The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[watson]

Originally Posted by akilana

Didn't play enough

A FC career that went from 1927 to 1954 is more than long enough. 103 FC games incorporating 33 centuries, and 22 Tests incorporating 10 centuries is not overly comprehensive, but it's still plenty good enough to make a reasonable judgement about Headley's abilities. He is a worthy contender for that ATG No.3 spot

[kyear2]

Played 19 tests over 10 years before the War at an average close to 70, all backed up the third highest first class average in th history of the game, and those were games primarily played while on tour or againts near test strength British touring sides. Unlike Pollock his career wasn't over a five year period of arguably his prime againts select opposition, but againts only the top two teams of his era and spread over a decade mostly spent in test cricket isolation, yet he maintained his form on an icedibly weak team and batting line up where he was the sole difference between victory and defeat. That is the pressure he endured for his entire playing career and he shined.
He played plenty and our Greatest Batsman.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Monk

Here's an interesting question on ATG sides....

If Bradman had never existed, who would you bat at #3 in your ATG side?

Bradman-less XI
1. Jack Hobbs
2. Len Hutton
3. Charles Macartney (6)
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. Viv Richards
6. Garfield Sobers (5)
7. Adam Gilchrist
8. Imran Khan (3)
9. Malcolm Marshall (2)
10. Harold Larwood (1)
11. Bill O'Reilly (4)
(SF Barnes 12th)

I've slotted Macartney in there for a couple of reasons - firstly, his quality is not represented in his career average. At number three after the war, he averaged 71 (mostly in England).

Additionally, he was dynamic - a quality I want from my number three, considering he's following Hobbs and Hutton. Yes, Richards could provide this, but why not have both? Richards drops to 5 so as to slot Tendulkar in between them, in the 'Roebuck Role' as I now call it.

And as an added bonus, Macartney could chip in with some more-than-handy left arm spin, balancing the right arm quick legspin of O'Reilly. He could field, too.

So I'd have Sobers at first, Tendulkar at second, Richards at third. I'm not sure where Hutton generally fielded, so either him or Hobbs in the gully.

[watson]

Originally Posted by rvd619323

Bradman-less XI
1. Jack Hobbs
2. Len Hutton
3. Charles Macartney (6)
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. Viv Richards
6. Garfield Sobers (5)
7. Adam Gilchrist
8. Imran Khan (3)
9. Malcolm Marshall (2)
10. Harold Larwood (1)
11. Bill O'Reilly (4)
(SF Barnes 12th)

I've slotted Macartney in there for a couple of reasons - firstly, his quality is not represented in his career average. At number three after the war, he averaged 71 (mostly in England).

Additionally, he was dynamic - a quality I want from my number three, considering he's following Hobbs and Hutton. Yes, Richards could provide this, but why not have both? Richards drops to 5 so as to slot Tendulkar in between them, in the 'Roebuck Role' as I now call it.

And as an added bonus, Macartney could chip in with some more-than-handy left arm spin, balancing the right arm quick legspin of O'Reilly. He could field, too.

So I'd have Sobers at first, Tendulkar at second, Richards at third. I'm not sure where Hutton generally fielded, so either him or Hobbs in the gully.

A post WWI Macartney is an inspired choice, but it does seem a shame to leave out Brian Lara or Graeme Pollock who were also dynamic.

[Coronis]

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Headley
Pollock
Richards
Sobers
Gilchrist
Marshall
Warne
Murali
McGrath

[Monk]

Originally Posted by rvd619323

Bradman-less XI
1. Jack Hobbs
2. Len Hutton
3. Charles Macartney (6)
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. Viv Richards
6. Garfield Sobers (5)
7. Adam Gilchrist
8. Imran Khan (3)
9. Malcolm Marshall (2)
10. Harold Larwood (1)
11. Bill O'Reilly (4)
(SF Barnes 12th)

I like this team. Care to elaborate on your choice of Larwood though? Can't recall seeing him in an all nation's ATG team before. Love the choice of McCartney though. Would you include him in an ATG Australian XI (with Bradman included), or do you see him as a specialist #3.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Monk

I like this team. Care to elaborate on your choice of Larwood though? Can't recall seeing him in an all nation's ATG team before. Love the choice of McCartney though. Would you include him in an ATG Australian XI (with Bradman included), or do you see him as a specialist #3.

I've had the Larwood debate a few times now, and it gets awfully messy. I rate him as the best fast bowler in history, and understandably many disagree with me.

I see Macartney more as a specialist three. I've considered opening with him in a Bradman-inclusive Australian XI, but then Trumper and Simpson are set there IMO.

Trumper - Simpson - Bradman - McCabe - Waugh - Miller - Gilchrist - Davidson - Lillee - O'Reilly - McGrath (probably forgetting someone obvious there)

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by rvd619323

I've had the Larwood debate a few times now, and it gets awfully messy. I rate him as the best fast bowler in history, and understandably many disagree with me.

