Just how many "ATGs" are there in your mind?

[Zinzan]

Since the ATG label seems to get thrown around this forum so inconsistently, I'm curious as to approximately how many ATG Test cricketers everyone thinks there are in their own minds.

Is it merely those who would make your 1st and 2nd ATG Test elevens, so no more than 25 Test cricketers?

Is it perhaps closer to the 25-50 range? Or do you expand it to include up to 100 names or more?

Personally, I've always made the distinction between bonafide ATGs cricketers like the Imrans & Hadlees of this world, and the next level down, which I label GOEs ( or greats of their era), like my cricketing hero growing up, Martin Crowe, or like a Michael Clarke.

Whereas I've noticed others don't seem to make that distinguish, and if a player is simply one of the great players of their era, like a Crowe or a Pietersen, that seems to be enough to warrant the "ATG" label.

So approximately how many Test cricketers do you think should receive the "ATG" label over it's 140 year history?

In my mind, it's probably no more than the top 20 or so batsmen of all-time, the top 15 bowlers & the top 2-3 keepers, so all up, no more than about 40 players. Beyond that, I feel like I'm getting into GOE territory, of which there would be >100 cricketers.

 

[Burgey]

Good question Zinzan, thanks for asking. I'm happy to clarify this for you.

An ATG cricketer is one who is either a lock, or at least well in the argument for an All Time XI. The All Time XI can be one of their own country's or an overall AT XI.

Thus Tamim Iqbal, whilst cod ordinary, belongs in the discussion for a Bangladesh AT XI and may even be a lock for it. So he's a Bangladeshi ATG, to the extent there is such a thing. Likewise Heath Streak for Zimbabwe, Kevin Pietersen for England, Abdul Qadir for Pakistan, His Roundness for SL, Kane Williamson for NZ, Shaun Pollock for SA, Matthew Hayden for Australia, Shiv Chanderpaul for WI and Zaheer Khan for India.

Obviously none of those blokes would get within a bull's roar of an ATG XI, in fact they're all laughable selections for one, especially Zaheer. But each of them is at least in the discussion as ATGs for their country. I think we therefore need to be careful when saying "Zaheer Khan is an ATG bowler" because like Brett Lee he was a spud who had two good years, but he is enough to be considered for India's ATG side so he's an Indian ATG. Same for Matthew Hayden. He isn't in the reckoning as an ATG opener, but he would be in the discussion for an Australian ATG side so he would be an Australian ATG.

Hayden's example is sort of the exception which proves the rule for Australians though. Generally if you're an Australian ATG you're good enough to be an ATG ATG.

 

[Bijed]

Amazed Burgey didn't answer "1 - Allan Border"

Seriously though, I mostly agree with the logic of his answer, the only bit I might quibble over being:

An ATG cricketer is one who is either a lock, or at least well in the argument for an All Time XI

The assertion is reasonable, but just say (I'm too tired right now to suggest actual names, this is a bit hyptothetical) there is a bowler who nobody disputes is fantastic, a gun in all/most conditions etc. However, good as he is, there's a good, say, six others of the same type who are definitively better than him - they are also successful across the same range of conditions but basically have better stats - probably not a massive amount in it, but enough. By your definition, this bowler is then not an ATG as you'd be mad to pick him over these other almost identical, but a bit better others (we'll assume his other disciplines aren't so good as to get him selected). However, he's still got an unbelievably good bowling record. Should he not be considered an ATG.

As I alluded to above, I'm pretty damn tired right now so apologies if the above unreadable/confusing/doesn't actually make a point/is complete nonsense

 

[Zinzan]

Agree, and I'm referring to world ATG test cricketers, not just those who would make their own countries' top XIs.

There's Australians who wouldn't even make a 5th AT Aust XI, who would make Bangers greatest ever side, so yeah I would prefer not to confuse individual countries. Good point.

Burgey, as per the question, what sort of approx. number would you put on it?

 

[Zinzan]

Amazed Burgey didn't answer "1 - Allan Border"

Seriously though, I mostly agree with the logic of his answer, the only bit I might quibble over being:



The assertion is reasonable, but just say (I'm too tired right now to suggest actual names, this is a bit hyptothetical) there is a bowler who nobody disputes is fantastic, a gun in all/most conditions etc. However, good as he is, there's a good, say, six others of the same type who are definitively better than him - they are also successful across the same range of conditions but basically have better stats - probably not a massive amount in it, but enough. By your definition, this bowler is then not an ATG as you'd be mad to pick him over these other almost identical, but a bit better others (we'll assume his other disciplines aren't so good as to get him selected). However, he's still got an unbelievably good bowling record. Should he not be considered an ATG.

As I alluded to above, I'm pretty damn tired right now so apologies if the above unreadable/confusing/doesn't actually make a point/is complete nonsense

Nah, it's all clear. That hypothetical bowler you describe is probably one of the greats of his era, but not quite in the ATG category then.

