The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[MrPrez]

Basically, chaps, I'm not trying to say Kallis>SRT,Punter,Lara. Just that he's on the same level as them, and it comes down to personal preference as to which one is better. Kallis often gets discarded as not up for reckoning to the same extent as the other three. I disagree with THAT.

 

[sobers no:1]

In your opinion.

Statistically they played largely in the same time period, and averaged a similar amount. They are certainly of the same "tier" of batsmen, along with Lara and Ponting.

That's all I'm trying to argue here.

i will take sachin , u can take kallis ... we'll see

NB:batting alone

 

[Prince EWS]

i will take sachin , u can take kallis ... we'll see

NB:batting alone

Ohmaahgawd, so much innuendo!

 

[akilana]

Basically, chaps, I'm not trying to say Kallis>SRT,Punter,Lara. Just that he's on the same level as them, and it comes down to personal preference as to which one is better. Kallis often gets discarded as not up for reckoning to the same extent as the other three. I disagree with THAT.

Nobody denies it. I think only Sachin is clearly the better. While Lara reached greater heights, he was inconsistent and often unreliable. Kallis is better than Ponting for me.

 

[Satyanash89]

i will take sachin , u can take kallis ... we'll see

NB:batting alone

Oh god, if the innuendo was intentional (which i doubt), this is a genius post
The smiley makes it perfect

 

[Prince EWS]

Oh god, if the innuendo was intentional (which i doubt), this is a genius post
The smiley makes it perfect

It was the "batting alone" that did me

 

[Howe_zat]

Have you ever seen Tendulkar's penis posted on Twitter?

Didn't think so. One winner here folks

 

[kyear2]

I do belive that they are on the same tier, just in that tier I would rank them

Tendulkar
Lara

Ponting

Kallis

Again all in that same top tier. Kallis just didn't take over games or take apart bowling attacks like the others did, and for Smali, that is just my humble opnion. Is that allowed?
Additionally I can't rate Gavaskar over Chappell, Chappell is probably the most under rated batsman on CW, and probably one of the two best slippers I have ever seen.

 

[akilana]

There's more to it than attacking-batting. Kallis may lag behind in attacking batting but he's far more consistent than those except Sachin. Lara lags so far behind in consistency. At their best I will have Sachin, Lara, Ponting and Kallis in that order. But overall considering their ups and down, it would be Sachin and then the other 3 together, imo.

Btw, like reading your opinions. Don't worry and post more.

 

[The Sean]

There's more to it than attacking-batting. Kallis may lag behind in attacking batting but he's far more consistent than those except Sachin. Lara lags so far behind in consistency. At their best I will have Sachin, Lara, Ponting and Kallis in that order. But overall considering their ups and down, it would be Sachin and then the other 3 together, imo.

Overall, I'd rank them in that order. However if you guaranteed me I was getting them on their very best day then I'd take Lara no question.

 

[L Trumper]

Overall, I'd rank them in that order. However if you guaranteed me I was getting them on their very best day then I'd take Lara no question.

Same for me.

Also kyear2, I don't think Chappell is under rated on CW. It is probably Viv, Chappell, Gavaskar, Border etc. in that order, not many disputes there.

 

[centurymaker]

You're seriously saying he wasn't great until 2010?!?!?!

he wasn't recognized as an ALL time great until around 2010. (he had been under-rated for some time because of his style)

 

[centurymaker]

He most certainly did not singlehandedly carry the Indian batting line-up. Azharuddin, Laxman, Ganguly, Dravid are a few names that pop into one's mind.

The time debate is also nullifiable by Kallis having the extra burden of bowling 140kph pace alongside being the key batsman in his team.

But read above - I'm not trying to say Kallis is BETTER than SRT. Just that they are of the same tier. The rest comes down to subjective opinion based on other facts.

when did the so called laxman, dravid, ganguly really start performing i.e. turn into very good batsmen??
not until around 2000.
Before that it was just tendulkar and azhar really.
The kallis of last few yrs is clearly better than the one before. He just wasn't at the same level for long time.

