Test XI for The Last Quarter Century

[Mr Miyagi]

The flaw here is that if you are averaging 30 odd in regular ODIs, you probably will not average 30 odd against another ATG attack

How is this a "flaw"? I have batting to 9.

Its not a linear conversion. Every player will probably perform below their career average if they had to play a series of games against an ATG team. Like Sachin with average less with the bat, McGrath more with the ball, that's basically a given.

Yups, where's my flaw?

But this reduction in average, in performance, is not linear. Sachin and McGrath will have a smaller dip in their performance than Jos Butler or Brett Lee. Simply because they are ATG caliber players - not just statistically, but skill wise. We know this from their entire body of work. Butler and Lee have great stats, sure, but ones career isn't over and the other had more significantly success against the weaker batsmen in his era than he did against the better ones.

Maybe so, but bar India, Jos Butler has better numbers against strong current ODI attacks than weak ones, NZ, Aus and SA he has smashed, who have been with India the top 4 on ODI since 2015. Pak and Bangladesh too. In fact his weakest numbers are Scotland, WI and India as I mentioned.

The dip off on how Butler and Lee would perform when pared up against another ATG team in this hypothetical scenario is significant. It is not significant for the actual, proven ATG players.

Not significant, or you mean less impact for "proven ATG players" with a bigger body of work?

TPlus the whole SR argument is dumb when comparing between eras anyways. Especially when you're talking about players whose careers are still in progress

Dumb? You may not like comparing cricketers from different eras, yet every day on here many people do just that. As for cricketers of today, I can only go back what they have produced so far, like every single cricketer. I am not handing out lifetime achievement awards, I am simply picking a player in a fantasy team. Buttler is now on my radar as a great player. He may drop off the radar with a bad 4 or 5 more seasons. But right now, I like his SR for my ATG team of the last 25 years. And lets not pretend that Dhoni is even long since retired or something when he's still playing. Nor de Kock. So that leaves Gilly as the victim or being stuck in an era difference within a team of the last 25 years.

Please substantiate your use of the words "flaw" and "dumb". I'd appreciate it.

 

[trundler]

The flaw is a Buttler against another ATG lineup gets reduced to a standard Afridi. High strike rate, average in the 20s.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

The flaw is a Buttler against another ATG lineup gets reduced to a standard Afridi. High strike rate, average in the 20s.

I'll take that. With batting to 9 (I don't see how it is a flaw), and a top 3 of

Tendulkar, Amla, Kohli;

I want 6's from;
ABdV, Watto, Buttler;

with
Kluesner, Flintoff and Pollick to follow,
with Akram at 10,
then Murali.

I think Butler averaging in the 20's is manageable should he drop that far. even to Afridi levels. There won't be that many balls left on average after Tendulkar, Amla, Kohli, ABdV and Watto do their thing, and there's still plenty of batting in the hut if he fails.

It is just like teams several teams are doing today (where possible - England being obvious, SA too when players are fit), they're batting deeper, they're batting at higher SR, yes they lose wickets and have some low average players, but they bat deep.

I like the philosophy. You may disagree with it. That is your prerogative. I am not here to convert you to it.

But I agree with it. So my fantasy team is built around those same principles.

 

[cnerd123]

What's wrong with you. I said there was a flaw and I explained it. You broke my post down sentence by sentence asking where the flaw was, when the explanation was coming up just a couple of sentences after. You then disagreed with the flaw I highlighted, and then asked me again where the flaw is.

Z: Hey Mr Miyagi, there is something I want to tell you
Mr Miyagi: Then tell me
Z: I'm telling you, if you just let me...
Mr Miyagi: You haven't told me you. Why haven't you told me?
Z: You're annoying an always interrupting
Mr Miyagi: I'm not interrupting. You were done speaking. There was a natural pause so I spoke
Z: ...
Mr Miyagi: Now tell me the thing you were going to tell me


Has no one ever taught you how to hold a conversation before? Because you're terrible at it.


Anyways, focusing on your actual rebuttal

Jos Butler has better numbers against strong current ODI attacks than weak ones, NZ, Aus and SA he has smashed, who have been with India the top 4 on ODI since 2015. Pak and Bangladesh too. In fact his weakest numbers are Scotland, WI and India as I mentioned.