I always feel Martin Crowe is a great example of this. A really classy bat against any type of bowling and for all conditions, & someone anyone who watched would rate very highly, but not quite up there as "ATG" material, with the likes of Lara, Ponting etc

 

[GirtBySea]

It depends on what you classify as an ATG Zinzan.
A GOE might be different because they had sky-high stats in one or more countries, only to fall to the ground and fail in another.
But then again, a GOE might have performed above average in all countries they went to, but some might say they're still not an ATG.
If this is the case, it would take much, much research to find out what an ATG is. A nation, or nations' AT XI can be listed, but to figure out what makes an ATG, as compared to a GOE is a matter of different arguments and points.

 

[Zinzan]

It depends on what you classify as an ATG Zinzan.
.

Haha, of course it does, hence the reason for the thread to get others individual interpretation

 

[Burgey]

Agree, and I'm referring to world ATG test cricketers, not just those who would make their own countries' top XIs.

There's Australians who wouldn't even make a 5th AT Aust XI, who would make Bangers greatest ever side, so yeah I would prefer not to confuse individual countries. Good point.

Burgey, as per the question, what sort of approx. number would you put on it?

Probably around 50 or so, I guess. I hadn't really thought about quantifying it numbers-wise before.

 

[Zinzan]

A GOE might be different because they had sky-high stats in one or more countries, only to fall to the ground and fail in another.
But then again, a GOE might have performed above average in all countries they went to, but some might say they're still not an ATG.
If this is the case, it would take much, much research to find out what an ATG is. A nation, or nations' AT XI can be listed, but to figure out what makes an ATG, as compared to a GOE is a matter of different arguments and points.

A mate of mine thinks it's a matter of grouping GOEs of different eras and then for purposes of historical perspective making sure there's a reasonable spread. So if he considered a number of around 40 ATG Test cricketers, he'd deliberately makes sure he includes 7-8 pre WWII cricketers, 10 or so from post WWII- 1980, 10-15 from 1980-2000 & 10 or so post 2000.

Obviously he'd make exceptions if there happened to be a period where he feels there are a higher concentration of ATG candidates.

 

[Zinzan]

Probably around 50 or so, I guess. I hadn't really thought about quantifying it numbers-wise before.

OK, so similar vicinity to me, that 40-50ish range.

 

[NZTailender]

3





Salt & Vinegar
Sour Cream & Chives
Light & Tangy

 

[Slifer]

For me there are the ATG who are sure or close to sure ins for their country's all time elevens, and in the short list for an all time eleven. Then there are the ATG who are just behind that group.

For example the WI

Atg: viv, Lara, headley, Sobers, Marshall, Ambrose.

Atg: Weekes, Worrell, Walcott, Chanders, Garner, Holding, Walsh, Roberts.

 

[Zinzan]

For me there are the ATG who are sure or close to sure ins for their country's all time elevens, and in the short list for an all time eleven. Then there are the ATG who are just behind that group.

For example the WI

Atg: viv, Lara, headley, Sobers, Marshall, Ambrose.

Atg: Weekes, Worrell, Walcott, Chanders, Garner, Holding, Walsh, Roberts.

Sure, and in the case of the Windies or Australia, that applies nicely. But as Burgey points out, that methodology falls on it's face when you get to ATG XIs like Bang/NZ and even SL. Different kettle of fish.

 

[mr_mister]

I look it at different to burgey. Otherwise you have someone like Tamim being ranked higher than Gooch(who frankly is not in the discussion for his country's ATG side no matter how far you stretch your selection policy)


I look at it as a certain standard to reach and some countries only produce 1 or 2.

England, Windies and Australia have produced like 20 ATGs


Zimbabwe has produced Andy Flower

 

[Zinzan]

I look it at different to burgey. Otherwise you have someone like Tamim being ranked higher than Gooch(who frankly is not in the discussion for his country's ATG side no matter how far you stretch your selection policy)


I look at it as a certain standard to reach and some countries only produce 1 or 2.

England, Windies and Australia have produced like 20 ATGs


Zimbabwe has produced Andy Flower

I don't think that's what Burgey meant.

I let him clarify himself, but I think he was making the distinction between world ATG XIs and respective countries ATGs XIs.

 

[Zinzan]

3





Salt & Vinegar
Sour Cream & Chives
Light & Tangy

OK, so I'm guessing Sobers is Salt and Vinegar given his variety of flavours,

Imran, light & tangy, but I'm struggling with Sour Cream, I assumed Bradman, but Greg Chappell or Bob Willis seem to fit the bill better.

 

[Victor Ian]

I figure I see about 3 all time greats per decade (one or two bowlers and 1 or two batsmen). Anymore means that I am deluding my self as to what is great.

 

[Burgey]

I don't think that's what Burgey meant.

I let him clarify himself, but I think he was making the distinction between world ATG XIs and respective countries ATGs XIs.

Indeed Zinzan. Indeed.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah probably roughly 50.

 

[Daemon]

It's just gut feel. You look at a guy like Sanga and think yep, there's no doubt. When you get to guys like Anderson and have to add disclaimers like removing the first half of the career then it's no longer indisputable and so they're not ATGs.

There obviously can't be a limit like 25 or something ridiculous simply because the number of cricketers to have played the game is going to keep increasing and it's impossible to rank your top 25 without leaving out players who are pretty much at the same level as some of those you've picked in the 25.