• 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 ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

B

Bolo.

International Vice-Captain
kyear2 said:
Ok.

1. I equally want both in my team, absence of either is undesirable.

2. So very few great spinners, a paucity really. Many great teams managed to exist without them, a Warne / Murali / O'Reilly would be in the top tier, but again they haven't been abundant in history.

3. The slip fielder is integral to the success of three of the others mentioned. The fast bowler, same aforementioned spinner and the hunting partner.

4. Same slip fielder is also paired to a batsman in the team.

At the end of the day, no one would agree, but look at Dravid and how he assisted / elevated the spinners he worked with. Just the volume.

At any level below ATG, I want Mark Waugh in my team and that's just as vital as the no. 8 who can bat a bit
Click to expand...
A great spinner is taking close to 5 WPM. Dravid took 1.3 catches a match. And even a pretty poor slip is taking a reasonable proportion of these.
 
kyear2

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
Bolo. said:
A great spinner is taking close to 5 WPM. Dravid took 1.3 catches a match. And even a pretty poor slip is taking a reasonable proportion of these.
Click to expand...
I literally said the great spinners are a tier above, I also said that it's also slightly lowered because it doesn't show a direct correlation as being a necessity to a dominant team, I also said the slip fielder is coming just as, it's accompanying a player of value to the level they are playing.

For example, if Sobers never bowled a ball in his life and the final spot for the team is between him and Sachin, despite Sachin being rated slightly ahead of Sir Garry as a Batsman, if there isn't a viable 2nd slip option on the team, I'm going with Garry, and there's no doubt.

That's all that means. I'm not saying it's more important than having a spinner, I need both on my team.

Here's why the spinner isn't automatically in the top tier. If I'm selecting an WI ATG 11 to play in the Caribbean, I'm not selecting one. There were also not exactly an abundance of great ones.
 
Coronis

Coronis

Cricketer Of The Year
kyear2 said:
I literally said the great spinners are a tier above, I also said that it's also slightly lowered because it doesn't show a direct correlation as being a necessity to a dominant team, I also said the slip fielder is coming just as, it's accompanying a player of value to the level they are playing.

For example, if Sobers never bowled a ball in his life and the final spot for the team is between him and Sachin, despite Sachin being rated slightly ahead of Sir Garry as a Batsman, if there isn't a viable 2nd slip option on the team, I'm going with Garry, and there's no doubt.

That's all that means. I'm not saying it's more important than having a spinner, I need both on my team.

Here's why the spinner isn't automatically in the top tier. If I'm selecting an WI ATG 11 to play in the Caribbean, I'm not selecting one. There were also not exactly an abundance of great ones.
Click to expand...
iirc on the 2022 batsmen thread Sobers beat Tendulkar, I also have him above personally.
 
Coronis

Coronis

Cricketer Of The Year
Allroundish XI without going too heavy either way

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Bradman*
Kallis
Hammond
Sobers
Gilchrist+
Imran
Hadlee
Marshall
Warne
 
Coronis

Coronis

Cricketer Of The Year
capt_Luffy said:
I don't understand why so many of you guys don't want to pick WG for a team; yet have no problem with the likes of Hobbs and Barnes....
Click to expand...
Well for one, its a test team. The majority of Grace is based upon his ridiculous first class exploits, he had already passed his peak by the time tests came along - its unfortunate, but this is also why I generally don’t pick Procter in test squads. Also I didn’t want to decrease the teams primary skills too much in favour of adding a player for their secondary skills. Grace’s test performance is at best level with his contemporaries. Guys like Shrewsbury, Stoddart, Darling, Murdoch and Iredale all had similar or superior records during his time. As a test player he’s definitely a big step down from the big 3 English openers.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

International Regular
Coronis said:
Well for one, its a test team. The majority of Grace is based upon his ridiculous first class exploits, he had already passed his peak by the time tests came along - its unfortunate, but this is also why I generally don’t pick Procter in test squads. Also I didn’t want to decrease the teams primary skills too much in favour of adding a player for their secondary skills. Grace’s test performance is at best level with his contemporaries. Guys like Shrewsbury, Stoddart, Darling, Murdoch and Iredale all had similar or superior records during his time. As a test player he’s definitely a big step down from the big 3 English openers.
Click to expand...
I mean, yeah; but for the time he was active; County was by far and large more important than Test cricket. But yeah, I can understand if you don't delve into too much of FC exploits; if and only if you also don't really include Barry Richards and Mike Procter in your teams.....
 
centurymaker

centurymaker

Cricketer Of The Year
Hobbs
Gavaskar
Bradman
Tendulkar
V Richards
Sobers
Gilchrist
Warne
Wasim Akram (3)
Marshall (1)
McGrath (2)

12th man: Ambrose replaces Wasim on certain pitches.

Variety in attack is much more important IMO instead of having somewhat similar bowlers. You have Marshall you don't need Steyn, you have McGrath don't need Hadlee.
 
kyear2

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
centurymaker said:
Hobbs
Gavaskar
Bradman
Tendulkar
V Richards
Sobers
Gilchrist
Warne
Wasim Akram (3)
Marshall (1)
McGrath (2)

12th man: Ambrose replaces Wasim on certain pitches.

Variety in attack is much more important IMO instead of having somewhat similar bowlers. You have Marshall you don't need Steyn, you have McGrath don't need Hadlee.
Click to expand...
I don't know, Steyn beings reverse swing, I happen to like Marshall, McGrath, Steyn as the perfect attack.
 
kyear2

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
Sir Jack Hobbs
Graeme Smith^*
Sir Donald Bradman
Sir I. V. A. Richards^
Sachin Tendulkar
Sir Garfield Sobers^(5)
Adam Gilchrist +
Malcolm Marshall (1)
Shane Warne (4)
Dale Steyn (3)
Glenn McGrath (2)

Sir Leonard Hutton
Steve Smith
Sir Richard Hadlee
Muttiah Muralitharan

Injured reserve / 18 man squad
Imran Khan
Brian Lara / Jacques Kallis
Allan Knott
 
centurymaker

centurymaker

Cricketer Of The Year
Pakistan has been the worst fielding side of all time. If we were to account for bad fielding (and the knock on effect that has), the stats of Akram or Imran would be just like your Steyn, Hadlee or McGrath who had wonderful fielders taking even half chances.

So if I am choosing an ATG attack, I am factoring everything in and the overall skill level of a bowler and what extra they bring to the table. Because attacks work as a group and you need variety to trouble every kind of batsman. With Wasim the left arm angle is a huge plus and certain batsmen are simply not as effective against it coupled with his extravagant swing. Then Ambrose brings his height to the table and how awkward he is to face for any batter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top