The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[TheJediBrah]

agreed. along with this, teams outside the cauldron of international cricket tend to be worse. in domestic cricket there is always someone to exploit.

we see it all the time in t20. star studded franchises still can't bring the intensity of international sides and i remember back in the day they had to rig the champions league with ipl spam (player theft wasn't enough apparently).

I mean this should be all be common sense, but well explained by you and trundler. The best thing to happen to these South African cricketers in terms of reputation was not being able to play, because the reality of how good they would have been is almost certainly far less than what people imagine.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Well Ian Chappell (and a few other experts) say G Pollock and B Richards were 2 of the greatest of all time (at Viv and Greg Chappell levels). Throw in 3 world-class allrounders in Procter, Rice, and Barlow and good quality quicks there is no reason why they couldn't have been at the level of the West Indies.

 

[Bolo.]

I have a hard time believing South Africa collected an army of world beaters at precisely the same time they were barred from international cricket. It is very likely some of those blokes would've been found out at the highest level and even more likely that their peaks never would've coincided to form an ATG team. I believe Van Der Bijl was largely finished by the time Cook broke through, for example. It's a bit like saying Ponting/Clarke/Hussey/Smith is the greatest middle order ever fielded except those guys actually proved themselves at the highest level. Bit of nostalgia, bit of hindsight and a fuzzy chronology there.

Bit of a strawman to look at an era when RSA were past their best and conclude they were not that good. They were already ranked number 1 in the world in 69. They had a couple of seriously weak links at that stage and a lot of seriously talented players coming though at the start of the 70s. Even if all the new guys underperform, which is seriously unlikely, the team possibly gets stronger.

 

[trundler]

I don't buy the Barry Richards hype. As Flem pointed out, there's always somewhere to hide in domestic cricket. Unless blokes get tested at the highest level, we're more or less relying solely on the eye test. The gulf between Hookes, M Waugh and Tendulkar basically disappears as all 3 would dominate second rate bowling to the same extent. The relentlessness of test cricket separates the wheat from the chaff. There's also the fact that apparent talent is just the high SR gud meme and pretty conventional shots. There's far more romanticism about Richards than Boycott, a man who had the most runs in test cricket at one point as well as literally twice as many FC tons.

Bit of a strawman to look at an era when RSA were past their best and conclude they were not that good. They were already ranked number 1 in the world in 69. They had a couple of seriously weak links at that stage and a lot of seriously talented players coming though at the start of the 70s. Even if all the new guys underperform, which is seriously unlikely, the team possibly gets stronger.

Yeah, but who knows? My problem was mainly that Hookshot's XI didn't really account for things like form, peak timing etc. Van Der Bijl may have improved the early 70s team but having him in a team with Jimmy Cook doesn't make any sense as I said. The former was finished by 1980. RSA had some very good players at that time, no doubt and may have had a formidable lineup but there's definitely a case of absence making the heart grow fonder here. Now I'm verging into hot take territory with this one but I think as good as he was, even G Pollock feasted on some seriously lightweight attacks in between Trueman and Lillee. McKenzie and Snow led the attacks Pollock faced. Missing out on tests definitely makes people rate South Africans of that era more highly than is warranted IMO.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Partly agreed with trundler, but it shouldnt be ignored that pre isolation SA were a genuinely great team. Hard to evaluate how good some of those players would've been had they had to play long careers though yeah

 

[Coronis]

South Africa was the strongest team before their ban because at that time they had the strongest bowling in world cricket (Procter’s emergence with great support from Pollock and Goddard, not to mention guys like Barlow) and Pollock was one of the top batsmen in the world (despite Simpson and Walters and Sobers all having amazing runs none of them ended up matching his record through his career, though Barrington’s amazing peak did).

Obviously they were world class in both batting and bowling, and there was a lot of young talent whose international careers were cut short or completely destroyed in the picture. No doubt in my mind their players of that time will always be romanticised because of this, but I also often see the opposite, people just ignoring the facts that were already there. Its obviously hard to predict what might have happened but South Africa would’ve been firmly entrenched as the top team until the mid-late 70’s and from there it would have been a fierce back and forth throughout the early 80’s before swinging towards the Windies favour. Aside from SA’s obvious strength in allrounders, both teams were pretty similar, especially thinking on the lack of a spinner. (Which would make Warne and Murali’s emergence all the more surprising and enjoyable)

 

[trundler]

