Your ATG team without Bradman or Sobers

[smash84]

So you're agreeing that Marshall's status as the best pacer is set in stone but you're not sure you'd have him in am AT XI? Wut?

Marshall is the best pacer sure. I don't think I have any issues with that. Just that he isn't too far ahead of some others to warrant an unquestionable selection.

 

[elmadrid]

1.Len Hutton
2.Sunil Gavaskar
3.Graeme Pollock
4.Sachin Tendulkar
5.Viv Richards
6.Adam Gilchrist
7.Imran Khan
8.Hadlee
9.Wasim Akram
10.MAlcolm MArshal
11.Shane Warne

Sachin can bowl some legspin too.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

I missed the bit where Eds criticised Miller's stats and left him out because of them

When he said he wasn't a proper Middle order batsman

 

[Red]

Miller is a proper middle order batsman.

 

[kyear2]

Miller is a proper middle order batsman.

He is, and a good one. Just not an ATG one.

 

[Eds]

I'm not talking about creating a Test side here - we're talking about the greatest team of all-time. And Miller's not someone I'd want above 7 in such a side. There's quite an obvious gulf in the batting talents of Miller and Hammond.

 

[TimAngas]

I'm going to go funky.

JB Hobbs
L Hutton (C)
KC Sangakarra (wk)
IVA Richards (VC)
BC Lara
WR Hammond
I Khan
W Akram (2)
MD Marshall
SK Warne
GD McGrath (1)
J Garner (12th)

 

[TimAngas]

I kind of find the trend of everyone picking Gilchrist wrong when there is so little between him and Knott

I think the problem with Knott boils down to the fact that people are picking him neither as the best 'batsmen-keeper' or the best plain out keeper. Of which most would think he is not.

 

[kyear2]

I think the problem with Knott boils down to the fact that people are picking him neither as the best 'batsmen-keeper' or the best plain out keeper. Of which most would think he is not.

But he is seen as the best compromise between the two. A superb keeper who was a more than handy bat.

 

[TimAngas]

But he is seen as the best compromise between the two. A superb keeper who was a more than handy bat.

I think Gillchrist is a fair choice at 6 to strengthen the batting if your allrounder isn't quite a good enough bat, but if you have 6 genuine ATG batsmen ahead of 7 then IMO you'd pick the best keeper which is neither Gilchrist nor Knott.

 

[Red]

Both Gilchrist and Knott are excellent keepers. Why wouldn't you pick either of them based on wicketkeeping skill?

 

[kyear2]

Marshall is the best pacer sure. I don't think I have any issues with that. Just that he isn't too far ahead of some others to warrant an unquestionable selection.

This makes no sense, you believe that someone is the best fast bowler to have played the game and you can't find a place for him with 3 available slots?

 

[watson]

I think the problem with Knott boils down to the fact that people are picking him neither as the best 'batsmen-keeper' or the best plain out keeper. Of which most would think he is not.

I pick Knott because I believe him to be the 'best plain out keeper'. Or at least on a par with the likes of Cameron, Oldfield, Tallon, Waite, Evans, and Healy.

And against quality bowling, believe him to be not far off Gilchrist. Maybe even his equal.

 

[smash84]

This makes no sense, you believe that someone is the best fast bowler to have played the game and you can't find a place for him with 3 available slots?

When did I say he doesn't make my team? Stop being so silly. I only said that he doesn't really justify selection as a lock-in like Sobers or Bradman.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

I'm not talking about creating a Test side here - we're talking about the greatest team of all-time. And Miller's not someone I'd want above 7 in such a side. There's quite an obvious gulf in the batting talents of Miller and Hammond.

Absolutely understand now. I was a tad dreary eyed last night. But on return I agree Hammond is a far better batsman. Hell of a slip fielder too by all accounts.

 

[kyear2]

As genuine all rounders and all round players, Hammond and Greg Chappel are not that far behind Sobers and Kallis as is the perception. They were both excellent batsmen and I rate them both higher than Kallis in that regard. Hammond in particular as a bowler was also supposedly quite sharp and a handful when inspired and in the mood and they were both superb slip fielders, Hammond at 1st and Chappell at 2nd slip.