 

[Red]

i ws not bckng my opinion. all i said is gavaskar > chappell in experts opinion.

bradman case ( may be a blunder.. still )

extra ordinary stats / performances happens only if ther is lack of competitiveness
hobbs scored 7 centuries after 40 , SFB bowling stats , headley , merchant ... dhyanchand in hockey

if bradman was a batting god , there must nt b any flaws.. he has his own limitations.
played very carefully (evident in 6 sixes) , averaged below 20 (?) in sticky wickets.
hobbs , headley ..etc handled the situation much better manner
better professional approach than contemporaries.,
played for strongest team ( contrast to headley carreer) , less opponents , same conditions..
i think , he wd hv been reduced to 50+avg in modern days. tht doesnt mean hammond will b a 30+avg batsman. he will remain the same 50+.
this is my logic

(assumptions can go wrong.. )

Can you please quote the experts who have specifically said Gavaskar was greater than Chappell? With a reference?

And your opinion on Bradman is absolutely and utterly ridiculous. What an absolute crock of crap. So, Bradman, who averaged 100 in one particular era, would average "50+" now, but Hammond who played in basically the same era as Bradman and averaged 50 something, would still average "50+" now?

How the **** could you possibly justify that assumption that would be in anyway logical?

 

[harsh.ag]

Can you please quote the experts who have specifically said Gavaskar was greater than Chappell? With a reference?

And your opinion on Bradman is absolutely and utterly ridiculous. What an absolute crock of crap. So, Bradman, who averaged 100 in one particular era, would average "50+" now, but Hammond who played in basically the same era as Bradman and averaged 50 something, would still average "50+" now?

How the **** could you possibly justify that assumption that would be in anyway logical?

I love how Monk has gone ape-**** on the "argument" here. My thinking has always been that Bradman would have definitely been a 75+ averaging batsman in any era. More, definitely possible, but not less.

And I think the reason some people might think Gavaskar to be a better batsman than Chappell may be because when the past players and experts describe the best batsmen of that era, they name the best attacking batsman, i.e. Viv, and then the best defensive batsman, i.e. Gavaskar, and do not mention that the second best attacking batsman, i.e. Chappell was better than Gavaskar.

 

[Coronis]

The bowling rankings of the world after Grimmett's last test >_>

 

[watson]

Overall, I'd rank them in that order. However if you guaranteed me I was getting them on their very best day then I'd take Lara no question.

Is there another type of day? Obviously all the players in an ATG XI are assumed to be in the best form of their respective careers.

It is nonsensical to suppose that any batsman could be both in-form and out-of-form at exactly the same time when walking out to bat. Or to put it another way, Lara cannot be the the Brain Lara of 1990 and 2006 similtaneously.

When batting at the crease for an ATG XI Brain Lara can only be the Brian Lara from a singular date. Maybe - March 30th 1999. On that date his form was good enough to score153 not out at the Kensington Oval and 'single handedly' defeat Steve Waugh's team.

 

[The Sean]

Is there another type of day? Obviously all the players in an ATG XI are assumed to be in the best form of their respective careers.

It is nonsensical to suppose that any batsman could be both in-form and out-of-form at exactly the same time when walking out to bat. Or to put it another way, Lara cannot be the the Brain Lara of 1990 and 2006 similtaneously.

When batting at the crease for an ATG XI Brain Lara can only be the Brian Lara from a singular date. Maybe - March 30th 1999. On that date his form was good enough to score153 not out at the Kensington Oval and 'single handedly' defeat Steve Waugh's team.

Ok Watson.

I reckon it's pretty clear what I meant but knock yourself out anyway.

 

[harsh.ag]

Is there another type of day? Obviously all the players in an ATG XI are assumed to be in the best form of their respective careers.

It is nonsensical to suppose that any batsman could be both in-form and out-of-form at exactly the same time when walking out to bat. Or to put it another way, Lara cannot be the the Brain Lara of 1990 and 2006 similtaneously.

When batting at the crease for an ATG XI Brain Lara can only be the Brian Lara from a singular date. Maybe - March 30th 1999. On that date his form was good enough to score153 not out at the Kensington Oval and 'single handedly' defeat Steve Waugh's team.

Or when selecting players for the ATG XIs, we do not know which version of the player will walk out, the 99 or the 06 one. So we select players who we know had more good days than bad ones, i.e. who were much more consistent than the others.

 

[watson]

Or when selecting players for the ATG XIs, we do not know which version of the player will walk out, the 99 or the 06 one. So we select players who we know had more good days than bad ones, i.e. who were much more consistent than the others.

Good point oh-harsh-one

BTW your monkey head avatar thingo freaks me out every time