Third Name Listed for ATG XI

[harsh.ag]

The guy saying Hadlee was better because of "lone spearhead still low SR" is overlooking that Hadlee didn't have a complete **** supporting attack, and he played on pitches which were far more helpful to pace bowling than McG did in general.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

The guy saying Hadlee was better because of "lone spearhead still low SR" is overlooking that Hadlee didn't have a complete **** supporting attack, and he played on pitches which were far more helpful to pace bowling than McG did in general.

i never said that he had a **** supporting attack, just that they weren't genuine wicket taking options (ie, they wouldn't run through batting line ups regularly). McGrath also had the advantage of not having to face his own batting line up.

 

[Unomaas]

Clever post!

If this line of reasoning is considered credible, then by the same logic, Sobers can also be discredited as an automatic pick because with JK's retirement, Sobers is not unique/peerless anymore. Hobb's as a unique specimen will then become the second automatic pick.

 

[watson]

If this line of reasoning is considered credible, then by the same logic, Sobers can also be discredited as an automatic pick because with JK's retirement, Sobers is not unique/peerless anymore. Hobb's as a unique specimen will then become the second automatic pick.

I liked the following paragraph most;

While Gilchrist's batting sure does entertain, his claim to being the preeminent wk of the ages is doubtful. Besides, I would rather balance my team choosing the wicket keeper last and so choose a wicket keeper based on whether the team needed more batting re-enforcement or not i.e., choose a specialist wk or batting wk.

If Imran is batting at No.8 then I see little need to have Gilchrist sandwiched between him and Sobers at No.6. You may as well select Alan Knott, and go for the best wicket-keeper. Not that he was a mug with the bat anyway. Knott was actually very good.

However, if Marshall or Warne are batting at No.8, then sure, Gilchrist is a more obvious choice.

 

[Dan]

The third name listed in my ATG XI is Don Bradman. Since he bats at 3.

 

[Unomaas]

I liked the following paragraph most;



If Imran is batting at No.8 then I see little need to have Gilchrist sandwiched between him and Sobers at No.6. You may as well select Alan Knott, and go for the best wicket-keeper. Not that he was a mug with the bat anyway. Knott was actually very good.

However, if Marshall or Warne are batting at No.8, then sure, Gilchrist is a more obvious choice.

I can't claim credit for the idea. It's an opinion that I have seen in many CW threads from various posters.

 

[the big bambino]

Yep all the same I'd pick Gilchrist and if you had him I'd kidnap him.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I liked the following paragraph most;



If Imran is batting at No.8 then I see little need to have Gilchrist sandwiched between him and Sobers at No.6. You may as well select Alan Knott, and go for the best wicket-keeper. Not that he was a mug with the bat anyway. Knott was actually very good.

However, if Marshall or Warne are batting at No.8, then sure, Gilchrist is a more obvious choice.

Nah Gilchrist is still perfect for that side. Imagine getting out the top and middle order and thinking you've done the hard part and all you have to do is get one wicket to get into the tail. Nd then Gilchrist walks in and smashes 70 in 50. So demoralising.
Imran would be the perfect foil for Gilchrist as well. If you say you don't need Gilchrist because Sobers and Imran are enough, well, I say I don't need another stodgy, solid lower order bat like Knott when I already have Imran. Would rather have Gilchrist's brutality

I dunno, I just feel in a side like a fantasy ATG XI, there's no such thing for me as too much batting. Even with a ridiculously powerful batting lineup, just look at how many times Gilchrist came in and made a huge difference. Several times when the team was in trouble too.

 

[watson]

Yep all the same I'd pick Gilchrist and if you had him I'd kidnap him.

OK, even by my standards, that's a bit weird.