 

[watson]

As genuine all rounders and all round players, Hammond and Greg Chappel are not that far behind Sobers and Kallis as is the perception. They were both excellent batsmen and I rate them both higher than Kallis in that regard. Hammond in particular as a bowler was also supposedly quite sharp and a handful when inspired and in the mood and they were both superb slip fielders, Hammond at 1st and Chappell at 2nd slip.

Walter Hammond played only one Test against Jack Gregory in 1928, and he never faced Gregory's illustrious partner Ted McDonald. The fastest Australian bowler that Hammond faced in the 1930s was Tim Wall, and he was only fast-medium by most accounts.

In 13 Tests against the West Indies he averaged a mediocre 35.50. Significantly, Learie Constantine dismissed him 8 times during the 3 series that they played against eachother. The other West Indian quicks, Griffith and Hylton picked-up Hammond twice each.

HowSTAT! Player Dismissal Analysis

Obviously, Hammond's status as an ATG cannot be questioned. However, Hammond's ability against quality fast bowling in the Test match arena remains a little unknown. Consequently, I think that there are better choices than Hammond when selecting ATG World XIs, although he clearly walks into any England XI.

 

[kyear2]

Walter Hammond played only one Test against Jack Gregory in 1928, and he never faced Gregory's illustrious partner Ted McDonald. The fastest Australian bowler that Hammond faced in the 1930s was Tim Wall, and he was only fast-medium by most accounts.

In 13 Tests against the West Indies he averaged a mediocre 35.50. Significantly, Learie Constantine dismissed him 8 times during the 3 series that they played against each other. The other West Indian quicks, Griffith and Hylton picked-up Hammond twice each.

HowSTAT! Player Dismissal Analysis

Obviously, Hammond's status as an ATG cannot be questioned. However, Hammond's ability against quality fast bowling in the Test match arena remains a little unknown. Consequently, I think that there are better choices than Hammond when selecting ATG World XIs, although he clearly walks into any England XI.

I have made that point repeatedly here on this site and been criticized for it. He was troubled by the W.I quicks and admitted to as much (and it was pretty much well documented) and that's the reason he only makes my third team even though he was no doubt an amazing cricketer.

For me only Lara and to a lesser extent Chappell challenges Tendulkar and Richards for the 4 and 5 slot for an ATG XI and even Lara and Chappel have their slight drawbacks in that regard. Pollock and Headley are next in line but neither quite played enough tests or against top tier quality (especially fast) bowlers.

So for me the middle order for my ATG XI is pretty much locked in with Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar and Sobers though another lefty in there would have been a bonus.

 

[Coronis]

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Headley
Pollock
Hammond
Kallis
Gilchrist
Procter
Marshall
Warne
McGrath

 

[SpofforthLohman]

I reckon Bradman and Sobers are the unanimous picks in everyone's ATG teams. Some people prefer Murali over Warne, or vice versa, and some people don't pick Marshall, preferring other quicks. Most people have Hobbs, but not everyone does.

I think every serious ATG team I've seen contain Bradman and Sobers though. So my question is: what's your ATG team without Bradman and Sobers? And why?

It's an interesting question, because number 3 and the batting all-rounder are interesting spots. Some might put Botham at #6, but others might think his batting isn't enough. So do we look at Kallis?


*bear with me people who don't like ATG stuff. I'm having a quiet day at work!

I'd have to think about this but I have a feeling I will have about 3 real good allrounders in it. Of course Bradman and Sobers are certainties, only a troll would say otherwise. So one strong batsman / ;leg spinner... and two allrounders who bat well and bowl extremely fast. Would love to find a spot for Jack Gregory, why not, he must have been one of the most exciting players ever, I see him as a bloke who can turn a match on it's ear with bat or ball... sorta like Botham only a lot faster.. I like Warwick Armstrong because he would give a side bowling and batting depth, or maybe Aubrey Faulkner so I don't get accused of Aussie bias. Maurice Tate is worth thinking about as is Wilfred Rhodes. Well thats the old timers out of the way, I have already staed that Miller is my choice for bowling allrounder, Of the moderns I think Botham or Imran would be a great compliment for Miller........... If only Richard Hadlee was a better batsman I would pick him ahead of any modern allrounder as I think he was the best fast bowler among all the great allrounders of my time. At his best you just can't go past Hadlee, he was simply unplayable. I would call Marshall a bowler who could bat a bit rather than an allrounder but that is also Hadlee. Any three of the guys mentioned would make any side rock solid.