The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Jager]

Originally Posted by watson

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

Indeed, I've never read anything about him bowling with malicious intent though - just playfully killing the batsman

[watson]

Originally Posted by Jager

Indeed, I've never read anything about him bowling with malicious intent though - just playfully killing the batsman

Yep, nothing wrong with a friendly bouncer that skids off the pitch throat high.

[Monk]

On a DVD I have Bradman talks about how good Lindwall's bouncer was. He says that although Lindwall wasn't really tall, he used to get it up to throat height. Lindwall looks like he was bloody quick to me.

Lindwall's a guy who deserves to be mentioned with the likes of Kapil, Hadlee and Davidson as bowling all-rounders. Very good batsmen at #8 in any team. On the same DVD, Bradman talks about Lindwall as being a fine batsman.

[Jager]

Originally Posted by Monk

On a DVD I have Bradman talks about how good Lindwall's bouncer was. He says that although Lindwall wasn't really tall, he used to get it up to throat height. Lindwall looks like he was bloody quick to me.

Lindwall's a guy who deserves to be mentioned with the likes of Kapil, Hadlee and Davidson as bowling all-rounders. Very good batsmen at #8 in any team. On the same DVD, Bradman talks about Lindwall as being a fine batsman.

Better off at 9 though IMO, same with Davidson - allowed to free themselves and hit out with less responsibility

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Jager

Better off at 9 though IMO, same with Davidson - allowed to free themselves and hit out with less responsibility

I think Davidson was a genuine #8, especially if you look at what he did with the bat in Shield cricket. Underachieved slightly at Test level if anything, probably due to a lack of real necessity to make significant runs. Lindwall more a #9 at fictional ATG competition level though, indeed.

[MartinB]

Originally Posted by Monk

Lindwall looks like he was bloody quick to me.

During the WA University investigation into Fast Bowling In the 70's, they estimated the speed of past fast bowlers like Lindwall from film recordings. For Lindwall they had speeds
in the low 90's (93 ???) mph.

The other point for all these 'old' bowlers, there is very limited film available. It is very likely that Lindwall would have bowled faster on other days when there is no Film recording.

[Jager]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

I think Davidson was a genuine #8, especially if you look at what he did with the bat in Shield cricket. Underachieved slightly at Test level if anything, probably due to a lack of real necessity to make significant runs. Lindwall more a #9 at fictional ATG competition level though, indeed.

I'm basing my opinion from something I remember reading actually, so I probably jumped the gun. His FC record suggests he was actually a very talented batsman (same goes for Benaud actually).

[L Trumper]

Originally Posted by The Sean

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.

I know Hobbs is considered to be one of the best at covers. Did Bradman also field at covers? It'd be interesting whether anyone compared fielding abilities of Don and Master.

[fredfertang]

Everything I've read about Bradman indicates that he was an outstanding fielder in the covers before the war - right up there with Hobbs in his prime

[Days of Grace]

England XI:
Hutton (c)
Hobbs
Barrington
Hammond
May
Botham
Prior (wk)
Larwood
Trueman
Laker
Barnes

This is based off my ratings, with one wildcard (Larwood) thrown in.

I can choose any keeper I want, and I've gone for Prior, since Botham is a bit high at no.6 for an alltime team, and the tail is quite long. Really think Prior will be solid enough behind the stumps. The bowling attack covers all bases. A speedster to intimidate, a great allround fast bowler, a third-seamer with the knack of picking up wickets and who can run in all day, a classical off-spinner, and Barnes, who probably spun them away from the right-hander.

[Howe_zat]

If it were an all pace attack then Prior wouldn't give you any issues behind the sticks, but since it contains Laker and Barnes I'd expect a few missed chances from him.

[Coronis]

Originally Posted by Days of Grace

England XI:
Hutton (c)
Hobbs
Barrington
Hammond
May
Botham
Prior (wk)
Larwood
Trueman
Laker
Barnes

This is based off my ratings, with one wildcard (Larwood) thrown in.

I can choose any keeper I want, and I've gone for Prior, since Botham is a bit high at no.6 for an alltime team, and the tail is quite long. Really think Prior will be solid enough behind the stumps. The bowling attack covers all bases. A speedster to intimidate, a great allround fast bowler, a third-seamer with the knack of picking up wickets and who can run in all day, a classical off-spinner, and Barnes, who probably spun them away from the right-hander.

Personally would have Ames if I wanted an wicketkeeper batsman.

[watson]

Les Ames best average of 58.57 is against New Zealand. However, against Australia it is less than half that at 27.00.

Therefore, Prior and Knott seem better choices to me as the former is probably a better batsman, and the latter an equivalent batsman, but better keeper.

Just a thought......

[kyear2]

Wisden names Murali best bowler ever - The Times of India

Has this list ever been updated by Wisden?

[smalishah84]

not sure when these ratings came out