• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The Official Cricketweb Criteria for Selecting ATG XIs

Flem274*

123/5
1. Pick eleven players
2. Write lots of words on why you're right and everyone else is wrong (bonus points for using statsguru or the opinions of former players)
3. Take a step back, ask yourself why you're putting yourself and your fellow CWers through this, then click on one of your other tabs you have open :naughty:.
 

Flem274*

123/5
Watson dared me ****.

This probably isn't what he had in mind though. Someone else can take it more srsly. cbf.
 

watson

Banned
The dare was a not so subtle hint to put-up or shut-up. Specify your criteria for selecting ATGs so we can pull them apart and have a good look, or leave other people alone to select who they like on their own terms without undue reprisal. I'm sure that everyone has cogent and valid reasons for forming the opinions that they have.

So I guess that Barry Richards is properly back on the table then?
 
Last edited:

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
1. Pick eleven players
2. Write lots of words on why you're right and everyone else is wrong (bonus points for using statsguru or the opinions of former players)
3. Take a step back, ask yourself why you're putting yourself and your fellow CWers through this, then click on one of your other tabs you have open :naughty:.
How else are you to defend and justify your choices and opnions?
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
The dare was a not so subtle hint to put-up or shut-up. Specify your criteria for selecting ATGs so we can pull them apart and have a good look, or leave other people alone to select who they like on their own terms without undue reprisal. I'm sure that everyone has cogent and valid reasons for forming the opinions that they have.

So I guess that Barry Richards is properly back on the table then?
 

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
If I were to name an ATG XI it would, of course, be the best there is, and I would be able to objectively justify the choice of all eleven ..... OK that's a lie, but I could with one of them.

The reason I don't generally try is partly because no one would agree with me, but more because itbt I'd be wrong, because my selections would be too subjective.

Three names in my eleven (well four I suppose) would be inviolable - Sobers, Knott and Barry Richards, all of whom I remember as bewitching me as small child - and there's the rub - I fell under their spell when I was too young to appreciate that they were fallible. So until I can take off the rose-tinted spectacles and do the job properly I shan't try and justify my All-Time XI, but in case anyone is interested the side I'd pick is

Barry Richards
Len Hutton
The Don
Denis Compton
Stan McCabe
Garry Sobers
Alan Knott
Richard Hadlee
Harold Larwood
Shane Warne
Sylvester Clarke
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Here's my criteria:

- There's a cricket match to be played tomorrow.
- You can select any XI cricketers from history to play for you in the match. They are all more or less in their prime.
- They are not disadvantaged by the era they played in or didn't play in. Meaning magically they all have the same level of fitness and preparedness for wickets and opposition.

Would I have Barry Richards in my team based on this criteria? If I wanted them to win? Yes, absolutely.

Some people love this ATG stuff, some people loathe it. Meh. I love it.
 

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
I am always not sure if it should be an honour or reward for greateness, in which case a Barnes for example would have to make it. Or is it as Monk suggests that if a match were to be played tomorrow which players were the best and give the team the best chance to win if all were selected at their best. I try to use a mix of both with an emphasis on how they would fare in modern match conditions.
 

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
My 8 Simple Rules..

1 Test performances count. 99% of the cricketers career should only focus on Test Cricket and I would say 100% in the current era.

2 To further add to number 1, none of this 4 Test career bull****. Richards Test career lasted under 50 days, he was still on his probation period. Realistically nowadays no one should make the team unless they play 70 Tests and that number should probably be about 80 Tests for Cricketers from Australia and England where Tests occur more frequently. Obviously that number is too high for Cricketers who retired 30+ years ago, so I use I guess reluctantly 20 Tests as an absolute bare minimum.

3 Being a match winner and match saver is important. 5 wicket hauls and big tons are important, batsman need double tons.

4 You need to be regarded as the best player in the world at your discipline at a particular time, unless there is a freak player like Bradman ahead of you and you are quite close.

5 A great average and overall record against the top tier teams are required. What great is depends on the era.

6 You have to like the guy and his style or story. Its your team after all.

7 Performances away from home count, anyone with a weak record away is going to be considered a home track bully. The ability to perform in different conditions is what Test Cricket is all about.

