• 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

kyear2

International Coach
Benaud's shortlist of fast bowlers (and by his own criteria he was limited to 6) were:

- Lindwall
- Trueman
- McGrath
- Larwood
- Lillee
- Barnes

It is very Anglo-centric (but he does include Imran, Botham, Hadlee and Kapil in the shortlist for all-rounders).

While you could argue for the inclusion of Marshall, and others like Waqar, Wasim, Ambrose & Holding, I don't think you can argue that any of the top six shouldn't be in there.
Great bowlers all, but no way is Lindwall, Larwood and Trueman better than Marshall and Barnes played all of 27 tests on substandard pitches. When I did a list of most persons AT XI's the only person who didn't choose Marshall was Benuad.
Then again in his Wk short list some how he choose Healy and Marsh over Knott and Quadir over Murali was just tranparent.
 

kyear2

International Coach
Benaud rarely makes disparaging remarks about any aspect of the game. However, many cricket lovers loathed the WI's pace barrage of the 80s, the slow over rates, lack of subtlety in bowling tactics, and the absence of spin bowling. I would say he's making a point without actually saying anything.
They loathed loosing, but yes I can believe that reason. And by the way, no one was less subtle, more aggressive and less sporting than Lillee and Lindwall wasn't too shy with the bumpers either.
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Great bowlers all, but no way is Lindwall, Larwood and Trueman better than Marshall and Barnes played all of 27 tests on substandard pitches. When I did a list of most persons AT XI's the only person who didn't choose Marshall was Benuad.
Then again in his Wk short list some how he choose Healy and Marsh over Knott and Quadir over Murali was just tranparent.
I don't really care about Barnes, because like most early era players, he's too hard to judge. So if someone includes him, or doesn't include him, I don't really mind.

I think you can mount a case for Trueman, Lindwall and maybe Larwood being Marshall's equals. Of course it's all subjective, but it's possible.

Personally, I'd include Marshall in a shortlist of 6, but he may or may not make my final XI. Lillee always will, Imran usually will, then the third spot for a quick depends on the day.

Benaud's biggest oversight was not including Knott. I can't fathom how you'd have Marsh over Knott in that shortlist. They were contemporaries, and Knott was a better keeper, and probably a better batsman. Odd.

Qadir was also a strange choice. Really strange! I think Benaud was making a point here without making a quote, possibly that he views Murali's action suspiciously. I'd have thought he'd have included Grimmett over Qadir anyway.

They loathed loosing, but yes I can believe that reason. And by the way, no one was less subtle, more aggressive and less sporting than Lillee and Lindwall wasn't too shy with the bumpers either.
I assume his point is that fast bowlers should be aggressive, but that when there are four of them, bowling slow over rates with a lot of bouncers and balls that are ridiculously difficult to score from, it makes for very unattractive, monotonous cricket. Fwiw I agree with that.


.
 
Last edited:

Satyanash89

Banned
While you could argue for the inclusion of Marshall, and others like Waqar, Wasim, Ambrose & Holding, I don't think you can argue that any of the top six shouldn't be in there.
Now that I see which six he shortlisted, I see your point. Maybe I'm just used to seeing Marshall named as one of the very best fast bowlers, so when someone doesn't have him in their top 6, I find it exceedingly strange. If it had been someone on CW who had said Marshall wasn't in the top 6 fast bowlers ever, I would disagree vehemently... I think most here would too.

The thing is, I think a tiny bit of bias might have creeped into his selections because of the fact that they probably followed the Ashes more than any other Test series. Bradman, in particular had a very strange XI... apart from Barry Richards, Tendulkar and Sobers, Bradman's entire team consisted of players he'd either played with or against.
 

kyear2

International Coach
I don't really care about Barnes, because like most early era players, he's too hard to judge. So if someone includes him, or doesn't include him, I don't really mind.

I think you can mount a case for Trueman, Lindwall and maybe Larwood being Marshall's equals. Of course it's all subjective, but it's possible.

Personally, I'd include Marshall in a shortlist of 6, but he may or may not make my final XI. Lillee always will, Imran usually will, then the third spot for a quick depends on the day.

Benaud's biggest oversight was not including Knott. I can't fathom how you'd have Marsh over Knott in that shortlist. They were contemporaries, and Knott was a better keeper, and probably a better batsman. Odd.

