• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

ATG team from each nation- consensus thread- Aus, Eng, WI

Eds

International Debutant
Would absolutely love to read more about him if you ever run out of ideas. Know next to nothing about him.
 

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
George Headley never opened a test innings. When we start forcing people in positions they didn't play regularly or at all (Hutton) to cover other perceived weaknesses and forces as many stars into the team as possible and become too stat driven, this is a team one ends up with. Though Sobers and Worrell actually opened (and together).

Garry Sobers
Frank Worrell
George Headley
Viv Richards
Brian Lara
Everton Weekes
Clyde Walcott
Malcolm Marshall
Curtly Ambrose
Michael Holding
Joel Garner

Unbeatable, but is it right?
The way I go about this is, I think a balance needs to be struck between the batsman's abilities and his preferred position. I think Headley's ascendancy over Hunte as a batsman is large enough to overcome the positional problem. I know Sobers and Worrell have opened (though I didn't know they have done it together), and that actually illustrates my point in so far that great batsmen tend to do well wherever they are put on the line-up. Many examples could be provided. Such as Lara's preferred position being at 5, but him scoring tons of runs at number 3 when the team needed him to at an average of almost 60. Sehwag prefers to bat at number 4, but has been a hugely successful opener. Sobers did very well when he played up the order, either opening or at number 3 or 4. Same goes for the 3 Ws. They kept alternating their positions, and all of them did very well. Kallis has done fabulous work at both number 3 and 4. Ponting did well at number 5 in the 90s, when he wasn't anywhere near his best. Gavaskar scored 236 when coming in at number 4 against the Windies with India at 0/2. Border played 80 tests at number 3 and 4, and did as well there as he did lower down the order. Dravid did a great job as an opener when the need arose. There are many such examples.

Hutton being the great batsman that he was, is amply suited to the number 3 position. This has the additional benefit of not breaking up perhaps the greatest opening partnership in test history in Hobbs and Sutcliffe. How do you leave out Sutcliffe for Pietersen, May, or Jardine is beyond sense for me. The guy averages 60 for pete's sake. Similarly for Headley, picking him as an opener gives me two very important benefits. First, Viv at number 3, where he was the best Windies ever had, and the best position for him. Plus, it gets in Worrell. This is not about packing in as many stars as possible (otherwise I would have Weekes ahead of Greenidge and Walcott ahead of Dujon). Worrell as a captain is invaluable to a Caribbean side, as many Windies fans would agree. He would bring them all together.

What do you say?
 
Last edited:

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
Headley is the teams best batsman and never opened, if you want to place one of the middle order batsmen to open, then use Worrell who actually did open and scored an unbeaten hundred in the position. Headley is your best batsman and his preferred position was three, pla him there, even Steve Cozier has said the same in similar exercises.
 

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Headley is the teams best batsman and never opened, if you want to place one of the middle order batsmen to open, then use Worrell who actually did open and scored an unbeaten hundred in the position. Headley is your best batsman and his preferred position was three, play him there, even Steve Cozier has said the same in similar exercises.
Firstly, I do not agree that Headley is the team's best batsman. In fact, I place him fourth behind Sobers, Viv and Lara. Secondly, I don't even agree that he was Windies' best ever no. 3. I would put Viv there, and then Lara, and then Headley. So, it all comes down to whether I would like to have Headley at number 5 and Worrel opening or Headley opening with Worrell at number 5. I like the latter.
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Hutton being the great batsman that he was, is amply suited to the number 3 position. This has the additional benefit of not breaking up perhaps the greatest opening partnership in test history in Hobbs and Sutcliffe. How do you leave out Sutcliffe for Pietersen, May, or Jardine is beyond sense for me. The guy averages 60 for pete's sake.
Sutcliffe was an effective player, with a high average, but that doesn't automatically make him a lock for any team.

Consideration has to be made for the role he'll play in the team. Which is a very dour, slow scoring opener. Which is why he shouldn't be compared to someone like May, who was a brilliant batsman in the middle order, capable of shots all round the wicket, fluent and free flowing.
 

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
Well I guess that is where we differ, I rate Headley as our best pure no. 3 and overall the best no. 3 after Bradman. What he did on a weak West Indies team where he was the only threat and scored 10 100's in 19 tests was just amazing. Him, Sobers and Viv are all in my top 6 bats of all time with Bradman, Hobbs and Sachin.
So if Worrel needs to be in there

Greenidge
Worrell *
Headley
Richards
Lara
Sobers
Walcott +
Marshall
Ambrose
Ambrose
Gibbs
 

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
Sutcliffe was an effective player, with a high average, but that doesn't automatically make him a lock for any team.

