English ATG Team- Open Voting

[Camo999]

Grace and Underwood

[watson]

Looks like we're going to end up with an attack consisting of 1 x Fast Bowler, 1 x Medium Fast Bowler,1 x Medium Pace Spinner, and 2 x Slow Spinners.

The other ATG teams must be wetting themselves with laughter and falling over eachother to pad-up;

01. Laker = 11
02. Verity = 8
03. Larwood = 6
04. Grace = 5 (what the?)
05. Bedser = 3
06. Tyson = 3
07. Underwood = 3
08. Rhodes = 2
09. Snow = 2

Perhaps we should start again. This time having separate polls - one for the two pace bowlers, and one for the spinners spot?

Or just take the most popular spinner, and the most popular pace bowler from this exististing poll? That would give us Laker and Larwood thus far.

[Monk]

Originally Posted by watson

Looks like we're going to end up with an attack consisting of 1 x Fast Bowler, 1 x Medium Fast Bowler,1 x Medium Pace Spinner, and 2 x Slow Spinners.

The other ATG teams must be wetting themselves with laughter;

01. Laker = 11
02. Verity = 8
03. Larwood = 6
04. Grace = 5 (what the?)
05. Bedser = 3
06. Tyson = 3
07. Underwood = 3
08. Rhodes = 2
09. Snow = 2

Perhaps we should start again. This time having separate polls - one for the two pace bowlers, and one for the spinners spot???

I just tallied them up as well as you posted this. Thanks mate.

I don't think we need to start again though. We've ended up with a decent indication. We have Trueman (undoubtably an opening bowler), SF Barnes (the greatest opening bowler from his era), Botham (a very decent fast/med first change) and two high quality different styled spinners. Added to that, Verity's batting adds to the tail.

So if nothing else changes, we end up with...


- Jack Hobbs
- Len Hutton
- Wally Hammond
- Ken Barrington
- Dennis Compton
- Ian Botham
- Allan Knott
- Hedley Verity
- Jim Laker
- Fred Trueman
- SF Barnes


Changes to the cricinfo team are:

- Compton over Pieterson
- Verity over Larwood
- Laker over Underwood

[watson]

Or just take the most popular spinner, and the most popular pace bowler from this exististing poll? That would give us Laker and Larwood thus far.

An ATG team without a pair of fast bowlers is unthinkable.

Lillee + Thomson, Holding + Roberts, Lindwall + Miller, Gregory + McDonald, McGrath + Gillespie/Lee, Waqar + Wasim etc etc have all won 'countless' Test matches. Two quicks opening the bowling is the most proven method for winning games of cricket in the history of cricket.

[AndyZaltzHair]

Originally Posted by watson

Looks like we're going to end up with an attack consisting of 1 x Fast Bowler, 1 x Medium Fast Bowler,1 x Medium Pace Spinner, and 2 x Slow Spinners.

The other ATG teams must be wetting themselves with laughter;

01. Laker = 11
02. Verity = 8
03. Larwood = 6
04. Grace = 5 (what the?)
05. Bedser = 3
06. Tyson = 3
07. Underwood = 3
08. Rhodes = 2
09. Snow = 2

Perhaps we should start again. This time having separate polls - one for the two pace bowlers, and one for the spinners spot?

Or just take the most popular spinner, and the most popular pace bowler from this exististing poll? That would give us Laker and Larwood thus far.

It's killing me but I think i have to let this out; this side will collapse in a heap many times and someone from top 5 will be stranded alone. It's a serious pressure on top 5 to score heavily, they are very much capable of doing it often but the difference is they will be facing ATG attack. But this extra amount of pressure might bring out the best in them.

I would rather prefer a solid no.6, One Spinner, Three Fast Bowlers and Hammond as 5th option here.

[watson]

Originally Posted by AndyZaltzHair

It's killing me but I think i have to let this out; this side will collapse in a heap many times and someone from top 5 will be stranded alone. It's a serious pressure on top 5 to score heavily, they are very much capable of doing it often but the difference is they will be facing ATG attack. But this extra amount of pressure might bring out the best in them.

I would rather prefer a solid no.6, One Spinner, Three Fast Bowlers and Hammond as 5th option.

Makes a lot of sense!