I might appear to be going too much the other way so I'll temper that sentiment by stating that Mike Procter did some absolutely freaky things with both bat and ball that are hard to ignore. Pollock likely would've been among the world's best bats too and SA even had a gun keeper bat which was a rarity at that time. I don't think people discrediting 70s SA happens nearly as much as the nostalgic exaggerations though. In fact, it almost doesn't happen unless you count me being sceptical above. The exaggerations do baffle me though. An esteemed member here regularly presents the view that Procter was as good a bowler as Hadlee and as good a batsman as Botham, ignoring the universal trend of all rounders getting nerfed in at least one discipline once they step up to test cricket. There is also a common sentiment that Richards was far more gifted than the first man to breach 30 test tons. This is evidently the high SR gud meme at play here. I rate Barlow, Goddard and the Pollocks though I do stand by my idea that Graeme is rated especially leniently. I also think Border was clearly better than Chappell so my heretic views on these subjects are unlikely to be popular.

 

[Gob]

Did Hughes play a game? Thought it was Katich for most of the series

Katman was injured after Adelaide which brought in the prince for Perth
Ftr they also axed peter north and brought in steve smith who admitted his role in the team was to have a bit of fun and keep others entertained

 

[Bolo.]

Yeah, but who knows? My problem was mainly that Hookshot's XI didn't really account for things like form, peak timing etc. Van Der Bijl may have improved the early 70s team but having him in a team with Jimmy Cook doesn't make any sense as I said. The former was finished by 1980. RSA had some very good players at that time, no doubt and may have had a formidable lineup but there's definitely a case of absence making the heart grow fonder here. Now I'm verging into hot take territory with this one but I think as good as he was, even G Pollock feasted on some seriously lightweight attacks in between Trueman and Lillee. McKenzie and Snow led the attacks Pollock faced. Missing out on tests definitely makes people rate South Africans of that era more highly than is warranted IMO.

That XI is more a list of the best players who didnt get more than a couple tests than an actual team. You arent fielding a side without some of the 60s internationals, at least until after VD Bijl retires.

We know they were already number 1 and that much better domestic players were coming through. You can make a pretty good assumption about them improving, and possibly significantly.

I don't think there is anything contentious about bowling not being great in Pollocks era. Averaging 61 while playing outside your peak is ridiculous though. He's def a solid ATG, whether or not he belongs in the conversation with the real elite.

 

[Bolo.]

South Africa was the strongest team before their ban because at that time they had the strongest bowling in world cricket (Procter’s emergence with great support from Pollock and Goddard, not to mention guys like Barlow) and Pollock was one of the top batsmen in the world (despite Simpson and Walters and Sobers all having amazing runs none of them ended up matching his record through his career, though Barrington’s amazing peak did).

Obviously they were world class in both batting and bowling, and there was a lot of young talent whose international careers were cut short or completely destroyed in the picture. No doubt in my mind their players of that time will always be romanticised because of this, but I also often see the opposite, people just ignoring the facts that were already there. Its obviously hard to predict what might have happened but South Africa would’ve been firmly entrenched as the top team until the mid-late 70’s and from there it would have been a fierce back and forth throughout the early 80’s before swinging towards the Windies favour. Aside from SA’s obvious strength in allrounders, both teams were pretty similar, especially thinking on the lack of a spinner. (Which would make Warne and Murali’s emergence all the more surprising and enjoyable)

RSA would not have been close to the Windies in the early 80s. All their best players were aging out as WI were peaking. Late 70s would have been very interesting though.

 

[Starfighter]

South Africa was the strongest team before their ban because at that time they had the strongest bowling in world cricket (Procter’s emergence with great support from Pollock and Goddard, not to mention guys like Barlow) and Pollock was one of the top batsmen in the world (despite Simpson and Walters and Sobers all having amazing runs none of them ended up matching his record through his career, though Barrington’s amazing peak did).

Obviously they were world class in both batting and bowling, and there was a lot of young talent whose international careers were cut short or completely destroyed in the picture. No doubt in my mind their players of that time will always be romanticised because of this, but I also often see the opposite, people just ignoring the facts that were already there. Its obviously hard to predict what might have happened but South Africa would’ve been firmly entrenched as the top team until the mid-late 70’s and from there it would have been a fierce back and forth throughout the early 80’s before swinging towards the Windies favour. Aside from SA’s obvious strength in allrounders, both teams were pretty similar, especially thinking on the lack of a spinner. (Which would make Warne and Murali’s emergence all the more surprising and enjoyable)

Hmm...
Peter Pollock's knees were on the way out at the time. While I'm more optimistic than @TheJediBrah on van der Bijl (you don't average 16.5 in FC without being a bit good) he's an unknown. Proctor was rapidly declining by the late seventies due to his own knees. Hanley is also a complete unknown. If we look at the eighties (aside from Le Roux) we have Page, Watson, van Zyl, Jeffries - none of whom were any better (or quicker) than Lawson and Rackemann when WI beat Australia handily.

