The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[centurymaker]

Originally Posted by Monk

I think there are plenty of other great middle order players that should be considered. I don't think it's as clear cut as you make out. G.Chappell, Hammond, G.Pollock, Kallis and Lara are all very legit contenders for either Viv or Tendulkar's spots imo.

Hobbs
Hutton/Gavaskar
Bradman
Tendulkar/Kallis
Viv/Chappell
Sobers
Gilly
Imran/Lillee
Warne
Marshall
McGrath

This is what an All time XI should look like IMO. It covers all eras. Includes players from most top sides. Has 1 great fast bowler from each of WI, Pak and Aus. (and all three are unique in their way of bowling). Has batsmen/batting-allrounders from different eras in the middle order (4,5,6) and has enough players from the modern era and 70/80s

[centurymaker]

Originally Posted by Coronis

Tendulkar has not been the best batsman for 24 years. Also, I don't see how 3/7 makes Hutton a surefire selection but maybe thats just me..

An old XI, but still, it was Bradman's (2001)
Richards, Morris, Bradman, Tendulkar, Sobers, Tallon, Lindwall, Lillee, Bedser, O'Reilly, Grimmett.

so wasn't viv richards? the point he is making is that all those batsmen were the stand-out batsmen from their respective eras.

Imo only chappell and kallis are the strong condenders to replace viv and tendulkar, respectively, in the side.

Only very biased line-ups would have Lara, Hammond, or Pollock.

-Pollock didn't play enough.
-If you pick Hammond, you are devaluing the cricket that has been played in the last 40 years, which probably makes up at least 75 % of all cricket, by picking another batsman from the old days.
-Finally, there's no place for lara when there's guys like Bradman, viv richards, sobers and gilly. I'd much rather have a technically proficient batsman/batting-allrounder like Tendulkar or Kallis. Plus, I think tendulkar passed him as a batsman long time back and kallis as a batting AR is now ahead too

[centurymaker]

For one of the fast bowling spots, it's hard to pick anyone over McGrath from the last 20 odd years. His longevity is second to none.

and for the other, it has be Marshall. He was the stand out bowler of his era.

and then there's no better contender for the 3rd quick bowling spot than imran khan.
When you have McGrath, you don't need Hadlee.

if not imran, then lillee.

[watson]

Aubrey Faulkner was highly ranked by Jack Hobbs as a leg-spinner, and was known for his accuracy. He also made some very good runs for South Africa.

One of the earliest exponents of the googly, he differed from other bowlers of that type because of his ability to send down quite a fast ball, almost a yorker, and when at his best, with faultless length, skill in turning the ball either way and a puzzling variation of flight he proved too much for some of the world's greatest batsmen.

Wisden - George Aubrey Faulkner

So is there a case for playing Faulkner in an ATG XI? If he does play then he and Murali would make a pretty formidable spin bowling combo, while at the same time allowing enough room at the bottom of the order for 3 top notch fast bowlers. All pitch conditions would be catered for.

01. Jack Hobbs
02. Len Hutton
03. Don Bradman
04. Sachin Tendulkar
05. Gary Sobers
06. Aubrey Faulkner
07. Adam Gilchrist
08. Malcolm Marshall
09. Dennis Lillee
10. Glenn McGrath
11. Muttiah Muralitharan

Obviously Benaud is not good enough to bat in the top 6, and Mushtaq Mohammed is an excellent batsman but not quite good enough with the ball.

[Howe_zat]

He's a better bowler than Sobers but while the latter is going to be there anyway, it seems more efficient not to waste his skills and bowl him, and play a more accomplished batsman in Faulkner's place.

[Jager]

If you only play five specialist batsmen but the majority of your bowlers are talented with the bat, does it make up for it?

[kyear2]

Originally Posted by L Trumper

I don't think even second opener is up for debate.

Hobbs - Hutton - Don - Sachin - Viv - Sobers can be considered the batting line up for best XI. And we can probably add Gilly, Marshall, Warne to that list. So probably 9 places filled.

Remaining are generally a fight between Lillee, Imran, Barnes and probably Akram(I personally prefer Davidson if we are to go for left arm variation, having said that with sobers there no need for another left arm) or Murali.

Also the great thing about that batting line up is, if we look at chronologically there are pretty much the best batsman of their era.

