Your ATG team without Bradman or Sobers

[SpofforthLohman]

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Headley
Pollock
Hammond
Kallis
Gilchrist
Procter
Marshall
Warne
McGrath

Obviously that is one hell of a team but I would remove Sutcliffe for Hayden, your openers are of course phenomenal but too slow for the modern game. Hobbs is the biggest certainty here so I would have Hayden opposite so that the runs keep ticking at a good rate.I love your team because it bats all the way to 8 very strongly and your number 9 is no slouch and perfect for a quick bunch of runs at the end. Six bowlers though and Hammond was a part time bowler a lot of the time but from what I read about him a very decent seam bowler but unless the imaginary game is on an awesomely dead wicket Hammond probably not even needed to bowl... same as Kallis.

 

[SpofforthLohman]

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.

Besides, I just think Hayden is a better batsman, and pretty sure he faced more good fast bowlers than Sutcliffe.

 

[SpofforthLohman]

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.

I would argue strongly that Steve Waugh has a better record than Richards. There was a lot of commentator bias against Waugh over aesthetics which to be frank means nothing to me. He got the runs on the board and unlike Richards he had to face the great West Indians, Richards had it a lot easier than Steve I reckon, yes there was Lillee and Thomson but Thommo was not the same after '76. I know Viv looked great at the wicket but Lara is undoubtebly superior to Richards, either that or stats are meaningless. Maybe you don't need Steve Waugh if you have 10 other ATG's in, but anyone suggesting that Steve Waugh is not an ATG is simply a goose who knows bugger all. Ian Chappell hardly ever said a good word about Waugh, it must have been jealousy that Waugh was better than he was and it irked him. I rate Richards only 3rd best West Indian batsman and that is debatable as there is Headley and Weekes.

 

[smash84]

I would argue strongly that Steve Waugh has a better record than Richards. There was a lot of commentator bias against Waugh over aesthetics which to be frank means nothing to me. He got the runs on the board and unlike Richards he had to face the great West Indians, Richards had it a lot easier than Steve I reckon, yes there was Lillee and Thomson but Thommo was not the same after '76. I know Viv looked great at the wicket but Lara is undoubtebly superior to Richards, either that or stats are meaningless. Maybe you don't need Steve Waugh if you have 10 other ATG's in, but anyone suggesting that Steve Waugh is not an ATG is simply a goose who knows bugger all. Ian Chappell hardly ever said a good word about Waugh, it must have been jealousy that Waugh was better than he was and it irked him. I rate Richards only 3rd best West Indian batsman and that is debatable as there is Headley and Weekes.

What the ****?

Hadlee, Imran, Sarfaraz, Kapil, Botham, Willis, Lillee, Thomson, Wasim and he made an impression on ALL of them.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Besides, I just think Hayden is a better batsman, and pretty sure he faced more good fast bowlers than Sutcliffe.

This is the flat track bully Hayden you're talking about right?

 

[SpofforthLohman]

This is the flat track bully Hayden you're talking about right?

Unless you can find another Hayden with a great record like that..... yes. Flat track bully ?.. lol... then what is Tendulkar ???????

 

[SpofforthLohman]

What the ****?

Hadlee, Imran, Sarfaraz, Kapil, Botham, Willis, Lillee, Thomson, Wasim and he made an impression on ALL of them.

Rather have faced that lot than Marshall and Ambrose, Lillee was gone long before Richards retired and Thomson even more so. As for the others well Waugh faced most of that lot as well. I am sure you left some great bowlers out as well. My point was that there are batsmen out there with more impressive stats as opposed to how they appeared at the crease. Many would have just looked at the Waughs and say that Mark was the better player but of course the stats show the opposite. Lara has better stats than Viv.... fact.

 

[smash84]

Rather have faced that lot than Marshall and Ambrose, Lillee was gone long before Richards retired and Thomson even more so. As for the others well Waugh faced most of that lot as well. I am sure you left some great bowlers out as well. My point was that there are batsmen out there with more impressive stats as opposed to how they appeared at the crease. Many would have just looked at the Waughs and say that Mark was the better player but of course the stats show the opposite. Lara has better stats than Viv.... fact.

I don't recall Waugh doing too well against Marshall and Co early on in his career. I could be disingenuous like yourself and suggest that Waugh did well only against a downhill WI but I wouldn't like to go down that route.

Edit: Kallis and Ken Barington have a better average than Lara. Fact

 

[SpofforthLohman]

I don't recall Waugh doing too well against Marshall and Co early on in his career. I could be disingenuous like yourself and suggest that Waugh did well only against a downhill WI but I wouldn't like to go down that route.

