Thanks. Hadn't realised that.
The Roar picked a real all-time team in 2020 without the decade restrictions. There were three changes: Greg Chappell for Border, Spofforth for Turner, and McGrath for Gregory.
Previous post amended.
-
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
- Thread starter Red
- Start date
The Roar picked a real all-time team in 2020 without the decade restrictions. There were three changes: Greg Chappell for Border, Spofforth for Turner, and McGrath for Gregory.
Previous post amended.
capt_Luffy
International Debutant
Wait a minute.... they picked Spofforth for Turner in the second team, but not the first??
Yes, not sure of the reasoning there.
The logic behind picking one of them, as with Trumble, was probably to complement the leg-spinner by having someone to break the ball back into the right-handed batsman. Turner and Noble said that the fuller covering of Australian pitches from the 1920s would have negated their type of bowling and it led to a dearth of good finger-spinners.
Right up until the 1970s Charlie Macartney was widely considered one of the three greatest Australian batsmen. He modelled himself on Trumper, going for the bowling from the start, even on rain-damaged pitches which he handled well. His frequent requests to open the batting were usually turned down on the grounds that he took so many risks. Somebody said it was like watching a squash player hitting winners from all over the court.
During the hot English summer of 1921 Macartney hit over 2300 runs at an estimated rate exceeding 70 runs per hour, approaching Jessop territory. With Hobbs laid low with illness, Macartney was the best batsman in the world. He was just as impressive, aged 40, in wet 1926, scoring three Test hundreds including one before lunch on the first day at Leeds. During that summer he also bowled more than 500 overs of left-arm spin.
Davidson's absence from all the teams is not that surprising. In a lowish-scoring era his reputation never matched the numbers. He was unkindly labelled a duller version of Keith Miller, and considered a downgrade on the electric LIndwall/Miller combination. Davidson never took the new ball when both were playing and sometimes lost his place in the side.
He was somewhat overshadowed by the extrovert Benaud, in the same way that McGrath was overshadowed by Warne - even if the numbers tell a different story.
capt_Luffy
International Debutant
So Davidson was pretty much the McGrath to Benaud's Warne?
In terms of publicity yes. McGrath built a stronger reputation as a bowler than Davidson.
But Davidson was a brilliant catcher at short-leg, nicknamed The Claw.
CricketFan90s
State 12th Man
Honestly this team has no weakness. Larwood, Barnes, Grimmett, Reilly, Hammond, McCabe bowling is deadly.
Coronis
Cricketer Of The Year
Yeah I guess the issue with Macartney is he never fully bloomed til after the war.
pre war: 21 matches 34 innings 879 @ 26.63 1 ton 6 50’s
post war: 14 matches 21 innings 1252 @ 69.55 6 tons 3 50’s
He was 26 when he played his last test before the war and 34 when he played after the war.
A curious what if. Could’ve just been a very late bloomer or might’ve been dominant throughout the ‘10s as well. (obviously better pitch quality helped too)
Interesting that many of those Aussie XIs had multiple spinners until recently.
I’ve been thinking perhaps, an XI with Bradman already may be able to give up a spot and thus strengthen the bowling even more so it would not matter.
Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Bradman*
Tendulkar
Sobers
Gilchrist+
Hadlee
Marshall
Warne
Muralitharan
McGrath
You have 3 great pacers (with Sobers as backup), Warne and Murali spinning it big both ways and still an ATG batting lineup that at worst would be equal to anything it would come up against.
Perhaps in this specific case Imran may be worth picking over Hadlee.
pre war: 21 matches 34 innings 879 @ 26.63 1 ton 6 50’s
post war: 14 matches 21 innings 1252 @ 69.55 6 tons 3 50’s
He was 26 when he played his last test before the war and 34 when he played after the war.
A curious what if. Could’ve just been a very late bloomer or might’ve been dominant throughout the ‘10s as well. (obviously better pitch quality helped too)
Interesting that many of those Aussie XIs had multiple spinners until recently.
I’ve been thinking perhaps, an XI with Bradman already may be able to give up a spot and thus strengthen the bowling even more so it would not matter.
Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Bradman*
Tendulkar
Sobers
Gilchrist+
Hadlee
Marshall
Warne
Muralitharan
McGrath
You have 3 great pacers (with Sobers as backup), Warne and Murali spinning it big both ways and still an ATG batting lineup that at worst would be equal to anything it would come up against.
