English ATG Team- Open Voting

[The Sean]

Larwood and Laker for me.

And I'm more than happy with Botham at no.6. The idea of Miller and Botham having no place at no.6 in an all time XI seems to be a recent phenomenon led by a younger generation who have grown up in a six batsmen/four bowlers world. Both men have traditionally been locks at no.6 in their country's ATXI and any expert panel assembled continues to select them as such.

I could understand reticence in picking a bits-and-pieces player just to have an all rounder, but the sheer value that a cricketer such as Miller or Botham adds to a team means than IMO they're impossible to leave out, and I have no problem selecting them at 6 given what bit you'll lose in batting strength compared to a specialist bat is more than made up for in your quest to take 20 wickets.

[Monk]

Originally Posted by 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.

What would your personal team be? Curious to know.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Monk

What would your personal team be? Curious to know.

Hmm. Off the top of my head I think I'd go for something like this:

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hammond
Jardine*
Barrington
Compton
Knott+
Larwood
Laker
Trueman
Barnes

Tough to leave Beefy out, but Hammond as 2nd change seamer lessens the need for 4 specialists.

[NUFAN]

Originally Posted by NUFAN

Jim Laker and Frank Tyson.

I thought about Tate to add some batting, but feel as though the attack really needs another fiery quick.

Changing my vote to Laker and Larwood thanks. I agree with Watson that the balance isn't right in this team at all if we include both Laker and Verity.


Going back to the ATG XI thread I would recommend leaving the 6 and 8 spots for last. They are the two spots where you can really fix the team balance - I don't think Botham at 6 is a problem at all though.

Its easy enough to do multiple options at the same time such as the two opening bats and two opening bowlers together.

[watson]

Originally Posted by The Sean

Larwood and Laker for me.

And I'm more than happy with Botham at no.6. The idea of Miller and Botham having no place at no.6 in an all time XI seems to be a recent phenomenon led by a younger generation who have grown up in a six batsmen/four bowlers world. Both men have traditionally been locks at no.6 in their country's ATXI and any expert panel assembled continues to select them as such.

I could understand reticence in picking a bits-and-pieces player just to have an all rounder, but the sheer value that a cricketer such as Miller or Botham adds to a team means than IMO they're impossible to leave out, and I have no problem selecting them at 6 given what bit you'll lose in batting strength compared to a specialist bat is more than made up for in your quest to take 20 wickets.

Miller and Gilchrist come as a package. That's the difference.

I'm not sure that Botham and Knott are quite up to scratch in the context of an ATG competition. In fact, of the two, Knott is more likely to fair better against Marshall/Ambrose/Holding, McGrath/Lillee/Miller, Imran/Wasim/Waqar, or Donald/Procter/Steyn in my opinion.

But I am happy to be wrong.

[kyear2]

Don't see what every one is complaining about not having two genuine fast bowlers after choosing a quick spinner who dominated on wet and matting pitches and destroyed a weak and infant South African team to specifically OPEN the bowling. Even if Barnes was choosen as a back up bowler to Trueman/ Snow/ Willis/ Tyson/ Larwood it would have been understandable, but not to open the bowling as a fast spin bowler.

[The Sean]

Originally Posted by watson

Miller and Gilchrist come as a package. That's the difference.

I disagree. Gilly obviously strengthens the line-up immensely, but Miller was getting picked at no.6 in all time Australian XIs long before anyone had ever heard of Adam Gilchrist.

Speaking of Gilly, I found myself sitting about 10 metres away from him in the Singapore Airlines Lounge at Changi last weekend. Nothing whatsoever to do with this thread, obviously, but it was awesome nonetheless.

[Jager]

Larwood and Verity - more than happy to have two/three spinners in this side

[Days of Grace]

Now that I think about it, I would feel more comfortable if Matt Prior was my no.7 with Beefy at no.6

Also, having Miller at no.6 is fine since you have Bradman at no.3 with an average almost double that of any other alltime-great batsman.

[Monk]

Originally Posted by Days of Grace

Now that I think about it, I would feel more comfortable if Matt Prior was my no.7 with Beefy at no.6

Also, having Miller at no.6 is fine since you have Bradman at no.3 with an average almost double that of any other alltime-great batsman.

Tbh, just talking averages and the supposed advantage of Bradman, Hobbs, Hutton, Hammond and Barrington's high averages almost nullify the Bradman effect anyhow.

[watson]

Originally Posted by Days of Grace

Now that I think about it, I would feel more comfortable if Matt Prior was my no.7 with Beefy at no.6

Also, having Miller at no.6 is fine since you have Bradman at no.3 with an average almost double that of any other alltime-great batsman.

Oh yes, I forgot about Bradman lol

Miller comes as a Bradman-Miller-Gilchrist package, and hence is more readily 'tolerated'.

The England team does not have the luxury of a Bradman or Gilchrist to carry Botham and hence should have been an Australian, Actually, he'd make a fine Australian style cricketer

[Jager]

My Miller logic is put him in his natural habitat 5, reduce his bowling duties to a whirlwind four or five overs with the new ball/as first change and the decreased stress on his body would make for a 45+ averaging batsman and a ~20-25 averaging bowler

[The Sean]

Originally Posted by Monk

Tbh, just talking averages and the supposed advantage of Bradman, Hobbs, Hutton, Hammond and Barrington's high averages almost nullify the Bradman effect anyhow.

Yeah, I suppose we should have picked Barnes and Hayden as Australia's openers.

Cricketweb is also one of the very few bodies that selects Barrington in an England All Time XI, despite his average.

[kyear2]

That Miller logic to me is just flawed, as Sobers bore a heavier bowling load and responsibility than Miller and even though it probably affected his average a bit, he still managed to average over 57. Miller is just not as great a batsman you believe him to be and certainly not an ATG batsman, and not worthy of batting at 5 in an ATG side.

[The Sean]

Originally Posted by watson

Oh yes, I forgot about Bradman lol

Miller comes as a Bradman-Miller-Gilchrist package, and hence is more readily 'tolerated'.

The England team does not have the luxury of a Bradman or Gilchrist to carry Botham and hence should have been an Australian, Actually, he'd make a fine Australian style cricketer

Again, Gilchrist was never traditionally part of the "package" - so are you saying that Miller would never have been selected in All Time Australian XIs if not for the existence of Bradman?

The idea that cricketers of the class of Miller and Botham need to be "carried" by the presence of a Bradman or Gilchrist just beggars belief.