yes it is a very good attack with Procter probably being the best but never got the prolonged Test experience to prove it. If he and Richards has played full careers they may very well been locks in everyone's ATG side. As it is it's hard to place them above Hutton/ Gavaskar or Imran/Miller.
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
On another tangent: I'm in to teams that bat to 11 at the moment, while still having a really strong bowling attack.

Hobbs
Gavaskar
Bradman
G.Chappell/Tendulkar/Lara/Hammond
V. Richards
Kallis/Miller
Sobers
Gilchrist
Imran
Hadlee
Warne
 
Last edited:

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
With Kallis, this is not a very strong attack. Personally cannot conceive of an ATG team with out the greatest ever fast bowler, who for me is generally third name on the team sheet. Additionally the extra ten runs with the bat not worth the lost intagibles of a Marshall or even Lillee, especially Marshall who was more than handy with the bat.
Nice idea though and it is your team. Everyone in an ATG team should be able to contribute in at least two disciplines.
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
I don't believe Marshall was a vastly greater bowler than Imran or Hadlee. But you could quite easily replace one of them with him. I'd take Lillee first if I was going to select bowlers on bowling merit only.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
I don't believe Marshall was a vastly greater bowler than Imran or Hadlee.
Indeed not; but Hadlee wasn't a vastly greater batsman than Marshall either; and in fact I'm sure the difference in batting between them would be much lesser against a team of equivalent standard to the one we're picking than it was during their Test careers.

Even in a "bat to 11" team, Marshall must play. He could seriously bat. Especially if you're picking Warne.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
If I wanted to bat to eleven:

1 Hobbs
2 Grace
3 Bradman
4 Tendulkar
5 Headley
6 Sobers
7 Gilchrist
8 Imran
9 Benaud
10 Hadlee
11 Marshall

Which is incidentally just straight up my usual team with Benaud in for Murali.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
How will Faulkner be in place of Benaud?
Yeah that was my original thought but Benaud was the better bowler even though Faulkner was the better cricketer, and he's batting 9 with Hadlee at 10, so I went with Benaud. I also considered Briggs and Rhodes.
 
Last edited:

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Could have Faulkner for Benaud and then someone like Pollock, Miller or Procter for Headley to balance it out a bit and ensure the side still had four real quality bowlers I guess.
 
Last edited:

watson

Banned
Indeed not; but Hadlee wasn't a vastly greater batsman than Marshall either; and in fact I'm sure the difference in batting between them would be much lesser against a team of equivalent standard to the one we're picking than it was during their Test careers.

Even in a "bat to 11" team, Marshall must play. He could seriously bat. Especially if you're picking Warne.
Hadlee was not vastly better than Marshall, but I believe him to be significantly better from what I saw on the TV,

In the early 80s he was one of only 2-3 Kiwi batsman who had any idea against Dennis Lillee. I remember the following 50 by Hadlee as if it were yesterday. The team score was 152 all out;

1st Test: Australia v New Zealand at Brisbane, Nov 28-30, 1980 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
 

Jager

International Debutant
Pollock is a class below any of the W.I. pace men and there is none of them quite the equal of Ambrose far less Marshall, but yes it is a very good attack with Procter probably being the best but never got the prolonged Test experience to prove it. If he and Richards has played full careers they may very well been locks in everyone's ATG side. As it is it's hard to place them above Hutton/ Gavaskar or Imran/Miller.
Please justify what you say about Pollock. It's your opinion FFS, not a fact like you seem to make it out to be.
 

Top