Australian ATG Team- Open Voting

[LongHopCassidy]

Seriously, what have we sunk to as a Test-playing country when Bill ****ing Lawry is being entertained as our best bet against Marshall, Hadlee and Wasim? What the **** for? Led the averages on a single England tour (a feat which incidentally hasn't eluded Bill Johnston). Not a single innings heralded as one of the great Australian knocks, unless you count the one eclipsed by Benaud's bowling in 1961. A strike rate which makes Geoff Boycott look like a pathological switch-hitter on amphetamines. Terrible captain, dire fieldsman, pissweak record in the subcontinent. It's beyond disgraceful that a middling batsman like Lawry can be a viable option as one of the best openers to pull on a baggy green because he gelled so well with Simpson, but someone like Langer is an arsey little FTB who stood on the shoulders of giants.

A giant, no less, whose career stats can be tampered to look worse than Nasser Hussain's if you factor in first-chance averages and look at their records in the second innings of third Tests with a UV light. Hayden along with Ponsford has easily the best average among this mob and he's non-negotiably crap because he mis-hit half a dozen Murray Minted balls.

It rustles me, it really does. Lawry should be fighting for the last position in the commentary box for these simmed games, let alone wearing whites.

 

[watson]

Seriously, what have we sunk to as a Test-playing country when Bill ****ing Lawry is being entertained as our best bet against Marshall, Hadlee and Wasim? What the **** for? Led the averages on a single England tour (a feat which incidentally hasn't eluded Bill Johnston). Not a single innings heralded as one of the great Australian knocks, unless you count the one eclipsed by Benaud's bowling in 1961. A strike rate which makes Geoff Boycott look like a pathological switch-hitter on amphetamines. Terrible captain, dire fieldsman, pissweak record in the subcontinent. It's beyond disgraceful that a middling batsman like Lawry can be a viable option as one of the best openers to pull on a baggy green because he gelled so well with Simpson, but someone like Langer is an arsey little FTB who stood on the shoulders of giants.

A giant, no less, whose career stats can be tampered to look worse than Nasser Hussain's if you factor in first-chance averages and look at their records in the second innings of third Tests with a UV light. Hayden along with Ponsford has easily the best average among this mob and he's non-negotiably crap because he mis-hit half a dozen Murray Minted balls.

It disgusts me, it really does. Lawry should be fighting for the last position in the commentary box for these simmed games, let alone wearing whites.

I don't think that you know what you are talking about;

210 V WI - Bridgetown 1965 (Hall, Griffith, Sobers, Gibbs)
205 V WI - MCG 1968 (Edwards, Davis, Sobers, Gibbs)
166 V Eng - Brisbane 1965 (Brown, Higgs, Allen, Titmus)
157 V SA - MCG 1964 (Pollock, Goddard)
151 V WI - SCG 1969 (Hall, Griffith, Sobers, Gibbs)
135 V Eng - Oval 1968 (Snow, Brown, Underwood, Illingworth)
130 V Eng - Lords 1961 (Trueman, Statham, Lock)
119 V Eng - Adelaide 1966 (Jones, Brown, Allen, Titmus)
108 V Eng - MCG 1966 (Jones, Brown, Knight, Titmus)
106 V Eng - Manchester 1961 (Cartwright, Price, Rumsey, Titmus)
105 V WI - Brisbane 1968 (Griffith, Holford, Sobers, Gibbs)
102 V Eng - Manchester 1961 (Trueman, Statham, Flavell, Allen)
100 V Ind - MCG 1967 (Chandra, Prasanna, Desai)

(Yeah, a lot of really ****-house bowlers listed there)

Total Runs = 5234
Average = 47.15
Average in India (8 tests) = 43.58

I also recommend that you listen to Ian Chappell. It is a myth that Lawry was overly defensive;

Chappell's Ashes Captains: Bill Lawry - YouTube

 

[LongHopCassidy]

I don't think that you know what you are talking about;

