Your ATG team pace bowling trio

[Johan]

We weren't including Flower for being not world class behind the stumps, giving the gloves to Hadlee is certainly... Wow

Who talked about giving the gloves to Hadlee? They are given to Gilchrist silly

 

[capt_Luffy]

I personally am of the opinion that you don't really need an elite 5th option, and if you have a high workload pacer and a spinner you'd be able to go by with four elite bowling options and a fifth decent option pretty well as the fifth bowler wouldn't have to bowl much. My ATG XI would be

Hutton*
Hobbs
Bradman
Richards
Tendulkar
Sobers
Gilchrist
Hadlee+
Marshall
Warne
McGrath

think that does the trick.

Letting Hadlee keep is.... Rather interesting

 

[Johan]

Letting Hadlee keep is.... Rather interesting

are you on drugs?

 

[sayon basak]

are you on drugs?

When did you give him?

 

[ataraxia]

I personally am of the opinion that you don't really need an elite 5th option, and if you have a high workload pacer and a spinner you'd be able to go by with four elite bowling options and a fifth decent option pretty well as the fifth bowler wouldn't have to bowl much. My ATG XI would be

Hutton*
Hobbs
Bradman
Richards
Tendulkar
Sobers
Gilchrist
Hadlee
Marshall+
Warne
McGrath

think that does the trick.

I know CW has a massive boner for him, but I don't think Malcolm would be a particularly adept glovesman tbh.

 

[capt_Luffy]

are you on drugs?

Wow!! Questioning Hadlee's keeping skills is now a druggie take!!?

 

[kyear2]

No, not that many. SOME. Like the very people you’re arguing against. Make sense?

You don’t need to, nor should you, try and force everyone to agree with your opinion/a consensus.

And no, I don’t have him in my XI so not me personally. The difference is I can understand and accept why people choose to have him there and their views on the subject. Whilst it all seems to baffle you and you continuously attempt to ridicule them.

So then, it's not that many, which is all over said. What's your point.

I'm not forcing anyone to agree with anything, I'm simply saying it's a minority opinion, which it is.

You mean the way you ridicule me for having Barry in my team? Or how many here toes to ridicule me for valuing a slip cordon, or specialists?

It's @Bolo. , @Xix2565 and @ataraxia who are coming after me and telling me to **** off, but I'm the intolerant one? The entire premise of this thread was to prove me wrong.

The level of hypocrisy is stunning.

We're arguing various sides in arguments, and I've made clear I'm not saying anyone is inelligible. What I have said is that they're certain selecting philosophies is just don't agree with.

You're literally one of the main culprits that tries to ridicule others and their posts, with snide and sarcastic comments and derision, but apparently you're the only one allowed to disagree with anyone.

The ones ridiculing are Smalisha and their merry band, and all I'm doing is defending my positions. With facts mind you.

But yes, pretend now to be the objective arbiter.

 

[Thala_0710]

I personally am of the opinion that you don't really need an elite 5th option, and if you have a high workload pacer and a spinner you'd be able to go by with four elite bowling options and a fifth decent option pretty well as the fifth bowler wouldn't have to bowl much. My ATG XI would be

Hutton*
Hobbs
Bradman
Richards
Tendulkar
Sobers
Gilchrist+
Hadlee
Marshall
Warne
McGrath

think that does the trick.

I agree with the setup though, 5 batsmen (Lara instead of Viv), a batting all rounder, a wkb, a spinner and 3 pacers (and ideally the no 8 can bat a bit)

 

[kyear2]

False. If random exaggerations about how highly I rate Imran were true, it wouldn't explain why I rate him as I do. If my argument was that straw man, I'd rate Imran higher. Take that.

I suppose that given that premise, it would make my argument more delusional though. So you're right that your fanciful paper tiger of my argument would be more delusional than my actual opinion. Well done. I do hope you're doing well.

I respond to what you literally said, then you gaslight .

Well done.

 

[ataraxia]

I respond to what you literally said, then you gaslight .

Well done.

Uh if you think I said Imran > Martyn you might need to re-read my post.

 

[kyear2]

As much as I agree with you in that the team structure with 6 bats (incl. a Batting AR - especially if its Sobers), Keeper & 4 bowlers is the better structure (just my opinion other posters). I would make the point Gilly partly batted at 7 because Australia also didn't have an All rounder of sufficient quality to make the side, so they had an equal calibre batsman to Gilly who could bowl a bit & accumulate rather than smash which is better suited higher in the order.