I see Macartney more as a specialist three. I've considered opening with him in a Bradman-inclusive Australian XI, but then Trumper and Simpson are set there IMO.

Trumper - Simpson - Bradman - McCabe - Waugh - Miller - Gilchrist - Davidson - Lillee - O'Reilly - McGrath (probably forgetting someone obvious there)

Chappell?

[watson]

Yeah, Greg Chappell proved himself to be one of the best players of fast bowling of all time, if not the best. In a decade where most batsman's averages headed south, Greg Chappell's average climbed and then peaked during the 1970s.

[Mike5181]

What did Larwood have that guys like Marshall, Hadlee, Khan, Lillee etc didn't? He wasn't even massively successful at test level.

[Monk]

Originally Posted by rvd619323

I've had the Larwood debate a few times now, and it gets awfully messy. I rate him as the best fast bowler in history, and understandably many disagree with me.

I see Macartney more as a specialist three. I've considered opening with him in a Bradman-inclusive Australian XI, but then Trumper and Simpson are set there IMO.

Trumper - Simpson - Bradman - McCabe - Waugh - Miller - Gilchrist - Davidson - Lillee - O'Reilly - McGrath (probably forgetting someone obvious there)

I read a biography of Larwood a few years ago. Cracking read. And he was an absolute champion of a bloke. From what I read, you couldn't ask for a better team man that Larwood. He thought the world of Jardine too. Almost made me tolerate Jardine, that book!

The way Larwood was treated by England as a test player was a joke though. His first class career is unbelievable, and he should have played so many more tests.

[The Sean]

Originally Posted by Monk

I think (from what I've read) Bradman was a decent cover field, but maybe not an out and out great fieldsman (although it's hard to imagine him not having amazing reflexes etc).

From what I've read, Bradman was a superb fieldsman, it's just rarely talked about when compared to the ridiculousness of his batting. I've quoted before the essay by Robertson-Glasgow where he talks about Bradman standing pre-eminent even among a generation of outstanding Australian fielders.

[Jager]

Originally Posted by kyear2

Have you decided on who your fast bowlers are as yet?

Miller's always going to be one of them as he's my first pick on the teamsheet. I tend to lean towards Marshall because of his heart and character, I was surprised by the amount of wayward balls I saw him bowl when I watched full spells of his though. A few wides here and there - lots of swing and accuracy from the rest though. I really tend to pick players with good hearts and who played the game for enjoyment over ruthless freaks with a real unpleasant streak (McGrath's and Lillee's tantrums spring to mind). My fast bowling pool would be something like this...

Miller
Procter
Marshall
Davidson
Ambrose
Lindwall
Garner

and to a lesser extent

Gregory
Mahmood
Larwood
Imran

Gregory not successful enough at test level to justify inclusion, but , and Imran only down there because of my colour 'problems'. Larwood only down here because I am not sure his body would be strong enough for lots of long test series, at least in comparison with superhuman specimens like Procter.

Players that deserve to be in the discussion but who were ****s on the field/not 'teamy' enough include...

McGrath
Lillee
Trueman
Donald
Steyn

[Jager]

Originally Posted by Monk

Going on from PEW's fielding combo...


- Bob Simpson (1st slip)
-
- Ricky Ponting (point)
- Greg Chappell (2nd slip)
- Viv Richards (mid wicket/cover/3rd slip)
- Colin Bland (covers)
- Allan Knott (wicketkeeper)
- Richie Benaud (gully)
-
-
-

Sobers in there at leg slip, Davidson as a close fielder where he was one of the best ever - 'The Claw' is always overlooked. Miller was the one who coined that term, for the record

Originally Posted by Monk

Here's an interesting question on ATG sides....

If Bradman had never existed, who would you bat at #3 in your ATG side?

Archie Jackson or Barry Richards are my first two instinctive thoughts

[watson]

Originally Posted by Jager

Miller's always going to be one of them as he's my first pick on the teamsheet. I tend to lean towards Marshall because of his heart and character, I was surprised by the amount of wayward balls I saw him bowl when I watched full spells of his though. A few wides here and there - lots of swing and accuracy from the rest though. I really tend to pick players with good hearts and who played the game for enjoyment over ruthless freaks with a real unpleasant streak (McGrath's and Lillee's tantrums spring to mind). My fast bowling pool would be something like this...

Miller
Procter
Marshall
Davidson
Ambrose
Lindwall
Garner

and to a lesser extent

Gregory
Mahmood
Larwood
Imran

Gregory not successful enough at test level to justify inclusion, but , and Imran only down there because of my colour 'problems'. Larwood only down here because I am not sure his body would be strong enough for lots of long test series, at least in comparison with superhuman specimens like Procter.

Players that deserve to be in the discussion but who were ****s on the field/not 'teamy' enough include...

McGrath
Lillee
Trueman
Donald
Steyn

Incidently, Ray Lindwall's nickname was "KILLER", so maybe he should go in the 'nasty' list.