The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Red]

Understood but we are contesting based on his stated view on ARs, where he has stated multiple times that primary top tier disciplines trumps secondary ones to merit consideration for an ATG side.

So what’s the issue if he views Gilchrist as an AR and he views his primary discipline as batting?

 

[capt_Luffy]

So what’s the issue if he views Gilchrist as an AR and he views his primary discipline as batting?

He contradicts himself. His whole mojo has been recently that "qualification on primary skills only, secondary is only a tie breaker/addon". Which should really mean taking the best keeper, and only using their batting to separate two equals. ARs, according to him, should qualify solely on primary discipline. We recently had a 3-4 page debate where he couldn't get his head around how I had Miller in my ATG Australia team. I wasn't asking him why he didn't, never said his POV was wrong, but he was the one saying no ways Miller belongs there. And the best part being having Botham in the English team all along...... This contradictions feels irritating really.

 

[subshakerz]

So what’s the issue if he views Gilchrist as an AR and he views his primary discipline as batting?

No he said he sees keeping as more important. Also has gone on and on about how elite catching behind the wicket makes all the difference and lower order batting matter less for great sides but chooses Gilchrist over Knott.

At the same time, he will flip on a dime and consider McGrath a better cricketer than Hadlee.

He is all over the place and hence our reactions.

 

[Red]

No he said he sees keeping as more important. Also has gone on and on about how elite catching behind the wicket makes all the difference and lower order batting matter less for great sides but chooses Gilchrist over Knott.

At the same time, he will flip on a dime and consider McGrath a better cricketer than Hadlee.

He is all over the place and hence our reactions.

I’m not really that invested in this, but for what concrete reasons do you consider choosing Gilchrist over Knott on the basis of his keeping so bad?

I watched the entirety of Gilchrist’s career. He kept to Warne and MacGill thru his entire career. Keeping to leg spin is the most difficult task for a keeper. You lose sight of the ball behind a right hand batter. Especially bowlers who rip it as much as those two. Pitching outside leg, ending up outside off, with the batsman in the keeper’s line of sight.

Gilchrist did this perfectly well. Make no mistake, if he was continually messing up chances he’d have played as a batsman and they’d have bought in someone they thought better than Gilchrist. Gilchrist would’ve easily played as a top six batsman in any test team in history, sans keeping.

Gilchrist was also an excellent keeper to pace, imo one of the best. Really athletic standing back.

As stated before, he did decline a little in his last year or so, but hey, that’s how it goes.

Fail to understand the rationale that Knott or Healy were significantly better keepers than him in any tangible way.

 

[Line and Length]

"Fail to understand the rationale that Knott or Healy were significantly better keepers than him in any tangible way."

@Red I have agreed with most of what you have posted but have a minor issue with this final statement. You cite Gilchrist's keeping to Warne but Warne himself said, on more than one occasion, that he preferred Healy as his keeper. Surely if he (Healy) wasn't a significantly better keeper then Warne wouldn't have said as much.
With regard to Knott. I watched his keeping to Underwood on 'stickies'. Underwood was a tad quicker than most spinners and earned his 'Deadly' sobriquet for his performances on tricky wickets. Knott's keeping to him was flawless.

 

[Coronis]

My grandfather used to tell me this whenever we watched cricket..

“Gilchrist is great, he bats like a great batsman but he also keeps like a great wicketkeeper”

Never saw anything to contradict that throughout his career.

 

[Red]

"Fail to understand the rationale that Knott or Healy were significantly better keepers than him in any tangible way."

@Red I have agreed with most of what you have posted but have a minor issue with this final statement. You cite Gilchrist's keeping to Warne but Warne himself said, on more than one occasion, that he preferred Healy as his keeper. Surely if he (Healy) wasn't a significantly better keeper then Warne wouldn't have said as much.
With regard to Knott. I watched his keeping to Underwood on 'stickies'. Underwood was a tad quicker than most spinners and earned his 'Deadly' sobriquet for his performances on tricky wickets. Knott's keeping to him was flawless.