Qadir was also a strange choice. Really strange! I think Benaud was making a point here without making a quote, possibly that he views Murali's poorly. I'd have thought he'd have included Grimmett over Qadir anyway.



I assume his point is that fast bowlers should be aggressive, but that when there are four of them, bowling slow over rates with a lot of bouncers and balls that are ridiculous to score from, it makes for very unattractive, monotonous cricket. Fwiw I agree with that.


.
If we were discussing the '70's then I would be more inclined to agree, Marshall did have a good bouncer, but he seldom over used it. Garner was a more short a length bowler and he didn't have Marshall's variety, but he didn't over do it either. Holding got most of his wickets LBW and bolwed, kind of hard to do that when dropping bouncers every ball, though he was the fondest of the bunch when it came to the bouncers, but he too gets a bad rap based on some of his actions in the '70's namely againts the Indian's and agains Close.
The worse offenders when it came to the bouncers was Croft and Roberts and yes Holding but that was as mentioned mostly in the '70's. I can assure you from growing up watching them, watching us play was hardly unattractive or monotonous.
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
If we were discussing the '70's then I would be more inclined to agree, Marshall did have a good bouncer, but he seldom over used it. Garner was a more short a length bowler and he didn't have Marshall's variety, but he didn't over do it either. Holding got most of his wickets LBW and bolwed, kind of hard to do that when dropping bouncers every ball, though he was the fondest of the bunch when it came to the bouncers, but he too gets a bad rap based on some of his actions in the '70's namely againts the Indian's and agains Close.
The worse offenders when it came to the bouncers was Croft and Roberts and yes Holding but that was as mentioned mostly in the '70's. I can assure you from growing up watching them, watching us play was hardly unattractive or monotonous.
I remember the Ambrose/Bishop/Patterson/Marshall/Walsh type era. I loved them. I don't disagree at all. However, I absolutely love watching spin bowlers. If someone said to me "would you rather watch Marshall or Warne bowl a spell?", I'd choose Warne every time.

I think, from Benaud's point to view, he likes variety. And I agree. Rather than having four very quick bowlers forming an attack, he'd like to have some variety in there. I think this might skew his judgement of Marshall slightly, in that he spearheaded an attack of four quicks that dominated proceedings for a long time.
 

the big bambino

International Captain
I find that comment strange, thats like saying Murali's average was inflated by playing too much vs Lara and Tendulkar and should have played Zim and Bangladesh more.
I don't rate players particularily on what they did againts minnows, be it Bradman, Weekes, Sangakkara or Murali and so it shouldn't be any different for Barnes.
Barnes played proportionately more games v his strongest opponent than Murali. It is a consequence common to most cricketers from an era leading up the the 2nd war. That is all I'm saying. If given a test program similar to modern players where they proportion their games more evenly against a variety of opponents their figures would improve.

I admit to a prejudice against medium pace spinners. However Barnes isn't one of them. Neither is my prejudice valid after I checked Trumble's record as it seemd he performed just as well as Barnes in similar conditions and better than fast bowlers and leg breakers like Cotter, Jones, Hordern, Bosanquet, Braund and even FR Foster: Bowlers made for true conditions. Therefore the point about medium pace spinners being ineffective in modern conditions isn't valied either. At least not for Trumble.
 
Last edited:

the big bambino

International Captain
The disregard for the Windies pace bowlers continues on the lines of Benaud and Bradman. Gibbs ahead of Marshall. Malcolm would roll in his grave if he gave a f*** :laugh:
:laugh: I can understand the fun in picking ATG teams but they really are a nonsense. But so is cricket (and all games) really. A fun and engaging nonsense. I love the game and its past just as much as I always have. I lost interest in ATG sides when it occured that players really only qualify where they excel in part of their careers. So you would have to qualify your selection with say the Miller of 46-50 not the Miller of his last years. Same with Lindwall. Or the Imran when he batted and bowled not the man who batted really well when his bowling went off. I knew I'd lost interest when I started to mock my own selections: "Yeah Richards is good but would he be able to play Thor bowling balls of lightning if your side was playing a team of Norse Gods!"