Sure. The 'performs better against weak teams' point was for Brett Lee. I didn't meant that about Butler, I think he's actually a very good big-game player.

I am not handing out lifetime achievement awards, I am simply picking a player in a fantasy team. Buttler is now on my radar as a great player. He may drop off the radar with a bad 4 or 5 more seasons. But right now, I like his SR for my ATG team of the last 25 years.

The issue with Butler is that his performances are in the extremely batting friendly conditions of the modern era. Two new balls that kill off reverse swing, flatter pitches, modern bats, 4 men out of the circle in the middle overs instead of 5. Plus as the sport evolves, the players understanding of what is possible has evolved. This is why we adjust averages and SRs for Era. 38 @ 112 is useful in the modern day, it's not freakish. It's not an apple to apple comparison when you take those numbers and put them against ODI players of the past. To do so just isn't fair.

I suppose in the end it boils down to what this exercise is for you. If you want to just pick guys with the best statistics to run them through a Cricsim style simulator, then sure. Why bother with the discussion. The better number wins, it's just a question of balance.

What an ATG XI is, to me (and I'm sure many others), is literally a 'lifetime award acheivement'. Making it in the ODI ATG XI means you're one of the best 11 ODI players to have ever existed, ever. Jos Butler is not that. So he doesn't get in.

Maybe he will be one day, but 6 years into his career is far too premature to decide.

 

[cnerd123]

The flaw is a Buttler against another ATG lineup gets reduced to a standard Afridi. High strike rate, average in the 20s.

Also yes, this. Some of us like to pick an ATG XI to play against other ATG XIs, or to play against an alien team from Mars with Earth's survival at stake (the old ATGs all get resurrected into their prime, ofc). The games take place in a variety of conditions, within a variety of different eras (with the appropriate laws and equipment).

Jos Butler would not be up to scratch playing at that level.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

What's wrong with you. I said there was a flaw and I explained it. You broke my post down sentence by sentence asking where the flaw was, when the explanation was coming up just a couple of sentences after. You then disagreed with the flaw I highlighted, and then asked me again where the flaw is.

Z: Hey Mr Miyagi, there is something I want to tell you
Mr Miyagi: Then tell me
Z: I'm telling you, if you just let me...
Mr Miyagi: You haven't told me you. Why haven't you told me?
Z: You're annoying an always interrupting
Mr Miyagi: I'm not interrupting. You were done speaking. There was a natural pause so I spoke
Z: ...
Mr Miyagi: Now tell me the thing you were going to tell me


Has no one ever taught you how to hold a conversation before? Because you're terrible at it.

Please stay on point ***** and don't get personal. You think Butler is a flaw when his average will drop against another ATG ODI team, I say I have batting to 9 and have compensated by batting deep, so where is the flaw?

The rest of this is personal and unnecessary.

Anyways, focusing on your actual rebuttal


Sure. The 'performs better against weak teams' point was for Brett Lee. I didn't meant that about Butler, I think he's actually a very good big-game player.



The issue with Butler is that his performances are in the extremely batting friendly conditions of the modern era. Two new balls that kill off reverse swing, flatter pitches, modern bats, 4 men out of the circle in the middle overs instead of 5. Plus as the sport evolves, the players understanding of what is possible has evolved. This is why we adjust averages and SRs for Era. 38 @ 112 is useful in the modern day, it's not freakish. It's not an apple to apple comparison when you take those numbers and put them against ODI players of the past. To do so just isn't fair.

I suppose in the end it boils down to what this exercise is for you. If you want to just pick guys with the best statistics to run them through a Cricsim style simulator, then sure. Why bother with the discussion. The better number wins, it's just a question of balance.

What an ATG XI is, to me (and I'm sure many others), is literally a 'lifetime award acheivement'. Making it in the ODI ATG XI means you're one of the best 11 ODI players to have ever existed, ever. Jos Butler is not that. So he doesn't get in.

Maybe he will be one day, but 6 years into his career is far too premature to decide.