As much as I loved Warnie, he was never one to let objectivity get in the road of a personal opinion that I felt was often based on personality.

 

[Coronis]

"Fail to understand the rationale that Knott or Healy were significantly better keepers than him in any tangible way."

@Red I have agreed with most of what you have posted but have a minor issue with this final statement. You cite Gilchrist's keeping to Warne but Warne himself said, on more than one occasion, that he preferred Healy as his keeper. Surely if he (Healy) wasn't a significantly better keeper then Warne wouldn't have said as much.
With regard to Knott. I watched his keeping to Underwood on 'stickies'. Underwood was a tad quicker than most spinners and earned his 'Deadly' sobriquet for his performances on tricky wickets. Knott's keeping to him was flawless.

Why not? If someone was asked who they prefer why does that inherently imply a great difference in quality? If someone says they prefer Hayden over Sehwag or vice versa does that mean there is a significant gap in their quality?

If I was Warne I would have also preferred my initial domestic keeper (Berry) and initial international keeper (Healy). You’d always prefer the guys you began playing with and have played with for your entire career so far. (unless of course it was the reverse and you had, say Gilly replacing Flower as Warne’s keeper)

 

[Victor Ian]

I dont know, just for numbers sake...

it seems like in an ATG scenario people are saying batsmen will score about two thirds of their usual output. so going with this...

Imran 30.2rpi = 20.1ATGrpi
Hadlee 23.3 = 15.5
Wasim 19.7 = 13.1
Steyn 10.5 = 7.0

Gilly 40.6 = 27.1
Knott 29.4 = 19.6

I dont know what that means, but it helped me pass 20 minutes or so.

 

[subshakerz]

I’m not really that invested in this, but for what concrete reasons do you consider choosing Gilchrist over Knott on the basis of his keeping so bad?

I watched the entirety of Gilchrist’s career. He kept to Warne and MacGill thru his entire career. Keeping to leg spin is the most difficult task for a keeper. You lose sight of the ball behind a right hand batter. Especially bowlers who rip it as much as those two. Pitching outside leg, ending up outside off, with the batsman in the keeper’s line of sight.

Gilchrist did this perfectly well. Make no mistake, if he was continually messing up chances he’d have played as a batsman and they’d have bought in someone they thought better than Gilchrist. Gilchrist would’ve easily played as a top six batsman in any test team in history, sans keeping.

Gilchrist was also an excellent keeper to pace, imo one of the best. Really athletic standing back.

As stated before, he did decline a little in his last year or so, but hey, that’s how it goes.

Fail to understand the rationale that Knott or Healy were significantly better keepers than him in any tangible way.

Nobody here thinks Gilly wasnt a high quality keeper. But having watched them both, Healy was just better. Safer, slightly quicker reflexes, etc.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Warne's judgement of other players was highly questionable. Often based on unrelated factors IMO. Of course Healy was a better keeper than Gilchrist. But that's not a dis on Gilchrist, Healy was truly special.

 

[kyear2]

I really don't have a problem with Kyear including Steyn over Imran in his ATG side, it's his team and I also rate Steyn as a marginally better bowler. What I have problem with is him literally asking people for reasons on including Imran, people giving those reasons and him disregarding them completely. "No 8 is not an allrounder position" Is ass; just take the team you feel will let you win. If that means you have more confidence in Steyn over Imran, be my guest; but don't question others for taking Imran.

Every part of this is a misrepresentation.

Two persons in particular said Imran was the better bowler and I said, convince me. Aimed at those two, not Subz. And it was a cordial exchange.

I also didn't question anyone for chosing him, I said it's not my personal leaning. Subz is the one who isn't just trying to convince me to change my mind, but all the while trying to intimate that I'm the only person who sees it that way.

Only selection I questioned was Miller in your Aus team. The balance doesn't make sense.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Every part of this is a misrepresentation.