210 V WI - Bridgetown 1965 (Hall, Griffith, Sobers, Gibbs)
205 V WI - MCG 1968 (Edwards, Davis, Sobers, Gibbs)
166 V Eng - Brisbane 1965 (Brown, Higgs, Allen, Titmus)
157 V SA - MCG 1964 (Pollock, Goddard)
151 V WI - SCG 1969 (Hall, Griffith, Sobers, Gibbs)
135 V Eng - Oval 1968 (Snow, Brown, Underwood, Illingworth)
130 V Eng - Lords 1961 (Trueman, Statham, Lock)
119 V Eng - Adelaide 1966 (Jones, Brown, Allen, Titmus)
108 V Eng - MCG 1966 (Jones, Brown, Knight, Titmus)
106 V Eng - Manchester 1961 (Cartwright, Price, Rumsey, Titmus)
105 V WI - Brisbane 1968 (Griffith, Holford, Sobers, Gibbs)
102 V Eng - Manchester 1961 (Trueman, Statham, Flavell, Allen)
100 V Ind - MCG 1967 (Chandra, Prasanna, Desai)

(Yeah, a lot of really ****-house bowlers listed there)

Total Runs = 5234
Average = 47.15
Average in India (8 tests) = 43.58

I also recommend that you listen to Ian Chappell. It is a myth that Lawry was overly defensive;

Chappell's Ashes Captains: Bill Lawry - YouTube

I never said he didn't score his tons against good attacks, I said that not many of them were particularly significant or match-turning. Although I do concede I spoke in haste after being reminded of the Bridgetown knock and his 1961 Old Trafford effort.

And Lawry had four not-outs in India, which obfuscates the unfortunate fact that he made no hundreds there. Didn't really carpe diem in Pakistan, either.

He was an excellent strokemaker at the outset of his career (which was why he made the 1961 tour) but his scoring inktiative gradually deteriorated to the point where he was ultimately a liability to his own side. It's a similar argument to the one posed against Botham's bowling record: he damaged his legacy by sticking around too long.

See Gideon Haigh vis a vis his Cricinfo profile:

After catching the eye with elegant strokes on his first Ashes tour in 1961, long-nosed left-hander Bill Lawry steadily pared his batting back, until it was as skeletal as his appearance. By the time he inherited Australia's captaincy against India in 1967-68, he had become the most rigidly self-denying batsman of his generation, as hard to watch as he was to dismiss. Ian Wooldridge, the English journalist, called him "a corpse with pads on".

Good opener? Of course, he'd be welcome in the current Australian team. ATG? No.

 

[Flametree]

Ponsford and Simpson

 

[bagapath]

trumper and hayden. rock and roll.

 

[uvelocity]

haydos and tubby (c)

 

[Jager]

Trumper. Morris.

 

[kingkallis]

Matt Hayden is criminally under-rated on CW.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Victor Trumper and Arthur Morris

 

[Howe_zat]

Bradman opening the batting?

Yup. I think Ponting, who usually gets left out of the Aussie middle order, was significantly better than most of the opening options and it's worth the slight cheat on position.

I think it's odd that people like Hutton or Headley are played out of position in these XIs but the Don never is, surely if any no.3 is qualified to open the batting, he is.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yup. I think Ponting, who usually gets left out of the Aussie middle order, was significantly better than most of the opening options and it's worth the slight cheat on position.

I think it's odd that people like Hutton or Headley are played out of position in these XIs but the Don never is, surely if any no.3 is qualified to open the batting, he is.

Natural openers are generally more equipped to go down to three than the other way around, but I admire the thought you put into it.

Would it not be better to just make Ponting open himself than potentially decrease the output of your best batsman by a huge margin though? If for whatever reason it doesn't work and the batsman you shoehorn fails, you're losing a lot more with Bradman than you would with Ponting.