Perhaps in this specific case Imran may be worth picking over Hadlee.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I just don't see the point of having that many bowlers. Unless it's like a timeless test and on an absolute road you're better off with another batsman instead
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Yeah as much as Bradman kind of makes having a bowling all-rounder at 7 viable, Sobers' bowling makes it a waste.
If you want two spinners then leave out the third quick IMO.
bagapath
International Captain
Imran over McGrath would give better balance
Imran, Hadlee, Marshall, Warne and Murali is a combo that can probably be matched for bowling. but never for bowling + late order batting.
Closest would be: Miller, Akram, O Reilley, Laker and McGrath.
kyear2
Cricketer Of The Year
In that line up Imran has to be the pick, also Hammond should also be a consideration over Tendulkar for obvious reasons. Either that or Sunny over Sutcliffe.
kyear2
Cricketer Of The Year
Agree with both, as intriguing as 5 bowlers may look, it just leaves you exposed on the batting end. The brilliance of Sobers is that he can either be the 2nd spinner or the 3rd seamer.
kyear2
Cricketer Of The Year
It would have to be Imran for Hadlee imo, still want your best two opening bowlers. The more I look at it though, just don't see the justification for 5 bowlers.
kyear2
Cricketer Of The Year
The thing about these all time.teams is that they practically and mostly pick themselves
1. Hobbs
2.
3. Bradman
4. Tendulkar
5.
6. Sobers
7. Gilchrist
8.
9. Marshall
10.
11. McGrath
From previous and multiple polls, votes and observations, 7 members of the team practically pick themselves and are now automatics. Really just 4 that are genuinely up for grabs...
The no. 2 spot is always between Hutton and Gavaskar. I personally go Gavaskar and he gives a decent 2nd viable option for the cordon.
The no. 4 / 5 spot is realistically between Richards, Smith and Lara with Richards normally being my choice. Though with these 3 there is no wrong answer.
The 3rd bowler comes down the another trio Hadlee, Steyn and Imran. Hadlee should be my pick based on rankings, but the other two does bring reverse swing.
And finally Warne vs Murali which is normally the closest of the bunch, yet Warne always seems to edge out somehow.
All these years of the game and only 4 up for grabs is kinda impressive.
1. Hobbs
2.
3. Bradman
4. Tendulkar
5.
6. Sobers
7. Gilchrist
8.
9. Marshall
10.
11. McGrath
From previous and multiple polls, votes and observations, 7 members of the team practically pick themselves and are now automatics. Really just 4 that are genuinely up for grabs...
The no. 2 spot is always between Hutton and Gavaskar. I personally go Gavaskar and he gives a decent 2nd viable option for the cordon.
The no. 4 / 5 spot is realistically between Richards, Smith and Lara with Richards normally being my choice. Though with these 3 there is no wrong answer.
The 3rd bowler comes down the another trio Hadlee, Steyn and Imran. Hadlee should be my pick based on rankings, but the other two does bring reverse swing.
And finally Warne vs Murali which is normally the closest of the bunch, yet Warne always seems to edge out somehow.
All these years of the game and only 4 up for grabs is kinda impressive.
Coronis
Cricketer Of The Year
Idk my thinking is (for example) in a 100 over innings im gettting 25 from each spinner, 15 from each pacer and 5 from Sobers.
I reckon most people would leave out at least 1 of these seven.
A lot of people would pick someone you haven't mentioned at all.
Macartney was first picked as a bowling all-rounder who could bat anywhere in the order. Got his chance as regular number 3 when players stayed at home in 1912 following a dispute with the board. It was a very wet English summer and Macartney batted well on the rain-damaged surfaces.
Had mental issues after the break, thought to be war-related. It didn't affect his batting, which went from strength to strength, other than leading him to miss matches, including the entire 1924-25 series with a nervous breakdown.
Very highly rated by English critics, many of whom placed him in the top tier. In 1950 Cardus included him in his World XI of the 20th century, ahead of the likes of Hammond and Headley.
capt_Luffy
International Debutant
I think for some reason did he rated Hammond and Headley lower than other critics?? I am asking this as those two not only missed to be in his "6 Giants of the Wisden Century" in 1963; but they also missed out on the 12 man shortlist; which Johnny Tyldesly, Bart King and even Bernard Bosenquet made.