Steve/Mark Waugh & Darren Lehmann covered the 5th bowler role to an adequate standard for the time & the other 4 bowlers performed well enough that a better 5th bowler wasn't needed most of the time. It's possible that an AR with a skillset like Ben Stokes/Shane Watson (35+ Batting Avg/good bowling) as an example may have replaced the weakest batsman & batted at 7 instead of Gilly if they existed at that time & were needed against a strong batting lineup like India's. This did happen briefly when Watson debuted in 2005.

But during the golden era there was no AR who's difference in bowling ability compared to a batsman's that could bowl was good enough for the trade off in runs (Symonds/Watson weren't test standard until after the aforementioned retired). Just for relevant context.

Yeah, they haven't been many guys who could bat as well as Gilly who could bowl a bit, and most likely they would have still batted above him. It was always my impression that Gilly wanted to bat at 7 and enjoyed the freedom that gave him. Australia also enjoyed having that depth in the batting as he was the ultimate cheat code at 7.

Didn't have that same impact at 6.

 

[Cipher]

Yeah, they haven't been many guys who could bat as well as Gilly who could bowl a bit, and most likely they would have still batted above him. It was always my impression that Gilly wanted to bat at 7 and enjoyed the freedom that gave him. Australia also enjoyed having that depth in the batting as he was the ultimate cheat code at 7.

Didn't have that same impact at 6.

It is definitely easier to flay tired, old ball bowlers when your team has already put on 300+ runs. But if you look at his stats his record wasn't really any worse batting higher up the order (Gilchrist batting positions 1-6.)
This was probably due to on some occasions when he was promoted, the team was looking for quick runs so his batting style didn't really change. So I wouldn't be expecting him to change his style in a hypothetical XI, I think you could play him at 6 as well (similar game state to 7) but higher than that seems a bit risky because he wasn't an accumulator.

 

[Xix2565]

We're discussing bowlers who are perceived to have the 5th bowler role, who did you think I was speaking of? But the twisting of words is hilarious. Warne didn't need doctored pitches to succeed and he played well in most conditions. That's what separates him from the ones that can only thrive in such conditions and primarily hidden in others.

Ok, batting isn't by any large value or margin less valuable than bowling. If we're discussing it rationally, something you're obviously incapable of doing, and have to chose one, by the most slender of margins, bowlers do get the edge, because you generally have to take 20 wickets to win a match, but it's set up by the runs the batsmen score. This is evident to even the youngest children playing or following the game. Not to mention scoreboard pressure than can assist the bowlers in various scenarios.

Ok, so the reason batting all rounders aren't only preferred but built into the selection of teams is becuse with a typical team, the batting all rounder provides a fifth bowler while balancing the need for a viable top order batsman.

A fifth bowler on their own doesn't provide this, but rather batting depth. To place such a player in the top order isn't often seen as viable because you're a batsman short and more vulnerable to a batting collapse.

Going by the idiotic team you posted earlier, or the alternative of going with Flower, you've created the following problems. You're legitimately a batsman short, with everyone 6 and above batting out of their depth and Murali and Pigeon and 10 and 11. If you replace Gilly with Flower you now have a substandard keeper to go along with, Sobers apart a lackluster cordon with no viable option at 3rd. So you're automatically still taking less wickets while simultaneously a scoring less runs. That's really hard to accomplish btw.

The fact that you believe that going against that thought process makes one insane means that you might be the one in need of a straight jacket.
Imran had a rpi of, it bears repeating 27, during his bowling career, the belief that that's good enough to warrant the dropping of an ATG batsman for the benefit of the extra 5 overs he's going to bowl with an old soft ball over a Sobers is laughable at best, possibly the reason that no one selects it.

And no one is talking about fans AT selections, and with your discarding of pundits as lacking "logic or facts", yeah, what could 12 former test captains know that you don't to unanimously select Sobers over Imran 12 - 0.
And you keep saying I'm relying on said pundits when I've clearly spelt out to you the logic and reasons behind my position, you just chose to ignore said points
In any event, all you're demonstrating is your arrogance, ignorance, and stunning lack of common sense and self awareness.

And I must stress on the arrogance that you know the game better than every former player, captains included, journalist and historian, and they all lack your insight and apparently unique brilliance.
And that anyone who points out the fallacy of your arguments or who disagrees with you belongs in a straight jacket.