So I'm guessing Marshall couldn't care less. I'm sure he'd love the opportunity to prove everyone wrong if you left him out but picked him in a side of the left overs.
 

watson

Banned
Dickie Bird's All Time Test XI apparently is:

Barry Richards
Sunil Gavaskar
Vivian Richards
Graeme Pollock
Greg Chappell
Garry Sobers
Imran Khan
Alan Knott
Shane Warne
Dennis Lillee
Lance Gibbs

What in the world is Gibbs doing there?? I think this is a team of players who he has actually seen play, so Don, Hobbs, Grace, Hutton, Barnes, Headley, Hammond, Miller were disqualified. But why Gibbs?
That list is incorrect if citing Dickie Birds autobiography, page 311. His ATG XI is madeup of the players he has seen in action, and is;

01. Barry Richards
02. Sunil Gavaskar
03. Viv Richards
04. Greg Chappell
05. Graeme Pollock
06. Garfield Sobers
07. Alan Knott
08. Richard Hadlee
09. Michael Holding
10. Dennis Lillee
11. Lance Gibbs

12th Andy Roberts & Abdul Qadir

He commented;

'I consider Barry Richards to be the best batsman I have ever seen.'

'To provide balance in the squad I had to have a couple of spin bowlers, and this gave me the biggest headache of all. There is no doubt about my off-spinner. That choice fell on Lance Gibbs...Probably the biggest spinner of the ball I have ever seen.'

'So we come to Qadir. Maybe he did not turn the ball as much as Warne, and maybe he was not as devastating on a turner as Underwood, but he finally gets my vote because his variation was unmatchable.'

'As for the fast bowlers, to my mind Dennis Lillee was the best who ever lived.'
 
Last edited:

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Andy Roberts as the 12th man? Over Garner and Marshall?
Interesting. He had the best view of anyone to assess those guys.

I think umpires opinions are the most interesting really. Generally they're unbiased in the most part, and they have a real idea of what these guys were like in the middle.
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
01. Barry Richards
02. Sunil Gavaskar
03. Viv Richards
04. Greg Chappell
05. Graeme Pollock
06. Garfield Sobers
07. Alan Knott
08. Richard Hadlee
09. Michael Holding
10. Dennis Lillee
11. Lance Gibbs

12th Andy Roberts & Abdul Qadir
That team is awesome. Absolutely awesome.
 

kyear2

International Coach
Never seen anyone rate Gibbs that highly, though JBMAC has him as one of the 5 best spinners he has seen.
 

watson

Banned
Dickie Bird doesn't describe why Gibbs is preferred over Qadir or Warne in his squad, which is listed exactly as follows;

Barry Richards
Sunil Gavaskar
Viv Richards
Greg Chappell
Graeme Pollock
Garfield Sobers
Alan Knott
Richard Hadlee
Michael Holding
Dennis Lillee
Lance Gibbs
Andy Roberts
Abdul Qadir

However, he does spend some time talking about Qadir and Warne.
 

Coronis

International Coach
I believe Hammond gets very overlooked in ATG discussions, probably because, he had the unfortunate luck to play at the same time as Hobbs, who was considered England's batsman (still is, according to many) and Bradman. So, I guess I'm putting his case forward.

But geez, when you look at his stats, he's absolutely insane.

In tests,
85 matches, 140 innings
7249 runs @ 58.45
22 centuries
7 double centuries

In first class,
634 matches, 1005 innings
50551 runs @ 56.10
167 centuries

Sadly, I have so far been unable to find further records of his first class career (double centuries), but in tests alone, those figures are amazing. Almost a third of the time he scored 100, he'd go on to 200. Only 3 players have scored more double centuries than him, one is the Don, and the other two have played many more tests than him. Apart from Bradman, only one player (Boycott) has a higher average than him in first class cricket, of those to score 20000 runs or more. He has scored the third highest amount of centuries in first class cricket however, playing 300 less innings than those above him.

He even came back, at the age of 43, after the second world war, afflicted by arthritis, to once again play test cricket. Had it not been for this, his average would have been 61.45.

Of course, he was also a very useful fast bowler, and an excellent slip fielder.

So I guess I'm putting him into my XI.

1. Jack Hobbs
2. Herbert Sutcliffe
3. Don Bradman*
4. Graeme Pollock
5. Wally Hammond^
6. Garry Sobers^
7. Adam Gilchrist+
8. Malcolm Marshall
9. Shane Warne^
10. Muttiah Muralitharan
11. Glenn McGrath

I guess people will still harp on about me needing a 3rd ATG pace bowler, but hey, both Warne and Murali have bowled early in test matches, and taken wickets. Hammond and Sobers can both bowl some pace if needed. Also, that's a damn good slip cordon, I reckon.
 

Top