 

[Spikey]

yeah if you move bradman from 3 to opening he might only average 94, dumbarse

 

[kyear2]

Not to be presumptuous, but looking at some of the teams it is apparent that they are some locks for.certain teams that every one can agree with. For Australia I would assume Bradman, Chappell, Liklee and Warne would be the automatic selections. The West Indies for example, only needs to fill in three spots, opener opposite Greenidge, wicket keeper and fourth bowler (pace or spin and which player). Just my opnion to speed up the process.

 

[Prince EWS]

Not to be presumptuous, but looking at some of the teams it is apparent that they are some locks for.certain teams that every one can agree with. For Australia I would assume Bradman, Chappell, Liklee and Warne would be the automatic selections. The West Indies for example, only needs to fill in three spots, opener opposite Greenidge, wicket keeper and fourth bowler (pace or spin and which player). Just my opnion to speed up the process.

Meh it's all part of the process. As long as there's not too much of that to a point of tedium - and there isn't - then it's still worth doing. I certainly won't be voting for Lillee anyway for example so even if it's obvious he'll get there by consensus of everyone else, I want the process.

 

[Howe_zat]

Natural openers are generally more equipped to go down to three than the other way around, but I admire the thought you put into it.

Would it not be better to just make Ponting open himself than potentially decrease the output of your best batsman by a huge margin though? If for whatever reason it doesn't work and the batsman you shoehorn fails, you're losing a lot more with Bradman than you would with Ponting.

I think Ponting is stylisticly less equipped to make the jump, he was a great deal more aggressive for one thing. I'd value an in-depth opinion on this, though.

More to the point, I think it's a little redundant as in the case of an early wicket, the no.3 has to go ahead and face the new ball anyway. I don't think you can really plan your side around what happens in event of failure.

No doubt opening provides an extra challenge, which is why I've gone for the one who I think could cope with it best. If you can think of a technical reason why you think, say, Border could open instead then I'd be interested to hear it.

 

[Howe_zat]

Not to be presumptuous, but looking at some of the teams it is apparent that they are some locks for.certain teams that every one can agree with. For Australia I would assume Bradman, Chappell, Liklee and Warne would be the automatic selections. The West Indies for example, only needs to fill in three spots, opener opposite Greenidge, wicket keeper and fourth bowler (pace or spin and which player). Just my opnion to speed up the process.

Meh it's all part of the process. As long as there's not too much of that to a point of tedium - and there isn't - then it's still worth doing. I certainly won't be voting for Lillee anyway for example so even if it's obvious he'll get there by consensus of everyone else, I want the process.

I'd also say that streamlining the thread into a preocess of automatically removing all the interesting selections or non-selections wont help it much. I understand it's probably going down that road anyway, but we are supposed to discussing it at least

 

[kyear2]

Yup. I think Ponting, who usually gets left out of the Aussie middle order, was significantly better than most of the opening options and it's worth the slight cheat on position.

I think it's odd that people like Hutton or Headley are played out of position in these XIs but the Don never is, surely if any no.3 is qualified to open the batting, he is.

Don't think that we should cheat for Headley or Hutton either, partially because it is a cheat and also because it leads to this as well.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'd also say that streamlining the thread into a preocess of automatically removing all the interesting selections or non-selections wont help it much. I understand it's probably going down that road anyway, but we are supposed to discussing it at least

Yeah; I suppose it depends what we actually want from this thread. I've noticed an increasing trend of people on here, for some reason, wanting to create an "official" CW list of all-time teams that we all have to abide by as some sort of undeniable status. If that's going to be the sole purpose of this thread then sure, you can probably lock four or five players from each country right now, but I'd like to actually discuss people's ideas and their rationale.

 

[kyear2]

Meh it's all part of the process. As long as there's not too much of that to a point of tedium - and there isn't - then it's still worth doing. I certainly won't be voting for Lillee anyway for example so even if it's obvious he'll get there by consensus of everyone else, I want the process.

No problem at all, was just a thought. Hope people take it more seriosly than the last thread.

Cheers.

 

[doesitmatter]

Simpson and Taylor..big fan of Mark Taylor..awesome in every sense..Opening,Captaincy, Slip Fielding and Classy Guy....