Quick World ATG XI draft- No Bradman

[kingkallis]

Adam Gilchrist ( + )

 

[Red]

Round 1

Himannv- Garry Sobers

Jager- Keith Miller

smalishah84- Imran Khan

zaremba- Malcolm Marshall

Monk- Richard Hadlee

rvd619323- Jack Hobbs

kingkallis- Shane Warne

watson- Glenn McGrath

kyear- Viv Richards



Round 2

kyear- Dennis Lillee

watson- Curtly Ambrose

kingkallis- Adam Gilchrist

rvd619323- Muralitharan

Monk- Wally Hammond

zaremba

smalishah84

Jager

Himannv

 

[Dan]

Adam Gilchrist ( + )

Damn you..

Long time to wait until my next pick, so I'll take Muttiah Muralitharan.

My XI thus far:

1. Jack Hobbs
2. -
3. -
4. -
5. -
6. -
7. -
8. -
9. -
10. -
11. Muttiah Muralitharan

 

[Red]

Wally Hammond. Second greatest batsman ever. Cue Indian fanboi revolt!

Average of 58 in 85 tests.

As a young man he was a dashing strokemaker; willing to tilt at all the bowlers of the world. He remained superbly stylish, his cover-driving, from front foot or back, utterly memorable. In those early days he cut, glanced, hooked and lofted the ball quite fearlessly. With his early maturity, he became a thinking batsmen. When he went to Australia under Percy Chapman in 1928-29, although he was only 25 he had worked out exactly how he would make his runs. Eschewing the hook altogether and, largely, the cut, he decided to score - off all but the obviously punishable ball - within the V between extra cover and midwicket. He succeeded with a new record aggregate for a rubber of 905 runs at 113.12 in the five Tests; which has still only once been exceeded (by Sir Donald Bradman, of course).

Even in his cricketing middle age, his footwork flowed like that of a young man. He would be down the pitch - two, three or four yards - with unhurried ease and, as he reached the length he wanted, the bat moved with languid certainty through the ball, which flew, with that savage force which was the measure of his hitting, to the place he wished.

Of the four great batsmen he was physically the finest and most powerfully equipped. He was a superb fast-medium bowler who often, as Sir Donald Bradman once remarked, "was too busy scoring runs to worry about bowling." When he was roused - as he once was by Essex bowling bouncers at the Gloucestershire batsmen - his pace could be devastating. "I never saw a man bowl faster for Gloucestershire than Wally did that day," said Tom Goddard, "and he not only battered them, he bowled them out as well."

At slip he had no superior. He stood all but motionless, moved late but with uncanny speed, never needing to stretch or strain but plucking the ball from the air like an apple from a tree.

Wally Hammond | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Jager]

I don't mind Hammond but he is certainly not the second greatest batsman ever.

 

[watson]

Len Hutton may have thought differently.

...he knew that no justification of Walter Hammond's inclusion was required. "He was simply the best cricketer I ever played with."

Interview with Ian Wooldridge, 1977

 

[smash84]

best that hutton played with

 

[Red]

Why do you say he isn't the second greatest ever? What reasons?

I know it's subjective, but I have NO doubt he is in the top 5, and for mine he is 2nd after Bradman.

 

[watson]

Since it has taken approximately 53 hours to complete 13% of the required answers I estimate that it will take approximately 408 hours in total for the participants to compile their 9 required teams.

Todays date plus 408 hours takes us to about July 3rd.

Just thought that you might like to know that.

 

[kyear2]

Why do you say he isn't the second greatest ever? What reasons?

I know it's subjective, but I have NO doubt he is in the top 5, and for mine he is 2nd after Bradman.

Most cricket historians don't even consider him the second best of his era, rating him behind Hutton and Headley, who was the more aggresive and attractive player. Hutton on the other hand would have faced the stronger attacks and would have over come more when one considers his war injury. It was also said that Hutton had a weakness againts very fast bowling and was apparently not the fastest of scorers.

 

[Red]

Most cricket historians don't even consider him the second best of his era, rating him behind Hutton and Headley, who was the more aggresive and attractive player. Hutton on the other hand would have faced the stronger attacks and would have over come more when one considers his war injury. It was also said that Hutton had a weakness againts very fast bowling and was apparently not the fastest of scorers.

From all I've read, Hammond was a very attractive batsman, probably in the Greg Chappell mould, upright and forceful, and played a lot through the V.

No doubt Headley was great, but his test exposure was limited. FC is excellent though.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Hammond as second best batsman instead of Bradman is heresy.

 

[Red]

Hammond as second best batsman instead of Bradman is heresy.

Quick statements like that are fine, but justifying them makes your point much better

Who, in your opinion is better than Hammond, and why?

 

[G.I.Joe]

Quick statements like that are fine, but justifying them makes your point much better

Who, in your opinion is better than Hammond, and why?

Bradman
Reason: 99.94

 

[Red]

Bradman
Reason: 99.94

Pretty sure I said Hammond was the second best batsman ever, quite obviously behind Bradman....

 

[G.I.Joe]

But you see, as an Indian fanboi, I have Tendulkar > Bradman > Hammond.

 

[Red]

But you see, as an Indian fanboi, I have Tendulkar > Bradman > Hammond.

Which is why I said "cue Indian fanboi revolt"


No way Tendulkar is better than Bradman. I don't think he's better than Hammond either.

IMO, Tendulkar would be lucky to make my top ten batsmen of all time (not trolling, very serious).

Tendulkar is a great batsman, but longevity does not make him better than others.

I rate all the players listed below as better (marginally) than Tendulkar for various reasons (not in order):



Bradman (by a mile and a half)

Wally Hammond

George Headley

Greg Chappell

Viv Richards

Graham Pollock

Allan Border

Ricky Ponting

Sunil Gavaskar

Brian Lara

Jack Hobbs

Garry Sobers

 

[G.I.Joe]

You've hurt my Indian fanboi sentiments, mate.

 

[kyear2]

I must admit that the reason I rate Tendulkar over Lara ect is because of his longevity. I dont think he was as brilliant a stroke player as lara, faced the attacks Chappell did, bore the responsibilty of Headley or battled like Border, but Sachin in his long career has accumulated records and acomplishments that may never be matched.

 

[kyear2]

Why is no one picking?