CW All Time Country XI Discussion Thread

[the big bambino]

Am I right Bambino?

 

[Flem274*]

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;

Bodyline.

 

[the big bambino]

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;

Just bcos someone says something that's as silly as yours doesn't validate it.

 

[watson]

If I were to rank the opening bowlers then the English pair would come in at about 5th or 6th. And I'm almost sure most of the ATG openers would rather face them then the preceding bowlers on the list;

1. Marshall + Ambrose
2. Lillee + McGrath
3. Donald + Procter
4. Imran + Waqar
5. Hadlee + Bond
6. Larwood + Trueman

Yep the English pair lack 'something' I'm afraid; whatever that 'something' is.

How would you rank the pairs of opening bowlers bambino?

And BTW - 'intimidation' doesn't just mean the fear of getting hit. It also means the fear of getting out!

 

[smash84]

Just bcos someone says something that's as silly as yours doesn't validate it.

It isn't really silly. More like one of those intangibles in cricket.

Reminds me of that conversation that I had once with Saeed Anwar and he said that there was something about great players that made you sit up and take notice, as if those players could will things to happen that you just know that other players won't be able to (he specifically mentioned McGrath and Imran in that conversation).

Might be that the English attack suffers from belonging to such an old era that most of the people present today haven't seen them play.

 

[kyear2]

If I were to rank the opening bowlers then the English pair would come in at about 5th or 6th. And I'm almost sure most of the ATG openers would rather face them then the preceding bowlers on the list;

1. Marshall + Ambrose
2. Lillee + McGrath
3. Donald + Procter
4. Imran + Waqar
5. Hadlee + Bond
6. Larwood + Trueman

Yep the English pair lack 'something' I'm afraid; whatever that 'something' is.

How would you rank the pairs of opening bowlers bambino?

And BTW - 'intimidation' doesn't just mean the fear of getting hit. It also means the fear of getting out!

I would rate them fourth ahead of New Zealand, but it's close. I would say though that it goes beyond the opening bowlers though. Unless we are going back to play in the era beofre covered pitches, I am not so sure how effective Laker and Barnes would be either. Laker was a great spinner and a big turner of the ball, but he was at his best on sticky wickets which no longer exists. He was much less effective on dry pitches.
Over all attacks
1a) Australia (though not too impressed by O'Reilly's s/r or the premise of two leg spinners especially if Miller would be asked to bowl more over than he was accostomed as the third seamer.)
1b) West Indies (looses out to Australia because of Warne, though Garnerf for me would be just as effective, but going on poular opnion, but man for man, variety be dammed, W.I are the best)
3) South Africa (Steyn at first change speaks volumes)
4) Pakistan (just a touch behind S.A. because they have no answer to Kallis as a sixth bowler)
5) England (In addition to what is stated above Botham never really performed at his best vs the best, Hammond is a good 6th option though to add a bit of pace to the attack)

 

[the big bambino]

It isn't really silly. More like one of those intangibles in cricket.

Reminds me of that conversation that I had once with Saeed Anwar and he said that there was something about great players that made you sit up and take notice, as if those players could will things to happen that you just know that other players won't be able to (he specifically mentioned McGrath and Imran in that conversation).

Might be that the English attack suffers from belonging to such an old era that most of the people present today haven't seen them play.

I'm jealous. The only cricketer who's spoken to me is a Canberra 1st grader playing in park game. He told me to **** off to fine leg.

I think intimidation is a bit of an old concept since the advent if PPE (read helmets). Or at least its meaning has changed. I understood it as physical intimidation whereas now I think it refers to how threatening a bowler is to a man's wickets if it means anything at all.

I haven't checked the Pakistani team but I'm guessing the pace line up is Imran, Waqar and Akram. Well all of them were skill set bowlers who attacked the stumps and bowled for catches. They are intimidating in the modern sense.

Simailarly the modern Saffers. The most dangerous physically are Morkel, Steyn and Philander in that order. Yet the most intimidating (presently) would see the order reversed though that opinion could accomodate the re ordering of Steyn and Philander over their whole careers.

Trueman was the mirror reverse of Waqar with his outswinger delivered at pace being his signature ball. I've read enough of Barnes from good writers who've been able to convey the way he intimidated batsmen by threatening their wickets. As one example recall Clem Hill shaping up to take a leg side ball down to fine leg only to find the ball pocket his off bail. On a flawless pitch.

That's intimidation. Bcos the batsman would know he could do it again.

Of the bowlers mentioned only Larwood resorted to the physical element to obtain his wickets though the strategic planning behind bodyline was 1st rate. I don't think picking Tyson would ginger up the English attack. Its true he broke Bill Edrich's jaw but he obtained his wickets in his great series by pitching up as Bradman noted. The pitches being a bit ordinary that season as Tyson himself admits, and it made sense to pitch it up. Snow was intimidating but hit no more batsmen than Trueman I'm sure.

Thats why I think all are intimidating and you don't have to be overly fast to assert that feeling over the batsman.

 

[kyear2]

It's always cool to geet the retired cricketers and listen to their stories. Have spoken to few and would consider one a friend but would really like to have a chat with Sobers and Sir Everton while the opprtunity still exists.

