The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Monk]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

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]

Originally Posted by Monk

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.

[Monk]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

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]

Originally Posted by rvd619323

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.

[Flem274*]

Simpson
Trumper
That Bradman Guy
Ghappell
Border
Miller
Gilchrist
Lindwall
Warne
Lillee
McGrath

[Coronis]

Originally Posted by 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.

Comfortably the best and greatest? Are you sure?

[Monk]

I imagine Grimmett to have been very similar to Warne. O'Reilly was a little different to Warne and Grimmett. .

If you are to have two leggies in the team (which Miller in the top 6 does allow), it's better in my eyes to have Warne & O'Reilly or Grimmett & O'Reilly, but not Grimmett and Warne.

**** we're nerds, aren't we?

[watson]

Originally Posted by Coronis

Comfortably the best and greatest? Are you sure?

I'm never sure about anything Coronis, and if I give that impression then it is purely accidental.

However, have you checked Grimmett's stats against England? (The only team that really mattered during the 30s). I don't think that they are anything too special.

[Coronis]

Originally Posted by Monk

I imagine Grimmett to have been very similar to Warne. O'Reilly was a little different to Warne and Grimmett. .

If you are to have two leggies in the team (which Miller in the top 6 does allow), it's better in my eyes to have Warne & O'Reilly or Grimmett & O'Reilly, but not Grimmett and Warne.

**** we're nerds, aren't we?

Yeah me too I guess it would be better to have O'Reilly and Warne. Goes against my heart though

Originally Posted by watson

I'm never sure about anything Coronis, and if I give that impression then it is purely accidental.

However, have you checked Grimmett's stats against England? (The only team that really mattered during the 30s). I don't think that they are anything too special.

Heh if anything I'm a bit biased. Yep, his stats are pretty bad against England, as are every bowlers pretty much, besides O'Reilly, who really stands out, against England.

[Dan]

My theory is that O'Reilly was the better bowler per se, in that his style and method of bowling could take wickets against everyone. There's an anecdote on Maurice Leyland's Cricinfo profile that's pretty telling:

If he knew himself to have the measure of the great O'Reilly, who was no paper tiger, he also retained the respect of one master for another. Describing an over of fearsome hostility, he said: "First he bowled me an off-break, then he bowled me a leg-break; then his googly, then a bumper, then one that went with his arm . . . ."

"But that's only five, Maurice. What about the last one ?"

"Oh, that," said Maurice deprecatingly. "That was a straight 'un and it bowled me."

Grimmett, on the other hand, had the multitude of variations - he was a mystery spinner - meaning he could absolutely tear through weaker sides, but he had a tendency to be found out a little against top opposition (not unlike an Ajantha Mendis or Sunil Narine). O'Reilly was the more consistent of the two.

I absolutely love Grimmett and his six variations of the flipper, but O'Reilly was the more successful bowler overall.

[watson]

Originally Posted by rvd619323

My theory is that O'Reilly was the better bowler per se, in that his style and method of bowling could take wickets against everyone. There's an anecdote on Maurice Leyland's Cricinfo profile that's pretty telling:



Grimmett, on the other hand, had the multitude of variations - he was a mystery spinner - meaning he could absolutely tear through weaker sides, but he had a tendency to be found out a little against top opposition (not unlike an Ajantha Mendis or Sunil Narine). O'Reilly was the more consistent of the two.

I absolutely love Grimmett and his six variations of the flipper, but O'Reilly was the more successful bowler overall.

And Maurice Leyland was rated by O'Reilly as one of the best batsman he ever bowled too. Heaven help the rest.

[Coronis]

While we're on the subject of Aussie leggies, I believe I did read somewhere that Hobbs thought Mailey > Grimmett and O'Reilly, whilst others thought Mailey was crap compared to the two (Bradman I think?)

[watson]

Originally Posted by Coronis

While we're on the subject of Aussie leggies, I believe I did read somewhere that Hobbs thought Mailey > Grimmett and O'Reilly, whilst others thought Mailey was crap compared to the two (Bradman I think?)

I remember Hobbs stating that he thought that Mailey was better than Grimmett. But I don't recall anything about O'Reilly. He wrote about Mailey and Grimmett in his autobiography which I think was written in 1932, give or take.

[Monk]

Originally Posted by Coronis

While we're on the subject of Aussie leggies, I believe I did read somewhere that Hobbs thought Mailey > Grimmett and O'Reilly, whilst others thought Mailey was crap compared to the two (Bradman I think?)

Bradman is on record saying that O'Reilly is the best bowler he faced. He also compared Grimmett to Mailey, saying that Mailey would sometimes bowl an unplayable ball, but could also be a bit loose, while Grimmett was more a master of control.