The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Monk]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

I'm probably still picking the same team I was 12-18 months ago. I don't think Lara's done enough in that time to force his way in...

Yeh fair enough. I just get in to players sometimes after reading a biography or something, hence the changes sometimes.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Monk

Yeh fair enough. I just get in to players sometimes after reading a biography or something, hence the changes sometimes.

Haha yeah I understood, I was just being a douche. I just find it a bit amusing that we (me included) all have little periods where we love certain players after reading more about them, and want to get them into teams like this even though they've been long retired and our overall criteria hasn't really changed. A few weeks later and they'll be gone again.

[watson]

Lara is different though because any cricket lover can be forgiven for going through a 'Lara phase'.

The reason that a 'Lara phase' is not unreasonable is that there is solid ground for believing that Brian Lara is the 2nd greatest/best batsman of all time. In other words it is not difficult to form a rational argument in support of Lara based on a logical assessment of all Test match innings.

However, there are some players that CWers get hung-up on ("fall in love"), and then claim that they are among the greatest when the supportive evidence is just not there in any significant quantity. That type of 'love' IS irrational and silly.

[Monk]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Haha yeah I understood, I was just being a douche. I just find it a bit amusing that we (me included) all have little periods where we love certain players after reading more about them, and want to get them into teams like this even though they've been long retired and our overall criteria hasn't really changed. A few weeks later and they'll be gone again.

My brain says Wally Hammond bats at #4, but my heart wants Lara there!

[kyear2]

Originally Posted by watson

Lara is different though because any cricket lover can be forgiven for going through a 'Lara phase'.

The reason that a 'Lara phase' is not unreasonable is that there is solid ground for believing that Brian Lara is the 2nd greatest/best batsman of all time. In other words it is not difficult to form a rational argument in support of Lara based on a logical assessment of all Test match innings.

However, there are some players that CWers get hung-up on ("fall in love"), and then claim that they are among the greatest when the supportive evidence is just not there in any significant quantity. That type of 'love' IS irrational and silly.

Very true, very few players can be argued to be in that catergory and some try to romantacise and claim that some players were better than they truely were.
The middle order batsmen who (for me) are truely the elite would be:
Bradman, G. Chappell, Ponting, Headley, Lara, V. Richards, Sobers, Tendulkar, G. Pollock, Hammond.
If it over all top for all batsmen, Hobbs replaces Pollock.

[Coronis]

I think I had Barnes in here at some point, and Tendulkar over Pollock, but otherwise, my ATG XI has remained pretty much the same. Also kyear, any particular reason why you have Marshall ahead of Warne in the batting order?

Jack Hobbs
Herbert Sutcliffe
Don Bradman*
Graeme Pollock
Viv Richards
Garry Sobers
Adam Gilchrist+
Shane Warne
Malcolm Marshall
Muttiah Muralitharan
Glenn McGrath

For reference, heres what my second XI would be:

Len Hutton
Sunil Gavaskar
George Headley
Wally Hammond
Sachin Tendulkar
Jacques Kallis
Kumar Sangakkara+
Imran Khan*
Dennis Lillee
Sydney Barnes
Clarrie Grimmett

Sanga's probably the most controversial choice here, but his batting has just been so good that he makes it. Imran could probably swap with Marshall... but for now this is what I think works best.

[Prince EWS]

I never saw Marshall bat but both his Test and First Class batting records definitely indicate a better batsman than Warne.

[fredfertang]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

I never saw Marshall bat but both his Test and First Class batting records definitely indicate a better batsman than Warne.

When he was needed, or in the mood, Maco could look like a front line batsman ie plenty of time to see the ball and good foot movement, in a way that for me Warne never did

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by fredfertang

When he was needed, or in the mood, Maco could look like a front line batsman ie plenty of time to see the ball and good foot movement, in a way that for me Warne never did

Thanks for that. With ten First Class hundreds that doesn't surprise me at all. I've never really read much about his batting but he's someone I've just always considered to be not far off an allrounder.

[Days of Grace]

Yeah, can be a good no. 8.

I'm sticking with the team in my sig., even though I've copped criticism for having Gilchrist at no. 6. The five frontline bowling options with Warne and Murali in tandem are too good to be discounted. That, and everyone bar Murali can hold a bat in the lower order.

[Jager]

Originally Posted by Coronis

Sanga's probably the most controversial choice here, but his batting has just been so good that he makes it. Imran could probably swap with Marshall... but for now this is what I think works best.

So you'd be willing to put someone who is likely to be less proficient (read: likely to miss chances that better keepers would have taken) behind the stumps in search of some extra runs - for me that just doesn't make sense.

[watson]

Originally Posted by Jager

So you'd be willing to put someone who is likely to be less proficient (read: likely to miss chances that better keepers would have taken) behind the stumps in search of some extra runs - for me that just doesn't make sense.

Yes, it would be a shame if the keeper missed a stumping off someone like Bradman when he was only on 2.

(good to see you back Jager)

[Coronis]

Originally Posted by Jager

So you'd be willing to put someone who is likely to be less proficient (read: likely to miss chances that better keepers would have taken) behind the stumps in search of some extra runs - for me that just doesn't make sense.

I was under the impression that Sanga was actually a very proficient keeper in his earlier days, though I'm not too sure. I know he's been at the very least a reliable keeper for SL in one dayers, but, his performance in the second test didn't seem too good. I was also wondering about the keeping quality of Andy Flower, I know he was an excellent batsmen but I've heard very little about his actual keeping..

[smalishah84]

Oh...Mick Jager is back

[Flametree]

Yeah, Sangakkara gets credit for a phenomenal average since giving up the gloves... but as we saw a couple of weeks ago, when he now takes the gloves, he isn't nearly good enough to be in an all-time side as a keeper. Maybe in his first incarnation as keeper he was good enough, I don't really recall (but I guess he kept to Murali, so he can't have been too bad). But if that's the case, in picking him you're picking a good keeper who averaged 40 with the bat, or a bad keeper who averages 55+.

I'd rather have a great keeper who averaged 32 with the bat back when that was only about 5 or 6 points below a very respectable average for a top order batsman.

And if you want an average keeper who averaged 50 with the bat, there's always Andy Flower.