And @trundler is right about the strike rate fetishisation and Richards. Boycott had a better FC record so why the insistence that Richards may have averaged a lot more?

One thing worth pointing out is that SA was beaten by WI is 83/84 (I think). That WI side had only one batsman (Kallicharran) who averaged over 40, the rest were well short of even a Larry Gomes. So how can we conclude it would have been neck and neck? I'm personally not convinced SA would've been any better than Australia in 1975 - both overall and actually in 1975.

 

[HookShot]

Funnily enough South Africa did play against a quasi Australian team managed by Richie Benaud in 1976. The series ended up being reasonably even……

‘International Wanderers March-April 1976

The highlight of the South African 1975/6 season was a tour by the International Wanderers. They played 3 first-class games and 1 one-day game against a South African Invitation XI. They also played a first-class game against a weaker South African Board President's XI. This was the strongest team to tour South Africa since isolation, and comprised players from 4 countries. The tourists were managed by Richie Benaud and captained by Australian Greg Chappell in all four main representative games. Englishmen Mike Denness and Bob Taylor, and West Indian John Shepherd also played in all four games. The other players, their nationalities and the games they played in are as follows (numbers relate to the first-class games, OD relates to the one-day game): Ian Chappell (Australia) 1, OD; Phil Edmonds (Zambian-born Englishman) OD, 3; Gary Gilmour (Australia) 1, 2, 3; Alan Hurst (Australia) 1, 3; Martin Kent (Australia) 1, 2, 3; Dennis Lillee (Australia) 2, 3; Ashley Mallett (Australia) 1, OD, 2; John Morrison (New Zealand) 1, OD, 2; Glenn Turner (New Zealand) OD, 2, 3; Derek Underwood (England) 1, OD, 3; Max Walker (Australia) OD, 2.

The South African Invitation XI was again captained by Eddie Barlow, who played in all four representative games, as did Clive Rice and Vintcent van der Bijl. A number of coloured players were selected for the Invitation XI. These, and the games they played in, were Abdullatief Barnes 1, 2; Winston Carelse 1, 2; Ismail Ebrahim 3; Devdas Govindjee OD; D Jacobs OD; Farouk Timol 3.

The other players selected for South Africa were Hylton Ackerman OD; Howard Bergins 1, 2, 3; Henry Fotheringham 1; Jack Heron 1; Denys Hobson 1; Lee Irvine OD, 2, 3; Peter Kirsten 1; Douglas Neilson OD; Gavin Pfuhl 1; Graeme Pollock OD, 2, 3; Anthony Smith OD, 2, 3; Barry Richards OD, 2, 3; Lorrie Wilmot 2, 3.’

International cricket in South Africa from 1971 to 1981

International cricket in South Africa between 1971 and 1981 consisted of 4 private tours arranged by English sports promoter Derrick Robins, 2 tours by a private team called the International Wanderers , and one women s Test match. The apartheid…

en-academic.com

Date	Result	Venue	Scheduled length
18,19,20,22 Mar	International Wanderers (220 & 324) beat South African Invitation XI (290 & 69) by 185 runs	Newlands, Cape Town	4 days
24 Mar	South African Invitation XI (176-6) lost to International Wanderers (177-5) by 5 wkts	St George's Park, Port Elizabeth	50 overs
26,27,28 Mar	South African Board President's XI (321 & 182) drew with International Wanderers (241-5d & 210-9)	St George's Park, Port Elizabeth	3 days
2,3,5,6,7 Apr	International Wanderers (134 & 466) drew with South African Invitation XI (324 & 91-8)	New Wanderers, Johannesburg	4 days
8,9,10,12 Apr	South African Invitation XI (178 & 269) beat International Wanderers (99 & 226)	Kingsmead, Dur

International cricket in South Africa from 1971 to 1981 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Coronis]

Hmm...
Peter Pollock's knees were on the way out at the time. While I'm more optimistic than @TheJediBrah on van der Bijl (you don't average 16.5 in FC without being a bit good) he's an unknown. Proctor was rapidly declining by the late seventies due to his own knees. Hanley is also a complete unknown. If we look at the eighties (aside from Le Roux) we have Page, Watson, van Zyl, Jeffries - none of whom were any better (or quicker) than Lawson and Rackemann when WI beat Australia handily.