It is my ATG team *****, made from players of the last 25 years, at some point players from different eras were going to be compared by me. As dumb as you find that. Butler makes my team right now based on what he has done. He can play his way out of my further ATG teams with a different end point. He may probably will. Someone may play their way in his place. But if he retired today, I'd have him in there still for a while. As for eras, Dhoni may start well before but he is still playing, de Kock is within Butler's era, so that leaves Gilly as a total victim of 'eras' - and I'd still choose Butler because I want Tendulkar and Amla to open.

It is the last 25 years, not the next 5 years. I like what Buttler has done since 2012 to 2018 in over 100 games to make my 1993 to 2018 team.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The flaw here is that if you are averaging 30 odd in regular ODIs, you probably will not average 30 odd against another ATG attack

Yeah that's the biggest issue. It all depends on who your hypothetical ATG side will be playing I guess. If they're going to playing an ordinary opposition attack, so your average Sri Lankan or NZ ODI team, then packing it with Buttler, Maxwell and co. might be a solid option. But if you're coming up against the likes of McGrath, Ambrose etc. then your Maxwells and Buttlers aren't going to be much use.

 

[cnerd123]

It is my ATG team *****, made from players of the last 25 years, at some point players from different eras were going to be compared by me. As dumb as you find that. Butler makes my team right now based on what he has done. He can play his way out of my further ATG teams with a different end point. He may probably will. Someone may play their way in his place. But if he retired today, I'd have him in there still for a while. As for eras, Dhoni may start well before but he is still playing, de Kock is within Butler's era, so that leaves Gilly as a total victim of 'eras' - and I'd still choose Butler because I want Tendulkar and Amla to open.

It is the last 25 years, not the next 5 years. I like what Buttler has done since 2012 to 2018 in over 100 games to make my 1993 to 2018 team.

An ODI XI of the last 25 years is basically an ODI ATG XI tho. Like hardly any player who played exclusively before 1993 makes the discussion anyways. Richards and Joel Garner are the only ones yea? And Dean Jones maybe. Gordon Greenidge and Desmond Haynes in for a shout as openers. Kapil Dev maybe. So yea, not a lot of players being excluded by limiting this discussion to the last 25 years. You're basically picking an ATG XI, and it's fairly disrespectful to disregard great careers for someone whose been not-that-amazing a flash in the pan. Reeks of a selection to just be contrarian.

Pick who you like, just don't expect anyone to take your team seriously. You've got weird justification. You're okay with him averaging 20s if he keeps up his strike rate - why not actually pick Afridi then - a guy who has done that exact thing for much longer in tougher batting conditions? Afridi would seriously average more in the modern era - imagine how many of his mishits and mistimed slogs would have gone for 6 if he had modern bats.

And then you don't even bother to adjust Gilly or Bevan's SRs for the eras they played in. Don't factor in WC performances, think JAMODIs are every bit as equal. As though all cricket is played in a vacuum and pressure of the situation is a non existent factor.

And batting to 9 is great and all, but you've seriously compromised your bowling the process. Klusener and Watson were good ODI bowler playing regular ODIs against regular teams. It's a stretch to suggest they'd go well against an ATG ODI lineup. And you've got Watto batting out of position, assuming he'll suddenly be able to tonk ATG bowlers for six on demand and regularly churn out quick paced cameos. Again, a stretch to suggest that, and you've picked him over guys with actual proven records in the middle order in ODIs based on a career average driven by opening the batting in an easier batting era.

And then you just say "well if they concede a lot of runs they'll chase it down too". Well yea maybe. We've yet to see that formula win a world cup.

So basically you've
> Not adjusted performances for era
> Not given preference to WC performances
> Not defined what this XI is going to do (hypothetically) - play other ATGs? Play Bangladesh?
> Not given weight to a larger body of work, or the level of competition the players have faced

And you've left of McGrath for Wasim because Wasim can bat. FFS.