In any event you totally lost me by suggesting that batting all rounders have no role in the game and are "basically useless" for selection and that Hadlee would be a better fit at 6 or 7 for an AT team.

You might be reminded that Hammond got Bradman out on multiple occasions as well as how often Sobers or Kallis took the wickets of top order batsmen and the value of wickets taken by both. That's not even getting into the massive gulf between the amount of runs scored by the two groups in general. Or the fact that a Sobers, Hammond or Kallis is providing you with you best slip fielders who would be the owns charged with completing the vast majority of the extra wickets you're supposedly.tsking with the old soft ball.

And not sure how many batsmen are out there averaging 70 or 80, but it bears mentioning that the 5th bowlers generally gets the worst of not only the condition of the ball, but comes on when batsmen are more likely to be set, contributing to their averages over 30. The extra bowler you're bringing in for those extra 5 overs are so, isn't going to be getting the new ball and will likely be bowling during the aforementioned dog over before said new ball and against more set batsmen.

The cost / benefit analysis would suggest that it's not worth it.

Every player has had pitches on which their skillsets were favoured. That Warne could succeed more than most spinners doesn't exclude that. And the recent era has clearly been quite different from the past with the amount of pace bowling and spin bowling depth around the world when conditions become so favourable. That you want to use this against Ashwin/Jadeja/any other player is just like you, to be so utterly stupid that you'd rather go off on tangents that mean nothing rather than behave and post like a regular human being with a functional brain.

Yes it is. You generally have more batters/people who make runs than you do bowlers, bowling is a much more difficult art physically speaking and runs made are affected by the bowling you face. Good bowlers concede less runs. Less runs conceded, easier totals to chase down or defend. Aka, winning, by having more runs when one side is completely bowled out. Even a baby would've gotten this, clearly though this is much too difficult for you to follow. Thus, bowling allrounders allow for having more batting talent in general without compromising on bowling talent, unlike batting allrounders. Hence why someone like Imran is better than Sobers or Kallis. He offers a top tier pacer's skillset with some handy batting talent.

That you'd make up fanciful problems about my choices isn't surprising, but it isn't based in reality either. All my batters bar Gilly (or Flower) are in their right spot, and Gilly/Flower can have the likes of Imran/Marshall/Hadlee/etc to hold up one end while they dominate. And the Flower/cordon slander is bizarre, given that my team is far more functional than anything you could even imagine. It's a meaningless whine about marginal gains offset by the greater value of a better team.

Pundits are not facts or generally logical, especially when it comes to making peer ratings/reviews/rankings. That they used to play Test cricket is of no relevance, not when they keep making stupid decisions, though clearly not on your level.

Neither Hammond nor Kallis bowled well enough to be considered proper bowlers, hence their relative lack of value vs bowling ARs. That doesn't mean that vs a top order batter they don't have more value than them. And again, slip fielding is not more valuable than good bowling/batting. I don't need top notch slip fielding because they don't boost the teams that much vs the more important skills.

Unlike most 5th bowlers, I will be having the likes of Warne/Imran/Murali/Marshall/etc who all have various old ball skills and aren't averaging over 30. The batters being more set isn't going to matter as much when they have no let up in pressure compared to the opening bowlers. Please, learn how to think first and then come back.

 

[Xix2565]

I'm going on the team you posted you jackass.

It doesn't speak to or suggest batting deep, it's actually the worst possible and least balanced XI that one could come up with considering the talent available. And you're not "batting deep" of Gilchrist is at 6. You're just creating a tail.

The only thing worrying is your arrogance and complete sense of awareness.

It's the best balanced side compared to you who'd rather stack batters and then play for draws. Literally a loser's XI from you.

There's always going to be a tail of some kind, unless you're the type who'd bat till 11 and ditch McGrath and Murali. Again, think please.

Andy Flower was at best just below test standard. Yes he did average 50, he's also not viable for such an XI on account that you should be at least world class at the skill for which you're primarily being selected.

The fact that you and one or two others can't see that there's a reason why they're called wicketkeeper batsman and not the other way around is worrying. Knott is so much infinitely more a viable candidate for an AT spot than Flower, that it's not worth discussing.

And no, you don't need brilliant slips more than you need brilliant bowlers, or batsmen, but you certainly need them to win. Something one can't say about having 5 front line bowlers.