And @trundler is right about the strike rate fetishisation and Richards. Boycott had a better FC record so why the insistence that Richards may have averaged a lot more?

One thing worth pointing out is that SA was beaten by WI is 83/84 (I think). That WI side had only one batsman (Kallicharran) who averaged over 40, most of them were well short of even a Larry Gomes. So how can we conclude it would have been neck and neck? I'm personally not convinced SA would've been any better than Australia in 1975 - both overall and actually in 1975.

You’re right I’ve been looking more closely at some stuff and there were definitely some longevity issues with some of these guys, based on the evidence we have no they wouldn’t compete with the Windies in the 80’s. I definitely disagree on 75 though, and as for using one of the Rebel tours as an argument, I’ll just say team continuity and actually having all your players being available for selection may make a significant impact on the performance of the team. In 75 with Procter, Richards, Rice and van der Bijl all in their primes i have no doubt they would have been #1 (or vying for it) at that point, with comparable batting lineups to the other teams and imo the best bowling lineup at that stage prior to Roberts gaining some more support.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

NZ were unbeaten at home in the 1980s. I wonder if the Saffas would have beaten them (remember NZ has never beaten SA in a test series).

 

[jayjay]

NZ were unbeaten at home in the 1980s. I wonder if the Saffas would have beaten them (remember NZ has never beaten SA in a test series).

I had no clue...how many tests did NZ play at home in the 80s? And against which teams? How many tests did they actually win?

 

[jayjay]

How about an all time XI of the best players not from one of the top teams, to make it easy, these are the teams I consider to be sub par and will be picking players from:

Bangladesh
Zimbabwe
Afghanistan
Ireland
For LOs include various associate nations, Kneya etc.

So for tests:
1. T. Iqbal BANG
2. G. Flower ZIMB
3. H. Masakadza ZIMB
4. A. Flower ZIMB
5. S. al Hasan BANG ar
6. M. Rahim BANG wk
7. H. Streak ZIMB ar c
8. R. Khan AFG
9. M. Hasan Miraz BANG
10. T. Murtagh IRL
11. B. Rankin IRL

LOs to follow.

 

[Nintendo]

How about an all time XI of the best players not from one of the top teams, to make it easy, these are the teams I consider to be sub par and will be picking players from:

Bangladesh
Zimbabwe
Afghanistan
Ireland
For LOs include various associate nations, Kneya etc.

So for tests:
1. T. Iqbal BANG
2. G. Flower ZIMB
3. H. Masakadza ZIMB
4. A. Flower ZIMB
5. S. al Hasan BANG ar
6. M. Rahim BANG wk
7. H. Streak ZIMB ar c
8. R. Khan AFG
9. M. Hasan Miraz BANG
10. T. Murtagh IRL
11. B. Rankin IRL

LOs to follow.

I could genuinly see the combo of rashid, shakib and A flower randomly trouncing a few sides in SC conditions.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

How about an all time XI of the best players not from one of the top teams, to make it easy, these are the teams I consider to be sub par and will be picking players from:

Bangladesh
Zimbabwe
Afghanistan
Ireland
For LOs include various associate nations, Kneya etc.

So for tests:
1. T. Iqbal BANG
2. G. Flower ZIMB
3. H. Masakadza ZIMB
4. A. Flower ZIMB
5. S. al Hasan BANG ar
6. M. Rahim BANG wk
7. H. Streak ZIMB ar c
8. R. Khan AFG
9. M. Hasan Miraz BANG
10. T. Murtagh IRL
11. B. Rankin IRL

LOs to follow.

Replace Rankin with Rubel and we are set

 

[TheJediBrah]

How about an all time XI of the best players not from one of the top teams, to make it easy, these are the teams I consider to be sub par and will be picking players from:

Bangladesh
Zimbabwe
Afghanistan
Ireland
For LOs include various associate nations, Kneya etc.

So for tests:
1. T. Iqbal BANG
2. G. Flower ZIMB
3. H. Masakadza ZIMB
4. A. Flower ZIMB
5. S. al Hasan BANG ar
6. M. Rahim BANG wk
7. H. Streak ZIMB ar c
8. R. Khan AFG
9. M. Hasan Miraz BANG
10. T. Murtagh IRL
11. B. Rankin IRL

LOs to follow.

Hamilton Masakadza? Really? Zimbabwe alone has dozens of better bats

 

[honestbharani]

I had no clue...

Finally............