Edit: Kallis and Ken Barington have a better average than Lara. Fact

No, you are right, he was too young and thrown to the lions and the bowlers from WI had his measure.... but they had the measure of every batsman, no one could play them, not even close. But the Waugh who was on top of the WI bowlers later on was a genius. I always felt that those bowlers were too good,,, and too good for any West Indian batsman as well. No one could get runs against that lot on a usual day. It was that awesome lot of bowlers that made Steve Waugh, but those same bowlers ended most careers early, so why didn' they destroy Waugh as well ??? answer most likely is that he was tougher than everyone else.

 

[SpofforthLohman]

I don't recall Waugh doing too well against Marshall and Co early on in his career. I could be disingenuous like yourself and suggest that Waugh did well only against a downhill WI but I wouldn't like to go down that route.

Edit: Kallis and Ken Barington have a better average than Lara. Fact

Yeah, well there is a quandary eh, why doesn't Barrington get mentioned in most of these lists, he was better than any English batsman ever since, of that I have no doubt.

 

[SpofforthLohman]

Put it this way with Steve Waugh, if I had to pick any side to play in England then Waugh is one of the first batsman I would pick. If the game was to be held at Adelaide Michael Clarke would be the second batsman I would pick, I can't imagine someone having a better record there but perhaps someone will do that research for me. I would argue big time that any ATG XI team must be a horses for courses team. No good picking a Doug Walters to play in England but perhaps in Australian conditions he goes past Waugh, Ponting definately does.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Unless you can find another Hayden with a great record like that..... yes. Flat track bully ?.. lol... then what is Tendulkar ???????

Averaging under 35 in England, South Africa and New Zealand screams flat track bully. Tendulkar didn't average below 40 in any country and over 55 in England so that is a very **** comparison

 

[marc71178]

Unless you can find another Hayden with a great record like that..... yes. Flat track bully ?.. lol... then what is Tendulkar ???????

A much better batsman than Hayden.

 

[SpofforthLohman]

A much better batsman than Hayden.

Not that much better i am sure of that. Not many have ever been better than Hayden. Point is if ever there was a flat track bully it was Sutcliffe, he was as ruthless as they come.

 

[SpofforthLohman]

Averaging under 35 in England, South Africa and New Zealand screams flat track bully. Tendulkar didn't average below 40 in any country and over 55 in England so that is a very **** comparison

Tendulkar played many more tests against weak nations than Hayden did, Sachin bullied ZIMB and Bang many many times if I recall.

 

[SpofforthLohman]

Averaging under 35 in England, South Africa and New Zealand screams flat track bully. Tendulkar didn't average below 40 in any country and over 55 in England so that is a very **** comparison

So Australia is flat tracks ??????... surely not as flat as India. As for English conditions, if you don't play county cricket like Waugh did you have very little hope of having lots of success in England. Maybe the best decision Waugh ever made was to play some county cricket, it made him able to ,make runs anywhere. I am not sure if Matty ever played for a county but he should have.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Look at all the things Tendulkar can be accused of being, and you pick the one which is have least expected. Tendulkar's as much an FTB as Hayden's a greentop master

 

[SpofforthLohman]

Look at all the things Tendulkar can be accused of being, and you pick the one which is have least expected. Tendulkar's as much an FTB as Hayden's a greentop master

I rate Tendulkar higher too but I fail to see how Hayden was garbage. I would have him in most ATG sides...... but as i said before you should base ATG teams on a horses for courses basis, no way in hell that anyone can pick exactly the same ATG XI for all grounds, that wouldn't make sense. I suppose you would pick Hayden in any ATG XI played on a flat wicket then.

 

[smash84]

no, there are better FTBs than Hayden

 

[kyear2]

My point is that it is easy to justify Sobers and Don's inclusion in such lists because of the value they bring to the side. Can't say Marshall's value to the side is as easily justified even if he is picked by pretty much all the "experts" as the number one choice of bowler.

I would argue strongly that Steve Waugh has a better record than Richards. There was a lot of commentator bias against Waugh over aesthetics which to be frank means nothing to me. He got the runs on the board and unlike Richards he had to face the great West Indians, Richards had it a lot easier than Steve I reckon, yes there was Lillee and Thomson but Thommo was not the same after '76. I know Viv looked great at the wicket but Lara is undoubtebly superior to Richards, either that or stats are meaningless. Maybe you don't need Steve Waugh if you have 10 other ATG's in, but anyone suggesting that Steve Waugh is not an ATG is simply a goose who knows bugger all. Ian Chappell hardly ever said a good word about Waugh, it must have been jealousy that Waugh was better than he was and it irked him. I rate Richards only 3rd best West Indian batsman and that is debatable as there is Headley and Weekes.

Waugh isn't in the same area code as Viv and I don't think that I am the only one who thinks so. Additionally stats for a batsman doesn't tell the entire story. So because Lara and Weekes have better averages than IVA doesn't make them better even though they were both ATG batsmen. If averages meant everything Barrington would be a top 10 batsman, which he is not nearly.