 

[the big bambino]

Maybe I should have

 

[watson]

Nah Gilchrist is still perfect for that side. Imagine getting out the top and middle order and thinking you've done the hard part and all you have to do is get one wicket to get into the tail. Nd then Gilchrist walks in and smashes 70 in 50. So demoralising.
Imran would be the perfect foil for Gilchrist as well. If you say you don't need Gilchrist because Sobers and Imran are enough, well, I say I don't need another stodgy, solid lower order bat like Knott when I already have Imran. Would rather have Gilchrist's brutality

I dunno, I just feel in a side like a fantasy ATG XI, there's no such thing for me as too much batting. Even with a ridiculously powerful batting lineup, just look at how many times Gilchrist came in and made a huge difference. Several times when the team was in trouble too.

Alan Knott was anything but stodgy;

135 V AUS 1977: SR = 64.28
116 V PAK 1971: SR = 66.28
116 V WI 1976: SR = 54.71
106 V AUS 1975: SR = 51.70
101 V NZ 1971: SR = 67.78

Admittedly, these SRs are well below Gilchrist's. But they are still pretty impressive for a number 7 batman; especially when the bowling attacks weren't half bad.

 

[kyear2]

Was giving this a lot of thought. The two most important players for any team are their best/ alpha male batsman who normally bats at three or four and their best/ opening fast bowler. The best three teams in history had good opening partnerships and ATG batsmen at no. 3 they also had at least two ATG bowlers at least one of which was the opening strike bowler. It is of course of benefit if the bowler could bat a bit or if the batsman was also a great slipper or could bowl a bit but history tells us not a necessity. The reason that Sobers was seen as so great was because he was such a sensational batsman, if he wasn't such a great batsman his bowling wouldn't have elevated him to the status that he had a achieved. In fact his bowling was the weakest facet of his game as his fielding was equally as brilliant as his batting and in fact his bowling hindered his batting and was the main reason he batted so much at 6 and he bowled so much because he had to, not because it was be beneficial to have him as the strike bowler over say a Marshall or Lillee equivalent.
So as I said, Sobers bowling adds value, but it wouldn't be the main reason he is selected, in fact as I have said previously, on a stronger team his slip catching would have been of greater value than his bowling, similar to a bowling all rounders value is increased if his plays on a team with a weak batting lineup that relies on the lower order to save them more often.

So back to the original question, Bradman is unquestioned as the first pick. His status as the best batsman ever is unquestioned a and even If his average wouldn't be a direct exchange in the modern game it would still be head and shoulders ahead of the rest. So who is number two, as I said to open your most important players are your alpha male batsman, capable of defence and attack; saving the day or tearing an attack to spreads and you spear head fast bowler. Again if your bowler could bat a bit it helps, similarly if your batsman is a great slipper that adds to his value as well. That leaves us with Sobers and Marshall. We already have Bradman, my match winner comes next. To open your attack you want THE best bowler and in all conditions and with a test average of 17 with the bat he is handy there as well. So that leaves Sobers with his dominance and brilliance in two facets and versatility in the third would be my number three pick.

 

[Fusion]

I think there a couple of reasons why they leave him out. Firstly, because the way they do their selections is to select an allrounder - and they consider him part of the group of allrounders, despite his actual figures matching up with anyone's. And then there's the team composition values of picking a left hander like Wasim which also counts against him.

Back to the topic, the reasons for Imran not figuring in all these lists is simple: most of the pundits restrict themselves to 1 all-rounder only, thus limiting themselves only to Sobers. And Imran's fame as a captain and all-rounder have in the past taken away much of the emphasis on his bowling abilities to him being considered as a bowler alone.

I know I’m late to the discussion, but the above is exactly right. The overwhelming reason for Imran’s exclusion from All-Time XI’s is the “one all-rounder” rule. This could be an actual written rule to compose the side (as in the case of the Cricinfo XI), or it could just be a mental preference of the individual to have one all-rounder to balance the side. Since Sobers and Imran are slotted as AR’s, the voters invariably (and rightly) pick Sobers, leaving out Imran. I bet Imran would make a lot more XI’s if he wasn’t immediately thought of as an “all-rounder”, but rather a strike bowler who was also handy with the bat.