Ultimately if your fall back defense is going to be "it's my team and I can pick who I like", then why post it up here for discussion. Why engage. Just keep it to yourself. None of us at chomping at the bit to know what you think. If your mind is set, then it's set, why bring us into it.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

An ODI XI of the last 25 years is basically an ODI ATG XI tho. Like hardly any player who played exclusively before 1993 makes the discussion anyways. Richards and Joel Garner are the only ones yea? And Dean Jones maybe. Gordon Greenidge and Desmond Haynes in for a shout as openers. Kapil Dev maybe. So yea, not a lot of players being excluded by limiting this discussion to the last 25 years. You're basically picking an ATG XI, and it's fairly disrespectful to disregard great careers for someone whose been not-that-amazing a flash in the pan. Reeks of a selection to just be contrarian.

Pick who you like, just don't expect anyone to take your team seriously. You've got weird justification. You're okay with him averaging 20s if he keeps up his strike rate - why not actually pick Afridi then - a guy who has done that exact thing for much longer in tougher batting conditions? Afridi would seriously average more in the modern era - imagine how many of his mishits and mistimed slogs would have gone for 6 if he had modern bats.

And then you don't even bother to adjust Gilly or Bevan's SRs for the eras they played in. Don't factor in WC performances, think JAMODIs are every bit as equal. As though all cricket is played in a vacuum and pressure of the situation is a non existent factor.

And batting to 9 is great and all, but you've seriously compromised your bowling the process. Klusener and Watson were good ODI bowler playing regular ODIs against regular teams. It's a stretch to suggest they'd go well against an ATG ODI lineup. And you've got Watto batting out of position, assuming he'll suddenly be able to tonk ATG bowlers for six on demand and regularly churn out quick paced cameos. Again, a stretch to suggest that, and you've picked him over guys with actual proven records in the middle order in ODIs based on a career average driven by opening the batting in an easier batting era.

And then you just say "well if they concede a lot of runs they'll chase it down too". Well yea maybe. We've yet to see that formula win a world cup.

So basically you've
> Not adjusted performances for era
> Not given preference to WC performances
> Not defined what this XI is going to do (hypothetically) - play other ATGs? Play Bangladesh?
> Not given weight to a larger body of work, or the level of competition the players have faced

And you've left of McGrath for Wasim because Wasim can bat. FFS.


Ultimately if your fall back defense is going to be "it's my team and I can pick who I like", then why post it up here for discussion. Why engage. Just keep it to yourself. None of us at chomping at the bit to know what you think. If your mind is set, then it's set, why bring us into it.

Actually my fall back defense is I have 6 front line bowling options and batting to 9. I have sturdy top 5 batting, 4 if not including Watto before Buttler, and I have batting after Buttler with Kluesner, Flintoff, Pollock and even Akram.

So attack Buttler in my team all you like. Keep attacking his selection by me. And if "us" don't like my posts, just put me on ignore.

 

[trundler]

Plus I don't think having 3 useless bats (or semi-useless ones) is going to help your three great-bats, at all. Plus, Pollock and Akram aren't going to come in and save the day after the previous 3 wickets have fallen for nothing and the other who-cares-how-many mediocre bowlers have conceded 250 off their 30 overs. A brainless slogger isn't going to hit Curtly for sixes. Flintoff wasn't really at his best lower down the order either so you don't know how we would adjust coming in to bat at 6/150 chasing 350.

 

[cnerd123]

Actually my fall back defense is I have 6 front line bowling options and batting to 9. I have sturdy top 5 batting, 4 if not including Watto before Buttler, and I have batting after Buttler with Kluesner, Flintoff, Pollock and even Akram.

So attack Buttler in my team all you like. Keep attacking his selection by me. And if "us" don't like my posts, just put me on ignore.

front-line - debatable, but you don't want to debate that
sturdy - debatable, but you don't want to debate that
picking Akram because of his batting for an ODI ATG XI - ffs

And lets not forget:
> Not adjusted performances for era
> Not given preference to WC performances
> Not defined what this XI is going to do (hypothetically) - play other ATGs? Play Bangladesh?
> Not given weight to a larger body of work, or the level of competition the players have faced

Again, if your last resort when challenged on this forum is going to tell the other poster to put you on ignore - then why post at all man. It's optional to engage the community here. You aren't required to do so. You've gotten to a pretty dark place when you're telling out people to put you on ignore. You don't need to engage with any of us. You can make your post and just not respond to anyone. And no one can do anything to make you post and defend yourself. This is all voluntary. If you don't like it, then don't do it.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Plus I don't think having 3 useless bats (or semi-useless ones) is going to help your three great-bats, at all. Plus, Pollock and Akram aren't going to come in and save the day after the previous 3 wickets have fallen for nothing and the other who-cares-how-many mediocre bowlers have conceded 250 off their 30 overs. A brainless slogger isn't going to hit Curtly for sixes. Flintoff wasn't really at his best lower down the order either so you don't know how we would adjust coming in to bat at 6/150 chasing 350.