Two persons in particular said Imran was the better bowler and I said, convince me. Aimed at those two, not Subz. And it was a cordial exchange.

I also didn't question anyone for chosing him, I said it's not my personal leaning. Subz is the one who isn't just trying to convince me to change my mind, but all the while trying to intimate that I'm the only person who sees it that way.

Only selection I questioned was Miller in your Aus team. The balance doesn't make sense.

While having Botham in England for exactly the same role..... That's what I call contradictory.

 

[subshakerz]

I also didn't question anyone for chosing him, I said it's not my personal leaning.

You've had multiple threads on the topic of late to try and spark a conversation of why ARs like Imran shouldn't be there, dude. You clearly have an unhealthy obsession and you've continually poked that bear so don't claim to be so innocent now.

Better bowling combo

Which would be the better bowling combo the world over, while also having a viable no. 8? McGrath (2) and Imran (6) Or Hadlee (3) and Steyn (4)

www.cricketweb.net

Best Attack

It's pretty simple, which is the best. First, the basics, yes we are factoring in all aspects of the game. For the sake of argument and uniformity we're using Warne, because quite frankly he's made the team every time we've done one. Plus it sets the rest of the tail for reference. Marshall...

www.cricketweb.net

Why is it viewed as more important

Why do certain members of the community seem to have a heater affinity for bowling all rounders over other dual types of cricketers. I've made my arguments and the best I've received is that everyone has to bat, not everyone has to bowl. That doesn't quantifiably indicate how it's contributed to...

www.cricketweb.net

 

[kyear2]

My grandfather used to tell me this whenever we watched cricket..

“Gilchrist is great, he bats like a great batsman but he also keeps like a great wicketkeeper”

Never saw anything to contradict that throughout his career.

Yeah, there's no compromise and for a position that's literally selected on all round ability he really is the best option.
Knott is no slouch easier and deserving of mention and even of selection.

But Gilly didn't drop anything, this entire angle of attack and baseless argument was pointless and without merit.

Gilly is one of about 6 locks in an AT XI, and possibly the 4th name written down.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah, there's no compromise and for a position that's literally selected on all round ability he really is the best option.
Knott is no slouch easier and deserving of mention and even of selection.

But Gilly didn't drop anything, this entire angle of attack and baseless argument was pointless and without merit.

Gilly is one of about 6 locks in an AT XI, and possibly the 4th name written down.

Reminder of your criteria for all-rounders:

The best all rounders are the ones who can make it purely on their primary skills without drop off, then the rest is the icing.

 

[Victor Ian]

This thing where Gilly is being touted as a gotcha regarding consistency is not what the posters think it is. This is apples and oranges.

 

[subshakerz]

This thing where Gilly is being touted as a gotcha regarding consistency is not what the posters think it is. This is apples and oranges.

Sorry can you clarify?

 

[Victor Ian]

Sorry can you clarify?

no.

 

[Bolo.]

Yeah, there's no compromise and for a position that's literally selected on all round ability he really is the best option.
Knott is no slouch easier and deserving of mention and even of selection.

But Gilly didn't drop anything, this entire angle of attack and baseless argument was pointless and without merit.

Gilly is one of about 6 locks in an AT XI, and possibly the 4th name written down.

Isn't an AR effectively definitionally a compromise though? Gilchrist wouldn't make a team of this level as either a bat or a keeper. However good he was, there is an option a touch better in each department. He's just a compromise most of us are very happy to make.

If you think he's a better compromise than guys like Imran and Hadlee, groovy. Pretty sure most agree. But everyone is comproming on teams in a game without unlimited subs. If people think trading a bit of wicket taking potential for a lot of batting by playing the 'best bowlers' without regard for what else they bring, OK. But these people are only playing 4/4.5 bowlers (and usually Gilchrist). They are already trading wicket taking potential in for more runs. And it's a bad tradeoff in my book, just one that a lot of people don't recognize because they are overly attached to the idea of traditional roles and team composition.