[Monk]

Originally Posted by watson

Or just take the most popular spinner, and the most popular pace bowler from this exististing poll? That would give us Laker and Larwood thus far.

An ATG team without a pair of fast bowlers is unthinkable.

Lillee + Thomson, Holding + Roberts, Lindwall + Miller, Gregory + McDonald, McGrath + Gillespie, Waqar + Wasim etc etc have all won 'countless' Test matches. Two quicks opening the bowling is the most proven method for winning games of cricket in the history of cricket.

Corrected.


Playing one quick was quite normal in the earlier days of cricket. Playing no quicks was also quite common. It's only been since the 40s/50s/60s that two quicks have been common, then it's moved on to three, and now in some cases four.

Pre WW2 guys like Stan McCabe would often open the bowling for Australia, largely to get the shine off it so the spinners could do their job. I actually think this team is a nice nod to the past.

I'm happy to go with the consensus here Watson, which is what people voted for. The reason I left these two spots til last was because I wondered whether Botham would be in the team, and thought that would effect these last two votes. The people have spoken, democratically!

[watson]

Perhaps we could set up a poll with the question:

'Is Ian Botham a viable No.6 batsman in the context of competing ATG teams?' (or something like that)

Then re-do the ATG England team again when the answer is 'No'.

[Monk]

Originally Posted by watson

Perhaps we could set up a poll with the question:

'Is Ian Botham a viable No.6 batsman in the context of competing ATG teams?' (or something like that)

Then re-do the ATG England team again when the answer is 'No'.

Well, if you like. But considering enough people voted for him to bat 3-6 in this team for him to be selected....

[watson]

Originally Posted by Monk

Corrected.


Playing one quick was quite normal in the earlier days of cricket. Playing no quicks was also quite common. It's only been since the 40s/50s/60s that two quicks have been common, then it's moved on to three, and now in some cases four.

Pre WW2 guys like Stan McCabe would often open the bowling for Australia, largely to get the shine off it so the spinners could do their job. I actually think this team is a nice nod to the past.

I'm happy to go with the consensus here Watson, which is what people voted for. The reason I left these two spots til last was because I wondered whether Botham would be in the team, and thought that would effect these last two votes. The people have spoken, democratically!

And when 2 quicks were played in the 20s the Aussie team won the Ashes in a cake-walk.

Far for me to decry democracy - but I have to get things off my chest. We HAVE just defied proven cricket wisdom and logic.

[fredfertang]

This is where you have to think carefully about how you choose your ATG sides. Ian Botham had a superb eye and a wonderful technique - had he never turned his arm over who knows what he might have achieved with the bat, so for me he has to be in any ATG side because of what he was demonstrably capable of - he was a much better batsman than his stats suggest

[Monk]

Originally Posted by watson

. We HAVE just defied proven cricket wisdom and logic.

Not sure how. The team selected by cricinfo's experts had Botham at 6. I know experts aren't always right, but hardly seems we're defying wisdom when they selected him.

I'd probably agree we could have another quick in the team personally over Laker or Verity, considering SF Barnes seems to have been a quickish spinner.. But, the way people have voted has seen a different result.

[Monk]

And, tbh, I think having Botham in England's top six and Miller in Australia's is virtually the same thing.

[BoyBrumby]

I think part of the problem is that we're voting blind as to what the rest of the team will be to a certain extent. Selectorial decisions usually involve bartering and compromises as to the composition of the team.

For myself if I'd known Beefy was going to be batting #6 I might've gone for Matty Prior over Knotty. Equally if Beefy was selected in a "bowling" slot worries about the length of the tail would've been avoided.

Ditto a seam attack of Trueman, Barnes and Larwood. With Beefy and Knott at 6 & 7 I might've gone for the extra batting of Rhodes or Verity over Laker had I knowledge beforehand.

[watson]

Originally Posted by Monk

Not sure how. The team selected by cricinfo's experts had Botham at 6. I know experts aren't always right, but hardly seems we're defying wisdom when they selected him.

I'd probably agree we could have another quick in the team personally over Laker or Verity, considering SF Barnes seems to have been a quickish spinner.. But, the way people have voted has seen a different result.

Ok, fair enough over the Botham thing, but not having Larwood/Snow/Tyson in the team to partner Trueman does seem a tad silly.