Maybe not, but I'd rather have Flintoff walking out to bat then than say Vettorri or Akram.

I have just gone for the team that I feel will win the most games in the most scenarios from players of the last 25 years.

No team wins at 100% after enough matches.

 

[cnerd123]

Remember when Ben Stokes was scoring lots of runs in county cricket, and so when England played him at 8 they thought he'd be the best number 8 ever, but then he just couldn't score any runs and basically became a tailender, so they moved him back up to 6, and suddenly he's smashing double hundreds in South Africa?

Yea. There is good reason to no assume a cricketer can perform a role he has never done because he's been really good at performing another role.

 

[trundler]

Dude, if you have 6 or 7 guys who are 7/10 batting and bowling on paper doesn't mean that they wouldn't be easy pickings for an ATG bowler. I also doubt that these are all 'front line' bowling options. All-rounders end up weakening the bowling. Every wicket is a dot ball too and puts more pressure on the next batsman. I want bowlers who can bowl out the team for less than 200, too.

 

[trundler]

Remember when Ben Stokes was scoring lots of runs in county cricket, and so when England played him at 8 they thought he'd be the best number 8 ever, but then he just couldn't score any runs and basically became a tailender, so they moved him back up to 6, and suddenly he's smashing double hundreds in South Africa?

Yea. There is good reason to no assume a cricketer can perform a role he has never done because he's been really good at performing another role.

Yeah, same reason why Tendulkar doesn't open an ATG test team with Bradman.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Remember when Ben Stokes was scoring lots of runs in county cricket, and so when England played him at 8 they thought he'd be the best number 8 ever, but then he just couldn't score any runs and basically became a tailender, so they moved him back up to 6, and suddenly he's smashing double hundreds in South Africa?

Yea. There is good reason to no assume a cricketer can perform a role he has never done because he's been really good at performing another role.

Well I am sure glad that I don't have Ben Stokes in my test team at number 8 then.

 

[cnerd123]

Yeah, same reason why Tendulkar doesn't open an ATG test team with Bradman.

Should have Bradman in the ODI ATG XI tbh. And Sobers too. They dominated at Tests, I'm sure it'll convert.

And MSD averaged more than Gilly did, why don't we open with him instead?

 

[Bolo]

All-rounders end up weakening the bowling.

At this point, Pollock and Akram raise strong objections to bring grouped with the rabble.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Change of batting order due to *****'s suggestion to all roles players are more than familiar with:

1 Tendulkar
2 Amla
3 Kohli
4 ABdV
5 Watson
6 Buttler
7 Flintoff (and if you still dislike him that much, I am happy to put C Cairns back here if you convince me that he deserves to as against Flintoff)
8 Kluesner
9 Pollock
10 Akram
11 Murali

 

[cnerd123]

Really Mr Miyagi, what you've done here is:

1) Present an idea that wasn't completely thought through (An ODI XI of the last 25 years that attempts to bat deep)

2) Present a bold stance (Jos Butler is deserving of being in such an XI)

3) Reacted badly when the basic team structure was challenged (players batting out of position, no McGrath)

4) Reacted badly when the bold stance was challenged (deeming Dhoni and Bevan batted 'too slow' and that Butler's performances would convert against ATG bowlers; basically no adjustment for eras or weight given to established performers)

5) Stubbornly held on to your initial (probably hastily thought through) stances and insisted that if people don't like it they should put you on ignore.

There are some interesting ideas that are worth exploring there (like it could be fun to think of how do we structure an ODI team that can bat deep and not sacrifice bowling strength too much, or whether or not that strategy is even one worth pursuing, and how do we rate Butler and what doe he need to do to be in the conversation), but you don't need to dig in the trenches and fight for this. It's not worth it.