Can an average ODI player be an ATG?

[salman85]

Test Cricket is the ultimate form of Cricket, and the barometer against which the ability of a player is judged. A player who has not succeeded at Test Level might never be considered a true cricketing great. All ATGs from the past had stellar Test Careers. Some managed to have great ODI careers, but a lot of them had average ODI careers too. Back then ODI cricket was not as dominant and frequent as it is now, and not having a great ODI career in the past never left a black mark against a true great. However, now that ODI cricket makes up a huge chunk of the cricket calendar, does having an average ODI career alongside a Brilliant Test Career still make someone an ATG?
*
Steyn would be a good example. He’s had a fantastic Test Career, but his ODI career is hardly as good. Would this be held against him at the end of his career in this day and age of limited overs dominant cricket? Or is only having a top drawer Test Career still good enough to land you place in Cricketing folklore? **
*

 

[Burgey]

It just depends on what weighting you put on the different formats when you make your ratings. To my way of thinking, tests will always be the determining factor in rating someone a great player or not. By that, I mean if I say saomeone is a great player, I'm implicitly talking about tests.

For me, if it came to ranking players, there would need to be very similar test records between them, for me to even look at ODIs to make a difference between them. Whereas, if one was miles ahead as an ODI player but only a little behind as a test player, I'd go for the other bloke.

 

[Arachnodouche]

I'm more interested in whether an awesome solo ODI career is enough. I don't think anyone who lived through Bevan's feats would have any hesitancy in pitching him as an ATG ODI player. If Kohli keeps reproducing the sort of brilliance that's become his wont over the past year but struggles at Test level, I reckon he'll still be as much a part of folklore. ODIs, as bastardized as they've become over the years, still retain a bit of texture and basic appeal of the longer forms. Can't outright consign feats therein to the dustbin.

 

[weldone]

It just depends on what weighting you put on the different formats when you make your ratings. To my way of thinking, tests will always be the determining factor in rating someone a great player or not. By that, I mean if I say saomeone is a great player, I'm implicitly talking about tests.

For me, if it came to ranking players, there would need to be very similar test records between them, for me to even look at ODIs to make a difference between them. Whereas, if one was miles ahead as an ODI player but only a little behind as a test player, I'd go for the other bloke.

awta

 

[uvelocity]

ATG ODI

bevan is definitely the first one would think of ^ but that is just like a massive asterisk. ATG ODI != ATG cricketer

 

[vic_orthdox]

Think Burgey pretty much nailed it for me.

I think it adds maybe a little 5-10% on the end of it; would I think slightly higher of Slater and Vaughan if they showed more in the shorter form? Yeah, quite possibly. Still doesn't affect my rating of them that highly though.

 

[Lostman]

In my ratings, I never penalize someone for a "bad" ODI career. ODI's help, but never hurt someones ranking.

 

[smash84]

In my ratings, I never penalize someone for a "bad" ODI career. ODI's help, but never hurt someones ranking.

Pretty much nailed it for me

 

[Jager]

Doesn't change anything for me, they're two different games and it's much fairer (and neater) not keep them entirely separate.

 

[Howe_zat]

I barely consider them at all, personally.

But I think if we really want to look at how much a player has achieved, being completely fair, we have to give ODIs a great deal of importance because they're a great deal of what matters to the player and to the team. For the last 30 or so years, players have grown up learning to play all forms of the game. There's no doubt that when they set out on a cricketing career, they aim to play in all formats, and they spend their time and resources trying to achieved that. So if we want to judge how successful they've been, it doesn't make sense to ignore a large portion of what they were trying to do.

 

[Cruxdude]

In my ratings, I never penalize someone for a "bad" ODI career. ODI's help, but never hurt someones ranking.

AWTAz

 

[salman85]

With the different formats of Cricket being played these days,and the challenge of adopting to different format,surely the shorter formats should have be given a lot more weightage when judging a player's worth these days as is being suggested.No?

I'm not saying that Test Cricket should be trumped by ODIs,but ODIs make up a large chunk of the modern cricketer's career.A player not excelling at the shorter formats is not as complete a cricketer as someone who is excelling at the shorter formats,along with Test Match brilliance ofcourse.

I think while judging the modern day cricketer,what gets ignored is the workload that he faces,which is much more than the workload faced by an international cricketer in the past.A cricketer in the past primarily had to focus on Test Cricket,with ODIs being a far off 2nd choice.That isn't really the case nowadays due to the sheer volume of ODIs being played.The fact that the modern cricketer manages to perform at the highest level despite more workload than cricketers in the past ,should mean that his accomplishments in the shorter formats be given as much weightage,if not more,then Test Matches IMO.The same goes for a a modern cricketer who has not excelled at the shorter formats.While a cricketer who has done well in the shorter formats should be hailed,a person who has failed should be held in lesser esteem,the same way a good or poor Test Match Career effects the image of a player.

 

[ankitj]

In my early days on this forum, I often said something to the effect of "and if you also consider ODI performances...". Since then I have been swayed by groupthink, and I no longer make that argument.

 

[salman85]

ODIs are too important a part of Cricket now to not be taken into serious consideration while judging a modern player's worth IMO.While T20 is pure entertainment and nothing more,ODI Cricket is a top drawer serious format.I mean no disrespect to Test Matches,but the highlight of the modern cricketer's career is winning the ODI World Cup.Not winning a Test Series away in alien conditions.

 

[MrPrez]

Think about it. If you talk about someone being an awesome player with strongest performances in Tests, you'll say he's an awesome cricketer. If he's particularly strong at ODIs or T20s, you'll say he's an awesome ODI/T20 cricketer. In general, Tests are the marker that you use to judge ATGs.

There are exceptions eg I will probably consider Malinga an ATG once he's retired because he is so amazing in T20s. As I say, though, they're exceptions to the "Tests make an ATG" rule.

 

[salman85]

The only ATG list Malinga would make is All Too Ghastly.

 

[Cevno]

ODIs are too important a part of Cricket now to not be taken into serious consideration while judging a modern player's worth IMO.While T20 is pure entertainment and nothing more,ODI Cricket is a top drawer serious format.I mean no disrespect to Test Matches,but the highlight of the modern cricketer's career is winning the ODI World Cup.Not winning a Test Series away in alien conditions.

AWTA. Though winning both is important in different ways.

 

[Prince EWS]

To me, they are two different games (cricket, and limited overs cricket) and should be judged entirely separately. I feel dirty trying to combine them, and would much sooner turn to domestic cricket if I felt one's Test record didn't tell us enough.

 

[JBMAC]

Have to agree with above....Besides who called ODIs Cricket....definitely NOT me

 

[bagapath]

sunil gavaskar and allan border were not particularly great in ODIs. but that has not diminished the glow around them as ATGs.

OTOH, abdul qadir was the best spinner in ODIs before warne and murali came in to the scene. but that has not made him any bigger the history of cricket.

so, i guess people tend to ignore ODI cricket altogether when they compile these lists which means steyn would be rightfully ranked alongside the waqars and wasims and not below them.