Australian ATG Team- Open Voting

[Howe_zat]

You're asking people to be fair to Matthew Hayden. There are some things you just don't do.

 

[marc71178]

I'm a little confused - you know he's not just being picked as a batsman, right?

Yes, I'm just a little sceptical about how teams seem to be built around him at the expense of better batsmen and better bowlers.

 

[Jager]

Yes, I'm just a little sceptical about how teams seem to be built around him at the expense of better batsmen and better bowlers.

I don't know what else he could have done on the bowling front. Wickets at 22.97 not impressive enough for you? Then you add his slips fielding, batting (as a first change 'whirlwind' bowler who bowls short spells, he would definitely perform better with the bat) and captaincy and you have the easiest selection after Bradman.

 

[watson]

Yes, I'm just a little sceptical about how teams seem to be built around him at the expense of better batsmen and better bowlers.

Not exactly.

Miller IS selected because he enables the inclusion of both Warne and O'Reilly.

Miller CAN be selected because Bradman is batting at No.3 and Gilchrist is batting at No.7 (or wherever).

 

[marc71178]

I don't know what else he could have done on the bowling front. Wickets at 22.97 not impressive enough for you? Then you add his slips fielding, batting (as a first change 'whirlwind' bowler who bowls short spells, he would definitely perform better with the bat) and captaincy and you have the easiest selection after Bradman.

So you're picking everything around him. On the bowling front I'd want him to shoulder a full load.

Also, hypotheticals mean nothing in my mind.

 

[watson]

So you're picking everything around him. On the bowling front I'd want him to shoulder a full load.

Also, hypotheticals mean nothing in my mind.

No. In reality 'everything' is being picked around both Bill O'Reilly and Shane Warne.

Miller, as the third seamer, will be bowling about as many overs as the third seamer in any other cricket team. Although, if the wicket is turning, Warne and O'Reilly will obvously see more of the ball at the quicks expense.

 

[marc71178]

That seems to contradict with what others are saying about him having short spells and being used sparingly - as a 3rd seamer I'd expect a similar workload as my other 2 (if I'm only playing 3) - which doesn't tally with these ideas about him (plus the hypothetical that he'll improve his batting further)

 

[Howe_zat]

Also, hypotheticals mean nothing in my mind.

How else do you pick a hypothetical team?

 

[marc71178]

I'm talking about where things are being quoted as fact about a player where there's no evidence based on what they actually did in their career to suggest this.

 

[bagapath]

Yes, I'm just a little sceptical about how teams seem to be built around him at the expense of better batsmen and better bowlers.

well, with his inclusion australia is the only team likely to have five world class bowlers, and 7 world class batsman. 12 for the price of 11.

 

[Jager]

13 if you count Braddles as two

 

[Eds]

That seems to contradict with what others are saying about him having short spells and being used sparingly - as a 3rd seamer I'd expect a similar workload as my other 2 (if I'm only playing 3) - which doesn't tally with these ideas about him (plus the hypothetical that he'll improve his batting further)

What a ridiculous statement to make.

Let's just categorise all fast bowlers into one bracket and assume they'd all perform the same role in a side.

 

[kyear2]

Don't think he qualifies as a World Class Batsman though, and as a bowler he was apparently more effective in short bursts.

 

[kyear2]

13 if you count Braddles as two

As usual I disagree. He was the best, twice as good as Sobers, Tendulkar ect? No. Also for these teams we are selecting players at their peaks. Ricghards in '76, Headley in '39, Bradman was not at any point in his career twice as good as these players at their best.

 

[The Sean]

As usual I disagree. He was the best, twice as good as Sobers, Tendulkar ect? No. Also for these teams we are selecting players at their peaks. Ricghards in '76, Headley in '39, Bradman was not at any point in his career twice as good as these players at their best.

It's always difficult to quantify like that, but for the past century or so essentially since WWI the batting averages of Test batsmen have remained remarkably consistent (with occasional spikes and dips) - the good ones averaged 40, the great ones averaged 50, and a couple of remarkable ones nudged 60.

Bradman averaged 100.

 

[NUFAN]

No. In reality 'everything' is being picked around both Bill O'Reilly and Shane Warne.

Miller, as the third seamer, will be bowling about as many overs as the third seamer in any other cricket team. Although, if the wicket is turning, Warne and O'Reilly will obvously see more of the ball at the quicks expense.

That seems to contradict with what others are saying about him having short spells and being used sparingly - as a 3rd seamer I'd expect a similar workload as my other 2 (if I'm only playing 3) - which doesn't tally with these ideas about him (plus the hypothetical that he'll improve his batting further)

The main thing that will help O'Reilly is the voting process. I expect Lindwall and Davidson will get more combined votes, but they'll probably be quite close and anyone wanting a second spinner will most likely include O'Reilly.

I've picked Miller, but I plan on including 3 quicks and Warne. Reckon a similar scenario will occur with Botham.

 

[kyear2]

Bradman played in an era that favoured scoring, the pitches in Australia were flat, the LBW rule was that the ball had to pitch in line with the stumps for the batsman to be out, the stumps were smaller and Bradman played on a strong batting line up where he had had the pressure on him to be the savior. He some times benefitted from questionable calls, being given out LBW 3 times in his entire career vs England and being once given not out to a catch at slip, he was the main draw and everyone knew it. He played only in two countries and plundered the minnows of his time averaging 178 and 201 vs India and South Africa respectively. He wasn't as good on stickey wickets as Hammond or Headley, or as stylish, in his last game when he was bowled and the umpire was known to have said that of the ball had hit his pads that he would have given him not out.
He was the best, The Greatest Batsman Ever, the Don, but he wasn't the god that some though him to be. The key to his greatestness was his consistency and concentration, but he played on a different playing field to even players of his time and certainly to players of later eras.

 

[watson]

It's always difficult to quantify like that, but for the past century or so essentially since WWI the batting averages of Test batsmen have remained remarkably consistent (with occasional spikes and dips) - the good ones averaged 40, the great ones averaged 50, and a couple of remarkable ones nudged 60.

Bradman averaged 100.

Batting averages are relative to the bowling attacks of the time. With all the best will in the world the English bowling attacks of the 1930s were not a patch on the bowling attacks of the 1970s-80s (for example). Even allowing for uncovered pitches and bad weather.

If Don Bradman played from 1970 to 1984 like Greg Chappell then common sense tells me that there would be no way known that he would average 100, even in a pink fit. John Snow, Imran Khan, the Indian spin quartet, and a battery of West Indian fast bowlers would see to it. There was also the hectic schedule involving frequent Test and 50-over matches. One week Bradman would be slogging during last overs of a Day-Nighter, and the next week trying to defend against Marshall and Garner on the 1st day of a Test match. Then off on a grinding tour to Pakistan to front up to Imran, Sarfraz et al.

Pluck Bradman out of the gentle pace of the 1930s and plug him into the mainstream of the 1970s-80s and he would, in all probability, average a bit more than Greg Chappell. And Greg Chappell's average of 53.86 is already very impressive given its context.

 

[The Sean]

*sigh* So much to say, but nothing that hasn't already been said a million times before. CBF, will leave it to someone with more energy.

 

[adub]

The main thing that will help O'Reilly is the voting process. I expect Lindwall and Davidson will get more combined votes, but they'll probably be quite close and anyone wanting a second spinner will most likely include O'Reilly.

I've picked Miller, but I plan on including 3 quicks and Warne. Reckon a similar scenario will occur with Botham.

Agree. I would go Lillee, McGrath, Davidson if left to my own devices, but with Miller already settled in the side I'm a toss up on going for Tiger over Davo.