Hobbs 1908-30
Don 29-38, 46-48
Hutton 38, 46-55
Sobers 55-73
Viv 74-91
Sachin 89-2013*

Its as if a baton passed from one generation to other. And they all pretty much perfectly fit into the 6 slots. I am not sure whether any future batsman can break into that line up. Would be very interesting to see.

Pretty much agree, though Gavaskar does push Hutton pretty hard. Lara is just a hair behind Tendulkar (but he is behind), Chappell looses out to Richards and Headley and Hammond were just unfortunate to play in the same era as the Don.
I do belive though that if Barry Richards and Mike Procter had played more they would have been certain slections for their positions of #2 and 8 respectively. The last two spots are the difficult ones though I belive that Mcgrath takes one. Hadlee is not in the same class as Mcgrath as he basically played all his cricket in Aus, N.Z and England and his S.C stats and boosted by playing a very weak Sri Lankan infant minnow side.

Bradman, Sobers, Hobbs, Warne and Richards are the Wisden cricketers of the Century, Tendulkar's numbers are beyond reproach, Marshall is the greatest fast bowler to play the game, who succeeded everywere and againts everyone and who dispite a changing and aging W.I team was the greatest match winner who never lost a test series and only four matches as an opening bowler (his prime). Mcgrath's case is similar to Tendulkars and he was also a match winner. Hutton played againts the greatest attacks bridged by a war and a horendous injury and broke Bradman's record with the great man at cover when he was 21 facing Tiger O'Reilly. Gilly changed the game while batting like Viv and keeping to the magician like a genius.
Mcgrath is the most contentious of those listed above, but with time I belive that we will appreciate more what he has accomplished. Until then he will fight with Barnes and Lillee for his place.

[kyear2]

Originally Posted by Jager

If you only play five specialist batsmen but the majority of your bowlers are talented with the bat, does it make up for it?

No.

[Jager]

Originally Posted by kyear2

No.

That's a matter of opinion. Can you please top making statements like they're fact?

[L Trumper]

Originally Posted by Coronis

Tendulkar has not been the best batsman for 24 years. Also, I don't see how 3/7 makes Hutton a surefire selection but maybe thats just me..

An old XI, but still, it was Bradman's (2001)
Richards, Morris, Bradman, Tendulkar, Sobers, Tallon, Lindwall, Lillee, Bedser, O'Reilly, Grimmett.

That's not the point I am making.
As far as 3/7 for hutton, the reason for that is people considering WG Grace for that spot. I am selecting XI since 1900 only, not before that.

[L Trumper]

Originally Posted by Monk

I think there are plenty of other great middle order players that should be considered. I don't think it's as clear cut as you make out. G.Chappell, Hammond, G.Pollock, Kallis and Lara are all very legit contenders for either Viv or Tendulkar's spots imo.

Pollock didn't play as much as I'd have liked, besides its not like there aren't enough players who have similar records and played as well and for far longer time. He is a great player but when there are already proven players who are as good as him, there is no need for risk in a first XI. Viv and G Chappell careers overlapped quite a bit and it was mostly Viv and G Chappell at 1 & 2. Same with Sachin and Lara. You can pick a favorite but by and larger accepted wisdom is Viv , Sachin 1st XI, Chappell and Lara 2nd XI. As far as Kallis is considered his batting is tiny bit below all others that are mentioned.

[Jager]

Why is Viv considered greater than Greg Chappell? Because he was more spectacular? Personally I disagree with that.

[L Trumper]

Originally Posted by Jager

Why is Viv considered greater than Greg Chappell? Because he was more spectacular? Personally I disagree with that.

You can, but that is the point I was making. Most people who played with/against them and writers etc. generally pick Viv ahead of Chappell. Some may not.

[kyear2]

Originally Posted by Jager

That's a matter of opinion. Can you please top making statements like they're fact?

I state my opinion and don't claim to speak for anyone.

[kyear2]

Originally Posted by Jager

Why is Viv considered greater than Greg Chappell? Because he was more spectacular? Personally I disagree with that.

If Viv had retired after the same amount of games as Chappell his average would have been about the same, while Viv reached higher heights not only than Chappell but arguably any other batsman than Bradman and Sobers.
I myself though rate Chappell really highly especially when adding his superb slip fielding to his batting. He wasn't Viv though.