CW All Time Country XI Discussion Thread

[kyear2]

Am I the only one who feels that the Pakistan can beat the English ATXI?

No, they very much can. Think that with that bowling attack they are capable of beating anyone even though their batting isn't up to the level of some of the other teams. Those four fast bowlers can bowl out any team. Really any of the top five teams could sping a surprise, W.I., Aus, S.A., Eng, Pak.

 

[kyear2]

Not so sure about that. O'Reilly and Grimmett played in an era when pitches weren't covered but were generally high quality in preparation. They succeeded well enough on those pitches and didn't need rain to be effective. Since them there's been Laker and Lock and McGill and Warne. Not many its true but I think the real reason for the dearth of double spin attacks is down to the fact that its rare any country having 2 top notch spinners at anyone time rather than the breed being ineffective in pairs.

I think that in the modern game the match winners has been not exclusively, but primarily the fast bolwers. Even when Australia had Warne and Macgill they only played them together on extremely spin friendly conditions and Macgill was very good. The just preferred for the most part to play three seamers.

 

[Slifer]

no, they very much can. Think that with that bowling attack they are capable of beating anyone even though their batting isn't up to the level of some of the other teams. Those four fast bowlers can bowl out any team. really any of the top five teams could sping a surprise, w.i., aus, s.a., eng, pak.

awta.

 

[kyear2]

That being said though, would still place my money on a West Indies vs Australia final. Just too much quality in those two lineups. 10 out of the 11 players on each team makes one of my top four ATG XIs with most of them making the top two teams. Impressive.

 

[the big bambino]

I think that in the modern game the match winners has been not exclusively, but primarily the fast bolwers. Even when Australia had Warne and Macgill they only played them together on extremely spin friendly conditions and Macgill was very good. The just preferred for the most part to play three seamers.

That's true though I'm not sure about saving them for spinning wkts as both (Warne and McGill) had good records on all pitches. I recall going through the records when the 2 played together and it was pretty impressive. Not as good as Scarlett and Tiger but not shabby in comparison. So I think they could have worked well together but you are right to say we preferred the 3rd seamer. Either way I have a suspicion that Ian Chappell prefers a 3/2 attack biased to seam. If you can get 2 all rounders in that lot then its worthwhile playing.

 

[watson]

It's strange because Larwood bowled 'Bodyline', Trueman was a 'loud-mouth', and Barnes was arrogant, but I just don't find the English attack intimidating in the same way that I find the Australian, West Indian, South African, or Pakistan attacks intimidating. In fact, Hadlee and Bond would scare me more than Larwood and Trueman if I were an opening batsman.

The English attack needs more 'mongrel' in it - but what to do?

 

[Red]

John Snow is the answer maybe. I don't know enough about Lohmann to comment on him.

Barnes can be the spinner, and you can select Trueman, Snow, Larwood and Barnes.

 

[Coronis]

Honestly, its probably not intentional, but you're biased towards the modern quicks, because you've actually seen them bowl. Personally, Larwood is pretty much the most intimidating bowler I could think of. Who in their right mind would want to open against Larwood and Trueman? Though Barnes would probably sulk if he didn't open the bowling :P

 

[NUFAN]

The English attack needs more 'mongrel' in it - but what to do?

Maybe bring in Jack Russell.

 

[watson]

Maybe bring in Jack Russell.

lol

Yes he can hand out his beloved "Jaffa cakes" to everyone. That'll put the batsman off their game.

 

[the big bambino]

You know you read a lot of funny things on cricket forums. Like that I see now about intimidation. A lot of funny things.

 

[kyear2]

It's strange because Larwood bowled 'Bodyline', Trueman was a 'loud-mouth', and Barnes was arrogant, but I just don't find the English attack intimidating in the same way that I find the Australian, West Indian, South African, or Pakistan attacks intimidating. In fact, Hadlee and Bond would scare me more than Larwood and Trueman if I were an opening batsman.

The English attack needs more 'mongrel' in it - but what to do?

Know what you mean. Trueman was quick, but by no means express, Barnes was medium at best and Botham was a true swing bowler. Only Larwood would be truely intimidating and he only really showed un in one series vs Australia. Actually Trueman didn't play that much outside of England and wasn't overly succesful, Barnes benefitted some from under prepared and particularily the South African matting pitches. Bothams peak was high but quite short and Laker definately boosted his numbers on sticky wickets. When taking a second look at the English attack, it may not quite match up to the other attacks among the top 5 teams.
Just my take on it though.
What redeems it somewhat is that Larwood even with the LBW rule that he played with for his entire career and the dead Aussie pitches he had to bowl on was still effective and would find modern conditions quite helpful.

 

[smash84]

It's strange because Larwood bowled 'Bodyline', Trueman was a 'loud-mouth', and Barnes was arrogant, but I just don't find the English attack intimidating in the same way that I find the Australian, West Indian, South African, or Pakistan attacks intimidating. In fact, Hadlee and Bond would scare me more than Larwood and Trueman if I were an opening batsman.

The English attack needs more 'mongrel' in it - but what to do?

Somewhat agree with the above. The English attack does seem somewhat pansy-ish compared to the other ones. Of course these guys were taking wickets left right and center so they weren't exactly toothless but I suppose you wouldn't be using the English attack to get the opposition on the backfoot (literally speaking) I suppose.

 

[watson]

In some ways I'd prefer opening the bowling with Tyson and Snow - two bowlers with both skill and 'attitude'. I think that Tyson was probably faster than Larwood at his peak, but his ATG status tends to suffer for the same reason as Jeff Thomson's - his didn't burn brightly for long enough.

Frank Tyson: 'I wanted to stop batsmen from getting on to the front foot' | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[smash84]

John Snow seems criminally under rated it seems.

 

[the big bambino]

Yep you read some funny things...

 

[Flem274*]

are we seriously picking atg sides based on who was more manly and alpha?

this isn't an England ATG men i want to **** me side you know

 

[the big bambino]

Never thought I'd read that Barnes Larwood and Trueman lacked intimidation. Never. Yep; you read some funny things.

 

[NUFAN]

Am I right Bambino?

 

[watson]

Never thought I'd read that Barnes Larwood and Trueman lacked intimidation. Never. Yep; you read some funny things.

Of course they don't. But relative to Australia, West Indies, South Africa, and Pakistan they do. Keep Up.

Smali said it best I think;

The English attack does seem somewhat pansy-ish compared to the other ones.