 

[kyear2]

I would rate them fourth ahead of New Zealand, but it's close. I would say though that it goes beyond the opening bowlers though. Unless we are going back to play in the era beofre covered pitches, I am not so sure how effective Laker and Barnes would be either. Laker was a great spinner and a big turner of the ball, but he was at his best on sticky wickets which no longer exists. He was much less effective on dry pitches.
Over all attacks
1a) Australia (though not too impressed by O'Reilly's s/r or the premise of two leg spinners especially if Miller would be asked to bowl more over than he was accostomed as the third seamer.)
1b) West Indies (looses out to Australia because of Warne, though Garnerf for me would be just as effective, but going on poular opnion, but man for man, variety be dammed, W.I are the best)
3) South Africa (Steyn at first change speaks volumes)
4) Pakistan (just a touch behind S.A. because they have no answer to Kallis as a sixth bowler)
5) England (In addition to what is stated above Botham never really performed at his best vs the best, Hammond is a good 6th option though to add a bit of pace to the attack)

Btting wise I would rate them:
1a) West Indies (arguably four of the top six middle order bats ever with Greenidge opening and Walcott at seven)
1b) Australia (Bradman, Chappell and Gilchrist highlight this amazing lineup, Miller though just doesn't quite fit into this lineup)
3) England (Peerless top three, the rest though not quite up to scath with the top two)
4) South Africa (Richards, Pollock, Kallis, pure class)
5) India (Gavaskar, Dravid and Tendulkar are top class, but again a drop off after the big three)

 

[akilana]

Bradman was almost twice as good as the next batsman and Gilly was 2 in 1 player. Batting wise, there's no competition for Australia.

 

[smash84]

Yeah, that is the thing with Australia as if Bradman wasn't enough but then you have Gilchrist coming into the picture who is batting wise head and shoulders above most other keepers

 

[kyear2]

Bradman was almost twice as good as the next batsman and Gilly was 2 in 1 player. Batting wise, there's no competition for Australia.

Not to go into this argument again, but these teams are made up of players selected at their very peak, eg Richards from '76- post WSC, Lara 94- '99 ect, and no one could convince me that even peak Bradman was twice the batsman that peak Richards was, and I honestly belive that there hasn't been a better batsman than '76 - WSC Richards. Plus I would take my chances with a fired up Marshall and Ambrose vs The Don with a new cherry.

 

[Coronis]

Not to go into this argument again, but these teams are made up of players selected at their very peak, eg Richards from '76- post WSC, Lara 94- '99 ect, and no one could convince me that even peak Bradman was twice the batsman that peak Richards was, and I honestly belive that there hasn't been a better batsman than '76 - WSC Richards. Plus I would take my chances with a fired up Marshall and Ambrose vs The Don with a new cherry.

Sorry, but no chance you'll ever convince me anyone in their peak was better than Bradman in his. Of course, he was not two times better than the others, but, in my mind, and many others, he's a clear distance ahead. Personally, when I look at an ATG XI and its players, I judge them on their careers rather than their peaks.

 

[kyear2]

I agree that Viv wasn't better than Bradman, but factoring in the pitches, conditions and bowlers faced, Viv (and equally Lara and Sobers) was pretty special and would pale in comparrison to no one.

 

[Coronis]

I agree that Viv wasn't better than Bradman, but factoring in the pitches, conditions and bowlers faced, Viv (and equally Lara and Sobers) was pretty special and would fade in comparrison to no one.

No doubt with regards to that. I still think Australia holds a slight, slight edge. Though the openers are probably weaker, but with Bradman, Gilchrist, Chappell (who is criminally underrated), Ponting (whos peak was the longest and highest I've personally seen) and Border, who lead Australia through the dark times between two of our golden ages and still averaged over 50. Not to mention Miller, who, on his day was an excellent batsman. He did tend to take cricket not very seriously though. I actually think he'd perform at his best against an ATG side. I recall a story of him throwing his wicket away when his team was winning, to give the other blokes a chance.

 

[kyear2]

The batsmen in order from the playing XI would be

Bradman

Sobers
Richards
Lara

Headley
Chappell
Walcott

Border
Gilchrist

Miller

Miller isn't an ATG batsman and scored a lot of his runs againts very weak W.I attacks, so as under rated that Chappell is, Miller is even more so over rated imho.
But don't get me wrong, it would be an amazing series and one that I would think would be too close to call.

 

[smash84]

No doubt with regards to that. I still think Australia holds a slight, slight edge. Though the openers are probably weaker, but with Bradman, Gilchrist, Chappell (who is criminally underrated), Ponting (whos peak was the longest and highest I've personally seen) and Border, who lead Australia through the dark times between two of our golden ages and still averaged over 50. Not to mention Miller, who, on his day was an excellent batsman. He did tend to take cricket not very seriously though. I actually think he'd perform at his best against an ATG side. I recall a story of him throwing his wicket away when his team was winning, to give the other blokes a chance.

Gilchrist is where Aus really take the take edge though. A proper batsman coming in at number 7 for your AT XI team that happens to be your keeper. Now that is what the military would call a strategic asset and something that would be hard to beat by other teams. Otherwise the WI AT XI's batting is pretty close even with Bradman in the Aus side.

 

[kyear2]

Walcott would equal if not better him with the bat, even if ever so slightly behind with the gloves. I agree though, Gilly is the difference maker for the Aussies.

 

[smash84]

Walcott would equal if not better him with the bat, even if ever so slightly behind with the gloves. I agree though, Gilly is the difference maker for the Aussies.

Haven't WI had significantly better keepers over the years than Walcott? For some reason I always thought of him as a keeper like Sangakkara (when he came in as a keeper and wasn't playing as a pure batsman)

 

[kyear2]

Came through the system from secondary school, through first class cricket as a wicketkeeper batsman, it was his keeping that kept hem in the team during his lean spot intially with the bat. And speaking of with the bat, best pure batsman of the 3W's for me as well. His greatest innings was while he was still keeping vs England to win the '50 series, he just had to stay down in the field too long keeping to endless overs from Ramadin and Valentine. No such wories with this bowling attack.