8 Dates must be in crowded public places. You want romance? Read a book.
 

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
Just to clarify, I'm referring to ATG TEST teams. If we are doing ODI, T20 or First Class ATG teams its still basically the same criteria, but the size of the hauls and the number of matches differs. Also, you must tick all the boxes for the first 7 rules.
 

watson

Banned
I quite like those 8 Rules, particularly No.4 which is an excellent guide.

If I were to sum up, then your style of team selection seems like a post-season Award Ceremony where the emphasis is on excellence and accrued merit.

On the other hand Monk seems to act like a pre-match or pre-series selector. And as such will choose mostly from a pool of tried and tested players, but has no problem trialing an X-factor player as real selectors sometimes do. Frank Tyson circa the 1954 Ashes tour springs to mind.

I am similar to Monk in that I am selecting my team prior to an anticipated Test match series. The series is always set in contemporary time with modern equipment, with each Test match being played in a different country so the conditions are varied. The opposition is of a similar standard to Clive Lloyd's West Indians circa early 80s, Ian Chappell's Aussie side circa mid-70s, or Bradman's 'Invincibles'.

The biggest 'problem' for me in selecting an ATG team is to estimate how far back in time I can go with my selections. I assume post-WWI, pre-WWII players to have the technique to cope with batting against Imran and Wasim (for example), or bowling against Sachin Tendulkar (for example), but I'm not sure. I don't think that pre-WWI players can be selected at all because they they would be technically deficient against modern players. However, this does not mean that are they not great champions, or shouldn't be held in high esteem. But of course, I am happy to be wrong in that asssumption.
 
Last edited:

watson

Banned
Incidently, smashing a PC and looking cool at the same time is necessarily difficult. But I think the guy in the above video pulled it off quite nicely.
 
Last edited:

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
My 8 Simple Rules..

1 Test performances count. 99% of the cricketers career should only focus on Test Cricket and I would say 100% in the current era.

2 To further add to number 1, none of this 4 Test career bull****. Richards Test career lasted under 50 days, he was still on his probation period. Realistically nowadays no one should make the team unless they play 70 Tests and that number should probably be about 80 Tests for Cricketers from Australia and England where Tests occur more frequently. Obviously that number is too high for Cricketers who retired 30+ years ago, so I use I guess reluctantly 20 Tests as an absolute bare minimum.

3 Being a match winner and match saver is important. 5 wicket hauls and big tons are important, batsman need double tons.

4 You need to be regarded as the best player in the world at your discipline at a particular time, unless there is a freak player like Bradman ahead of you and you are quite close.

5 A great average and overall record against the top tier teams are required. What great is depends on the era.

6 You have to like the guy and his style or story. Its your team after all.

7 Performances away from home count, anyone with a weak record away is going to be considered a home track bully. The ability to perform in different conditions is what Test Cricket is all about
.

8 Dates must be in crowded public places. You want romance? Read a book.
Like 3-7, for No. 3 though would add that I prefer the match winners over the primarily stoic match savers. I perfer agressive batsmen and attacking bowlers who can take over and win a match and constanly aplly pressure to the opposition. Especially love being at your best againts the best and performing equally well at home and abroad especially the bolwers who are the match winners.

CW seems not to place a lot of emphasis on being the best in the World, as Hadlee is consistently in the contention for the first XI despite never being the best bowler in the world, and not regarded among the very best as I have never seen him listed in anyone's (historians, past players, commentators, publications ect) AT XI except for those on CW who prefer to have a team that bats to #11 at the expense of the actual bowling attack.

Just my little rant.

I quite like those 8 Rules, particularly No.4 which is an excellent guide.

If I were to sum up, then your style of team selection seems like a post-season Award Ceremony where the emphasis is on excellence and accrued merit.

On the other hand Monk seems to act like a pre-match or pre-series selector. And as such will choose mostly from a pool of tried and tested players, but has no problem trialing an X-factor player as real selectors sometimes do. Frank Tyson circa the 1954 Ashes tour springs to mind.

