The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[TheJediBrah]

I dunno if he was ever gonna bowl enough in 50 tests basically all played over the age of 30 to take 5 wickets per test and end up with 250 however.

That's definitely possible but also kind of covered with the whole "if it weren't for injuries" thing.

Anyway it may just be me but I'll always rate bowlers like Ryan Harris and Shane Bond more as pure bowlers than your Jimmy Andersons and Stuart Broads, even though clearly the latter had "better careers".

 

[trundler]

Harris took 4 per game though so the idea that he'd have taken 250 in 50 seems far-fetched.

If Akram had better fielded he'd have about 500 wickets at 20.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Harris took 4 per game though so the idea that he'd have taken 250 in 50 seems far-fetched.

I was very careful to avoid implying that he would take 5 wickets a game. It's why I said "50+" (as in more than 50) and "250ish". But of course you still come along . . .

 

[trundler]

In any case it's a statement with too many ifs to have any meaning.

If he'd played 50 tests and if he hadn't had so many injuries and if he'd maintained his level and if he'd not have been given the treatment given to injury prone pacers...

 

[TheJediBrah]

In any case it's a statement with too many ifs to have any meaning.

That makes no sense. It's a simple statement that has the exact meaning that it states.

You're trying way too hard to find things to nitpick

 

[trundler]

I'm not. I demonstrated that in the very next paragraph. Nice try though.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'm not. I demonstrated that in the very next paragraph. Nice try though.

The only thing you demonstrated was your lack of reading comprehension. There's nothing wrong with what I said, stop trying so hard.

Don't know what's happened to you lately but you seem to have deliberately sacrificed being a good poster to try and be funny/a **** and the result is you've ended up being neither.

 

[trundler]

The only thing you demonstrated was your lack of reading comprehension. There's nothing wrong with what I said, stop trying so hard.

Don't know what's happened to you lately but you seem to have deliberately sacrificed being a good poster to try and be funny/a **** and the result is you've ended up being neither.

Ok

 

[Tom Flint]

If there any stats that suggest life was easier for quick to bowl in Asia before the mid 00s compared to the average the quick have in the sub continent these days?

 

[Coronis]

If there any stats that suggest life was easier for quick to bowl in Asia before the mid 00s compared to the average the quick have in the sub continent these days?

Nah we’ve just had more great batsmen in Asia since then.

 

[Tom Flint]

Really? I don't buy that. The quick from pre 00s seem to have better sub c averages than the guys these days, and the spinners from the 80s in particular didn't do great over there

 

[trundler]

If anything they should've improved because of reverse swing.

 

[Coronis]

Really? I don't buy that. The quick from pre 00s seem to have better sub c averages than the guys these days, and the spinners from the 80s in particular didn't do great over there

I mean in terms of greats earlier there was what, Miandad and Gavaskar, maybe Hanif? This century alone we’ve had Tendulkar, Sangakkara, Dravid, Younis, Inzy, Moyo, Sehwag and now Kohli and Pujara. Definite uptick in their batting imo.

 

[Tom Flint]

I mean in terms of greats earlier there was what, Miandad and Gavaskar, maybe Hanif? This century alone we’ve had Tendulkar, Sangakkara, Dravid, Younis, Inzy, Moyo, Sehwag and now Kohli and Pujara. Definite uptick in their batting imo.

I feel we are talking about 2 completely different things lol

 

[Tom Flint]

If anything they should've improved because of reverse swing.

I thought about that but then I gathered more reverse swing was achieved in the 90s through lack of cameras and the fielding team being able to 'work' on the ball more without being caught.
I.e pakistan

 

[Coronis]

I feel we are talking about 2 completely different things lol

? You’re trying to find a way to prove that it was easier bowling pace in Asia pre 00’s based on the conditions, whereas I’m saying the difference in averages is due to the emergence of such excellent batsmen from Asia which you don’t buy.

 

[srbhkshk]

I thought about that but then I gathered more reverse swing was achieved in the 90s through lack of cameras and the fielding team being able to 'work' on the ball more without being caught.
I.e pakistan

India did it too, we just had **** bowlers.

 

[kyear2]

The only problem is that you then need to bat Gilchrist at 6 which was higher than what he batted for Australia. And if you get ther post 2005 Gilchrist he really isn't good enough to bat 6 and certainly not in an AT side.

An AT side can have whoever you want in it since it's your side but I personally think the best sides can bat down to 9 and have 4 ATG bowlers and 6 ATG batsmen plus Gilchrist.

Marshall, Hadlee, McGrath and Murali is easily enough bowling and batting. Similarly Imran, Warne, Ambrose and Garner is good enough in both departments. It's only really when you start going Imran, Miller, Botham, Hadlee and Warne that your tail becomes too long and your bowling doesn't make up for it. Or if you go Ambrose, Garner, McGrath and Murali you have great bowlers but a tail that can't stick around long enough for your numbers 6 and 7 to get the runs your side needs.

If truth be told no side needs more than 4 bowlers and one guy who can bowl maybe 20-30 overs a test. Most sides in history have played 4 bowlers and a part timer. In tests the 5th bowler is there to give the other guys a break when the ball is soft and isn't doing anything. And if you have Warne/ Murali they can shoulder the extra bowling load anyway.

Excellent post, agree with almost everything stated. Going too far in either direction doesn't make sense and you don't need to bat to 11 if it even remotely weakens your attack.

I still go Warne over Murali because as bowlers they are just about dead even and Warne gives me that 3rd body in the cordon while also being better with the bat.

 

[kyear2]

I believe bowlers win matches. My ATG team would have Marshall, Steyn, Hadlee and Muralitharan as bowlers. For me, it comes down to choosing Sobers or Imran. Since Don Bradman is worth two batsmen, I would choose a bowling all rounder over a batting all rounder.

The fast bowlers would destroy any opposition team in Aus/SA/Eng/NZ pitches. In spin pitches, Muralitharan would obviously share the workload as far as bowling is concerned. All the four quicks especially Steyn and Marshall have great records in subcontinent pitches.

Of course, all this is purely hypothetical.

Bradman is worth two batsmen, until he fails and you accept that it just takes one ball to dismiss anyone.

You team also places Gilly at 6 and Imran at 7 which is a slot too high for both in my humble opinion. With Marshall, Steyn, Murali and Hadlee your bowling is more than enough to carry the load with Sobers more than capable of picking up the slack with the old ball and it's not worth dropping arguably the 2nd best batsman ever and best slip in the team to play a 5 bowler who will hardly get a bowl, especially when the ball is capable of doing anything.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You team also places Gilly at 6 and Imran at 7 which is a slot too high for both in my humble opinion.

Just going to comment on this. While I agree that you probably don't need the 5 specialist bowlers I don't agree that in isolation no. 6 and 7 are too high for Gilchrist and Imran. Both were easily good enough to be top 6 batsmen, even in an ATG team (in Imran's case probably only during his peak batting phase though tbf)