Honestly, the more you post the more I'm convinced that you've either never watched cricket or read anything about the (recent or distant) history of the game. Seriously, where do you think the majority of Steyn's, Lillee's, McGrath's, Marshall's, Warne's, Hadlee's dismissals are taken?

Please for the live if all things holy, watch the game, present and the past and read a book or two. You might realise you don't know everything.

He wasn't below Test standard. And he was definitely solid enough to be here regardless of your fanciful notions.

Knott is a much worse batter, and you'd weaken the batting for a handful of extra catches/stumpings? Are you intelligent or not?

None of these players are outright terrible at catching the ball ffs. Picking someone who's better isn't going to swing things more.

I certainly know far more than you do, given that most of those players weren't successful because they had a bunch of good slips. They were successful because they were extremely good at what they did, creating wicket taking chances and managing to turn that into wickets more often that other players. You on the other hand definitely need more than a book or a game to watch. A hospital is the best place for you to recover.

 

[Coronis]

So then, it's not that many, which is all over said. What's your point.

I'm not forcing anyone to agree with anything, I'm simply saying it's a minority opinion, which it is.

You mean the way you ridicule me for having Barry in my team? Or how many here toes to ridicule me for valuing a slip cordon, or specialists?

It's @Bolo. , @Xix2565 and @ataraxia who are coming after me and telling me to **** off, but I'm the intolerant one? The entire premise of this thread was to prove me wrong.

The level of hypocrisy is stunning.

We're arguing various sides in arguments, and I've made clear I'm not saying anyone is inelligible. What I have said is that they're certain selecting philosophies is just don't agree with.

You're literally one of the main culprits that tries to ridicule others and their posts, with snide and sarcastic comments and derision, but apparently you're the only one allowed to disagree with anyone.

The ones ridiculing are Smalisha and their merry band, and all I'm doing is defending my positions. With facts mind you.

But yes, pretend now to be the objective arbiter.

My point is that some people rating him higher means their perspectives here make perfect sense, but you immediately ridicule/discount those opinions. And then go on to say that people’s selections don’t make sense.

Its the way you post and voice things mate. You dismiss opinions you don’t agree with as ridiculous. You argue your side until you’re black and blue in the face and present your opinions as hard facts. Comes off just awful. You wonder why there’s always people “ganging up” on you? There’s a reason.

I don’t ever seriously ridicule anyone or their opinions. I make sarcastic jokes or one liners that are very clearly jokes that 90% of people can tell, and probably 95% find funny I think we’ve already discussed your lack of a sense of humour in the past, so I can see how it might come off as hypocritical.

 

[Swamp Witch Hattie]

Wow!! Questioning Hadlee's keeping skills is now a druggie take!!?

Luffy, I don't know whether you knew this but Hadlee actually WAS a keeper: a soccer/football goalkeeper:

from https://www.hadlee.co.nz/pages/faqs:



from https://www.oocities.org/rangersafc/caps.htm:



from https://www.facebook.com/groups/rememberingchristchurchnz/posts/1554539468394527/:



from https://www.canterburystories.nz/collections/star/negatives/1972/ccl-cs-76000:

(this is from a match between Rangers and Christchurch United at English Park on Saturday 17 June 1972; Hadlee would have been 20 here, a couple of weeks away from his 21st birthday; interestingly, the Watergate break-in also occurred on this date)

 

[capt_Luffy]

Luffy, I don't know whether you knew this but Hadlee actually WAS a keeper: a soccer/football goalkeeper:

from https://www.hadlee.co.nz/pages/faqs:

View attachment 47880

from https://www.oocities.org/rangersafc/caps.htm:

View attachment 47881

from https://www.facebook.com/groups/rememberingchristchurchnz/posts/1554539468394527/:

View attachment 47882View attachment 47883

from https://www.canterburystories.nz/collections/star/negatives/1972/ccl-cs-76000:

(this is from a match between Rangers and Christchurch United at English Park on Saturday 17 June 1972; Hadlee would have been 20 here, a couple of weeks away from his 21st birthday; interestingly, the Watergate break-in also occurred on this date)

View attachment 47884

I was such an idiot to doubt Sir Hadlee

 

[subshakerz]

It's just one that the forum, the vast majority of pundits, historians and former players disagree with.

He is just lying

 

[subshakerz]

I'm not forcing anyone to agree with anything,

Hahaha

The entire premise of this thread was to prove me wrong.

If so it succeeded

 

[Xix2565]

I was such an idiot to doubt Sir Hadlee

Interesting run up though.