Consideration has to be made for the role he'll play in the team. Which is a very dour, slow scoring opener. Which is why he shouldn't be compared to someone like May, who was a brilliant batsman in the middle order, capable of shots all round the wicket, fluent and free flowing.
Just want to know why all of a sudden everyone sees him as a better opener than Hutton, or would want to play Hutton in the middle order instead of a specialist who is a more effeciant and fluent a scorer.
 

Eds

International Debutant
Well I guess that is where we differ, I rate Headley as our best pure no. 3 and overall the best no. 3 after Bradman. What he did on a weak West Indies team where he was the only threat and scored 10 100's in 19 tests was just amazing. Him, Sobers and Viv are all in my top 6 bats of all time with Bradman, Hobbs and Sachin.
So if Worrel needs to be in there

Greenidge
Worrell *
Headley
Richards
Lara
Sobers
Walcott +
Marshall
Ambrose
Ambrose
Gibbs
Then begs the question, do we need Gibbs with Sobers and Worrell? I think not.
 

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Just want to know why all of a sudden everyone sees him as a better opener than Hutton, or would want to play Hutton in the middle order instead of a specialist who is a more efficient and fluent a scorer.
I don't think of Sutcliffe as a better opener than Hutton, and if forced to choose to one between the two, will always take Hutton. However, when it comes to picking the Pommie XI, it makes at least a little bit of sense to have Sutcliffe opening with Hobbs, since they are perhaps the best opening partnership in history, and then have Hutton at number 3.

What I want to know is where this notion of the likes of May and Compton being fluent scorers came from. When compared with known statistics, May and Compton have SRs of 39 and 38, to Hutton's 37 and Sutcliffe's 34. Fluent scorers. Really? I don't think you can ignore a difference of 10 in batting average for a difference of 4 in SR. Hammond's SR is 38; Barrington's 42. So, Barrington was perhaps a more fluent scorer than May or Compton.

Let's face it. England have not had too many great batsmen who scored fluently. The only ones who can lay claim to that title are Gower (SR 50) and Pietersen (SR 63). So, yes, you can leave Barrington/Sutcliffe out for either Gower or Pietersen. A fluent Eng XI top order could be:

Hobbs | Hutton | Hammond | Gower | Barrington | Pietersen |

But I prefer

Hobbs | Sutcliffe | Hutton | Hammond | Barrington | Pietersen | Knott +|
 
Last edited:

LongHopCassidy

International Captain
I don't think of Sutcliffe as a better opener than Hutton, and if forced to choose to one between the two, will always take Hutton. However, when it comes to picking the Pommie XI, it makes at least a little bit of sense to have Sutcliffe opening with Hobbs, since they are perhaps the best opening partnership in history, and then have Hutton at number 3.

What I want to know is where this notion of the likes of May and Compton being fluent scorers came from. When compared with known statistics, May and Compton have SRs of 39 and 38, to Hutton's 37 and Sutcliffe's 34. Fluent scorers. Really? I don't think you can ignore a difference of 10 in batting average for a difference of 4 in SR. Hammond's SR is 38; Barrington's 42. So, Barrington was perhaps a more fluent scorer than May or Compton.

Let's face it. England have not had too many great batsmen who scored fluently. The only ones who can lay claim to that title are Gower (SR 50) and Pietersen (SR 63). So, yes, you can leave Barrington/Sutcliffe out for either Gower or Pietersen. A fluent Eng XI top order could be:

Hobbs | Hutton | Hammond | Gower | Barrington | Pietersen |

But I prefer

Hobbs | Sutcliffe | Hutton | Hammond | Barrington | Pietersen | Knott +|
You know who could bat quite fluently when he felt like it? Beefy.

This would require dropping Knotty for Ames or Stewart - who was perfectly fluent in an era of truly vicious fast bowling, and was routinely picked over Healy in contemporary world XIs - to shore up the batting properly at 6 and let Beefy be his volatile self at 7.

Then we could have ourselves four specialist bowlers to boot, and personally I'd pick:

1. JB Hobbs
2. L Hutton
3. WR Hammond
4. DCS Compton
5. MJ Brearley* (specialist captain in the English tradition), otherwise KF Barrington and Hutton as captain
6. AJ Stewart+
7. IT Botham
8. H Verity
9. AV Bedser
10. JA Snow
11. FS Trueman

Personally I don't see how Knott is an auto-pick anyway; it's not like he kept to anyone truly difficult except perhaps Underwood.

Also severely skeptical of SF Barnes' routine selection - record significantly inflated against a seminal South Africa and preferred to beat up amateurs in league cricket instead of giving his all for his county. In fact, his Ashes record is worse than Hugh Trumble's, who doesn't even enter ATG discourse.
 
