The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Flem274*]

I do sometimes wonder how much of it is the most talented batsmen just not being used as openers and how much of it is opening being harder. It's no doubt a bit of both IMO, but how much weight to give to each reason is something I wonder about sometimes. I don't think opening usually is harder in India for example but the best middle order players there still tend to have better records than the best openers.

I think less talented players are more likely to volunteer for the least popular job in cricket rather than try to push into crowded middle orders, but there's also a reason it is the least popular job, and we've still had many incredibly talented openers. Sehwag springs to mind as more gifted than any Indian of his era bar Tendulkar, and Jayasuriya, Anwar, Trescothick and Hayden were also right up there in natural talent relative to their peers.

I also think the requirements of opening outside the batting boom of the 00s make it harder to look naturally talented when compared to your mates in the middle order. We also have examples like Sehwag, Langer and present day Conway and Young who were exciting talented in FC who were put into opening because selectors didn't want to waste them in the reserves.

On the India example, that was true when we were growing up (somewhat clouded by global pitch homegenization imo) but I'm not sure the modern spin trio are dulled by a hard new rock for extra kick and Bumrah at the other end. A true kill yourself situation that.

I tend to lean towards opening just being harder, and think that a very talented player like Tom Latham who converted from wicketkeeper #5 for Canterbury to test opener would turn his 70s and 80s against the best attacks into 100+ scores if he batted at #4 but can understand the counter argument since we have Mark Richardson, Dean Elgar and the like. There are definitely many lesser lights who battle their way into opening, and it is rife at FC level with fringe test players.

If anything it makes part of me rate him a little higher than his overall average - he plays a disproportionate amount of games against a gun attack in conditions he seems unsuited to. On the other hand Australian pitches have been mostly roads during his career so it could have been something for him to actually cash in on.

This gets to the heart of these Fab 4 debates.
"He hasn't done anything in situation X"
"What about this?"
"Nah, it was a road/not real opposition/Warne was injured that day"

 

[Red]

Does he really? in terms of English middle order bats I’d have him below Hammond, Barrington, Compton and Root. And that’s before taking into account perhaps playing Hutton at 3 to grab all 3 great openers.

Id have him ahead of Root or Barrington personally but there’s really nothing in it. I wouldn’t argue against anyone who thought the others were better. Just think KP has that Gilchrist or Viv factor of being able to take a game away from opponents very quickly.

I don’t think he’s underrated, its just that aren’t the top 4 English openers pretty sewn up and Gooch and Cook are languishing down in the 3rd XI, no?

Probably all true. I just think he’s an underrated cricketer in general. Maybe under appreciated is a better term

 

[HookShot]

If anything it makes part of me rate him a little higher than his overall average - he plays a disproportionate amount of games against a gun attack in conditions he seems unsuited to. On the other hand Australian pitches have been mostly roads during his career so it could have been something for him to actually cash in on.

14 Test matches in Australia and no centuries is mildly irritating for a batsman of Joe Root’s class.

I think that his failure to make big scores has something to do with his punch through the off side on the back-foot which works beautifully on the lower bouncing pitches in England, but not in Australia.

 

[Red]

Miller is wasted in that team. He was at his best with quick sharp new ball bursts.

This is a bit of a myth that’s evolved around Miller. Bradman used him in short bursts cos he had Bill Johnston to do the grunt work and then generally two spinners plus Lindwall. But Miller could, and did bowl long successful spells when needed.

 

[bagapath]

All-time England XI

Sir John Berry Hobbs
Sir Len Hutton *
Peter May
Walter Hammond (6)
Denis Compton
Lord Ian Botham (4)
Alan Knott +
Fred Trueman (1)
John Snow (2)
Jim Laker (5)
Sid Barnes (3)

Reserves: Grace (opener), Verity (spinner), Bedser (pacer), Stokes (middle order batsman/allrounder), Ames (Keeper)

 

[Prince EWS]

All-time England XI

Sir John Berry Hobbs
Sir Len Hutton *
Peter May
Walter Hammond (6)
Denis Compton
Lord Ian Botham (4)
Alan Knott +
Fred Trueman (1)
John Snow (2)
Jim Laker (5)
Sid Barnes (3)

Reserves: Grace (opener), Verity (spinner), Bedser (pacer), Stokes (middle order batsman/allrounder), Ames (Keeper)

I love the May love.

 

[trundler]

I never understand why Hammond is usually slotted in at 4 in these. He batted 3 mostly and averaged 70 there. Conversely, May was a #4 and excelled there. Not that he belongs in that side ahead of Root anyway.

 

[Prince EWS]

I never understand why Hammond is usually slotted in at 4 in these. He batted 3 mostly and averaged 70 there.

Lots of people pick three openers so it makes sense for those teams.

May actually did better at 4 than 3 so they should be swapped there for sure though.