I am similar to Monk in that I am selecting my team prior to an anticipated Test match series. The series is always set in contemporary time with modern equipment, with each Test match being played in a different country so the conditions are varied. The opposition is of a similar standard to Clive Lloyd's West Indians circa early 80s, Ian Chappell's Aussie side circa mid-70s, or Bradman's 'Invincibles'.

The biggest 'problem' for me in selecting an ATG team is to estimate how far back in time I can go with my selections. I assume post-WWI, pre-WWII players to have the technique to cope with batting against Imran and Wasim (for example), or bowling against Sachin Tendulkar (for example), but I'm not sure. I don't think that pre-WWI players can be selected at all because they they would be technically deficient against modern players. However, this does not mean that are they not great champions, or shouldn't be held in high esteem. But of course, I am happy to be wrong in that asssumption.
Agree, I usually use post WWI as a cut off point for selection as the game seems to have fully evolved to an almost modern standard and technique at that point, fully reaching it in the mid to late '50's with increased level of competition to boot. So I don't choose players from before WWI unless they exhibited success after the war as well.
 

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
I quite like those 8 Rules, particularly No.4 which is an excellent guide.

If I were to sum up, then your style of team selection seems like a post-season Award Ceremony where the emphasis is on excellence and accrued merit.
Yes that's a good summary and for me its logical to treat it like a post season award ceremony, because I am picking the best performed Test players in the history of Test Cricket, not selecting a team for an up and coming match, because that's not a possibility. Obviously it can be fun to dream about the XI playing a second XI or something, but still I am always rewarding the best performers.

Like 3-7, for No. 3 though would add that I prefer the match winners over the primarily stoic match savers. I perfer agressive batsmen and attacking bowlers who can take over and win a match and constanly aplly pressure to the opposition. Especially love being at your best againts the best and performing equally well at home and abroad especially the bolwers who are the match winners.

CW seems not to place a lot of emphasis on being the best in the World, as Hadlee is consistently in the contention for the first XI despite never being the best bowler in the world, and not regarded among the very best as I have never seen him listed in anyone's (historians, past players, commentators, publications ect) AT XI except for those on CW who prefer to have a team that bats to #11 at the expense of the actual bowling attack.
I added match saver last minute, just because it definitely is important and it doesn't necessarily mean 60 (246) you can still save a match by making a 120 (165). Overall yes, I prefer match winners but I acknowledge that it was easier for a Ricky Ponting to be a match winner than it was for an Andy Flower.

Re: Hadlee that is interesting, because he definitely was rated very highly in Australia and obviously New Zealand. i decided to include Hadlee in my ATG team ahead of Imran just because I felt Hadlee's bowling was just a fraction better and consistent.
 

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
According the ICC ratings system, I think Hadlee spent more of the '80s ranked as the no.1 bowler in the world than anyone else did. Which, when you consider his competition at the time, is some effort. The idea that he was "never the best bowler in the world" at any point in his career is cobblers.
 

watson

Banned
According the ICC ratings system, I think Hadlee spent more of the '80s ranked as the no.1 bowler in the world than anyone else did. Which, when you consider his competition at the time, is some effort. The idea that he was "never the best bowler in the world" at any point in his career is cobblers.
WARNING: Temporarily going off topic.

By his own admission Richard Hadlee was only ever an imitation of Dennis Lillee . And when Lillee reached the end of career then Malcolm Marshall took over the mantle of greatest fast bowler of his era. So I'm with kyear on this issue.

Richard Hadlee talks about his bowling hero Dennis Lillee - YouTube
 
Last edited:

Coronis

Cricketer Of The Year

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
WARNING: Temporarily going off topic.

By his own admission Richard Hadlee was only ever an imitation of Dennis Lillee . And when Lillee reached the end of career then Malcolm Marshall took over the mantle of greatest fast bowler of his era. So I'm with kyear on this issue.

Richard Hadlee talks about his bowling hero Dennis Lillee - YouTube
It's utterly irrelevant as to whether he was inspired by or imitated Lillee. The point is the ludicrous assertion that he was unequivocally "never" the best bowler in the world and doesn't even belong in the discussion alongside the likes of Marshall, McGrath, Lillee et al, when IMO he most certainly does.

That's all I have to say on the matter, because I know how these things go from here on.
 
Last edited:

Top