Last edited:

Spooony

Banned
Gough?

Wow, not the way I'd have gone, to put it politely.

Thorpey and Ding Dong stretches too, much as I love the former.

Or is this a "positional average" XI dealy?
No mostly I have seen them play against the strongest sides in the world on all continents and not just against a couple of nations or a extremely weak SA side in the 30's....
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
1. JB Hobbs
2. L Hutton
3. WR Hammond
4. DCS Compton
5. MJ Brearley* (specialist captain in the English tradition), otherwise KF Barrington and Hutton as captain
6. AJ Stewart+
7. IT Botham
8. H Verity
9. AV Bedser
10. JA Snow
11. FS Trueman
Don't mind this at all. I like most of your rationale as well. It's a well balanced XI. I'd include Ames over Stewart at 6, and I'd have Barnes over Snow. I couldn't include a guy with the average of 22 in the top six of an ATG side no matter how good a captain he was though!

Hobbs
Hutton
Hammond
Compton
Barrington/Woolley/May/KP/Ranji
Ames *
Botham
Verity
Bedser
Trueman
SF Barnes
 

watson

Banned
Don't mind this at all. I like most of your rationale as well. It's a well balanced XI. I'd include Ames over Stewart at 6, and I'd have Barnes over Snow. I couldn't include a guy with the average of 22 in the top six of an ATG side no matter how good a captain he was though!

Hobbs
Hutton
Hammond
Compton
Barrington/Woolley/May/KP/Ranji
Ames *
Botham
Verity
Bedser
Trueman
SF Barnes
You don't have a pair of fast bowlers to open the bowling.

Having Trueman as the lone fast-bowler spearhead is not desirable in an ATG team IMO
 
Last edited:

Jager

International Debutant
You know who could bat quite fluently when he felt like it? Beefy.

This would require dropping Knotty for Ames or Stewart - who was perfectly fluent in an era of truly vicious fast bowling, and was routinely picked over Healy in contemporary world XIs - to shore up the batting properly at 6 and let Beefy be his volatile self at 7.

Then we could have ourselves four specialist bowlers to boot, and personally I'd pick:

1. JB Hobbs
2. L Hutton
3. WR Hammond
4. DCS Compton
5. MJ Brearley* (specialist captain in the English tradition), otherwise KF Barrington and Hutton as captain
6. AJ Stewart+
7. IT Botham
8. H Verity
9. AV Bedser
10. JA Snow
11. FS Trueman

Personally I don't see how Knott is an auto-pick anyway; it's not like he kept to anyone truly difficult except perhaps Underwood.

Also severely skeptical of SF Barnes' routine selection - record significantly inflated against a seminal South Africa and preferred to beat up amateurs in league cricket instead of giving his all for his county. In fact, his Ashes record is worse than Hugh Trumble's, who doesn't even enter ATG discourse.
Best poster on CW for Brearley's selection :wub:

Jardine is his only rival in my humble opinion - at least from an English perspective
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
You don't have a pair of fast bowlers to open the bowling.

Having Trueman as the lone fast-bowler spearhead is not desirable in an ATG team IMO
Um, Bedser opened the bowling in every test he played...

Botham opened the bowling around half the time. So my attack is...

Trueman - Bedser - Botham - SF Barnes - Verity


Best poster on CW for Brearley's selection :wub:

Jardine is his only rival in my humble opinion - at least from an English perspective
That's absurd! You cannot POSSIBLY say that Brearley could be considered in an ATG team!

Brearley is probably the worst top 6 batsman to ever play more than 20 tests for England or Australia.
 

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I think captaincy skills are important, and as I concluded in the feature I wrote about him Brearley was one of the very best, but with the likes of Hobbs, Hutton and Jardine available he's far too expensive a luxury in an ATG team
 

AndyZaltzHair

Hall of Fame Member
If a specialist Captain had to be selected as mandatory in English team, I would go for Jardine although Brearley was a great scholar and Captain but Jardine was not behind Brearley from tactical point of view as well and additionally he brings in batting depth. The thing with specialist Captain selection means the team has to be constructed around the Captain and Captain's name should be first on the list. So points to be noted that if anyone constructs a team with specialist Captain, then that Captain will need close to those sets of players that he had success with; therefore, if Jardine is selected, the team will definitely need likes of Larwood, Verity, Ames and if Brearley is selected, that team will need likes of Botham, Bob Willis. My point is if specialist Captain is selected in an ATG XI, different sorts of combination of players are required and if not, we can't shoehorn a specialist Captain into a side of players that the Captain is not familiar with at all.
 
Last edited:

Top