 

[trundler]

Lots of people pick three openers so it makes sense for those teams.

May actually did better at 4 than 3 so they should be swapped there for sure though.

Should be swapped out for a better batsman like Root though

 

[Line and Length]

All-time England XI

Sir John Berry Hobbs
Sir Len Hutton *
Peter May
Walter Hammond (6)
Denis Compton
Lord Ian Botham (4)
Alan Knott +
Fred Trueman (1)
John Snow (2)
Jim Laker (5)
Sid Barnes (3)

Reserves: Grace (opener), Verity (spinner), Bedser (pacer), Stokes (middle order batsman/allrounder), Ames (Keeper)

I'd have Ken Barrington among my reserves (if not ahead of May)

 

[_00_deathscar]

Should be swapped out for a better batsman like Root though

No! How dare you? Random player almost no one on this forum watched is better than anyone in modern times. Cricket the only sport in the world that has regressed over time…

 

[HookShot]

I never understand why Hammond is usually slotted in at 4 in these. He batted 3 mostly and averaged 70 there. Conversely, May was a #4 and excelled there. Not that he belongs in that side ahead of Root anyway.

I think it’s because Constantine, Martindale and H. Griffith worked Hammond over so conclusively that after three series against the West Indies he ended up averaging only 35. It would have been 29 but he managed to score a century during his very last innings against them in 1939.

Hammond performed well against McCormick in Ashes Tests but for the most part he was up against O’Reilly and Grimmett, not fast bowlers.

Neville Cardus thought that Hammond was great against the quicks, but there still tends to be a question mark because of the effect that the West Indian bowlers had on him. Martindale was a superb bowler btw.

 

[Flametree]

Yes the only other contender for no. 3 is Barrington (or whichever of Hutton or Sutcliffe isn't opening). Barrington averaged 77 at number 3. (But also has a hole in his record vs West Indies, like Hammond.)

 

[HookShot]

Cardus talking about Hammond…

At Lord's in 1938, England won the toss v. Australia. In next to no time the fierce fast bowling of McCormick overwhelmed Hutton, Barnett and Edrich for 31. Then we saw the most memorable of all Wally's walks from the pavilion to the crease, a calm unhurried progress, with his jaw so firmly set that somebody in the Long Room whispered, "My God, he's going to score a century."

Hammond at once took royal charge of McCormick, bouncers and all. He hammered the fast attack at will. One cover drive, off the backfoot, hit the palings under the Grandstand so powerfully that the ball rebounded half-way back. His punches, levered by the right forearm, were strong, leonine and irresistible, yet there was no palpable effort, no undignified outbursts of violence. It was a majestic innings, all the red-carpeted way to 240 in six hours, punctuated by thirty-two 4's

Walter Hammond

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[jayjay]

Yea but you wouldn't send him to open in tests...

But if he was to play across formats than why not?

 

[Bitmap]

My All time Australian XI

Bob Simpson
Matthew Hayden
Don Bradman(C)
Ricky Ponting
Steve Smith
Keith Miller
Adam Gilchrist+
Shane Warne
Dennis Lillee
Bill O'Reilly
Glenn McGrath

Australian A XI

Arthur Morris
Victor Trumper
Neil Harvey
Greg Chappell
Allan Border(C)
Steve Waugh
Ian Healy+
Alan Davidson
Ray Lindwall
Patty Cummins
Clarrie Grimmett

 

[CricAddict]

But if he was to play across formats than why not?

Good luck.

 

[HookShot]

Yes the only other contender for no. 3 is Barrington (or whichever of Hutton or Sutcliffe isn't opening). Barrington averaged 77 at number 3. (But also has a hole in his record vs West Indies, like Hammond.)

I didn’t realise that Barrington averaged in the mid 30s against the Windies.

Funnily enough Gary Sobers dismissed Barrington more than any other bowler, 7 times. Lance Gibbs and Garth McKenzie came in equal second with 6 dismissals.

So Sobers and Gibbs must have given Barrington a little more grief than Hall and Griffith.

 

[Coronis]

Cook just has far too many runs, in far too many conditions to not be included.

This is why I’m changing my XI, Anderson in for Trueman, he just has far too many wickets in far too many conditions to not be included.

 

[jayjay]

So, all time Australian Test XI:

1. M. Hayden
2. W. Lawry
3. D. Bradman
4. R. Ponting c
5. A. Border
6. S. Smith
7. K. Miller
8. A. Gilchrist wk
9. D. Lillee
10. S. Warne
11. G. McGrath

ODI XI:

1. M. Hayden
2. A. Gilchrist wk
3. R. Ponting c
4. M. Clarke
5. M. Bevan
6. M. Hussey
7. A. Symonds
8. S. Watson
9. M. Starc
10. S. Warne
11. G. McGrath

That ODI XI is just phenomenal! I could probably add in another 2 -3 guys in some of those positions. Wow!