The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[h_hurricane]

Zaheer
Brett Lee
Stuart Broad
Srinath
Harmison
Caddick

They all belong to a family

Mixing them with

Walsh
Gillespie
S Pollock
McDermott
Ntini
Akhthar


Is not right. IMHO

Pollock and Walsh are clearly a level of two above others they are bucketed with. It is amazing how under rated these two are.

 

[Jack1]

Pollock and Walsh are clearly a level of two above others they are bucketed with. It is amazing how under rated these two are.

You can turn it up a notch further if you want I agree. But the general gist of his post was ok.

 

[Coronis]

Thought experiment here, 4 players, 2 batsmen 2 bowlers.

Batsman A averages 60 for his first 75 tests, and 40 for his second 75.
Batsman B averages 40 for his first 75 tests, and 60 for his second 75.

Bowler A averages 20 for his first 60 tests, and 30 for his second 60.
Bowler B averages 30 for his first 60 tests and 20 for his second 60.

Which players do you rate higher, and why?

 

[Victor Ian]

Player A. Because in memory they were great for their whole career. With player B you only ever think of them as great as an afterthought when you correct your false initial impression.

 

[h_hurricane]

Thought experiment here, 4 players, 2 batsmen 2 bowlers.

Batsman A averages 60 for his first 75 tests, and 40 for his second 75.
Batsman B averages 40 for his first 75 tests, and 60 for his second 75.

Bowler A averages 20 for his first 60 tests, and 30 for his second 60.
Bowler B averages 30 for his first 60 tests and 20 for his second 60.

Which players do you rate higher, and why?

I would rate both A and B the same. It does not matter when you peak and at what stage you hit a trough. A player should be judged based on his whole career, not parts.

 

[Jack1]

I would rate both A and B the same. It does not matter when you peak and at what stage you hit a trough. A player should be judged based on his whole career, not parts.

$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[bagapath]

Batsman A averages 60 for his first 75 tests, and 40 for his second 75.

Neil Harvey

Averaged 62 in the first half of his career and 37 in the second half

Batsman B averages 40 for his first 75 tests, and 60 for his second 75.

Clive Lloyd

Averaged 38 in the first 34 tests and 60 in the last 30 odd tests

Bowler A averages 20 for his first 60 tests, and 30 for his second 60.

Shaun Pollock

Averaged 22 in the first 30 tests (19.something after 50) and averaged 30 in his last 30 tests

Bowler B averages 30 for his first 60 tests and 20 for his second 60.

Imran Khan. First 100 wickets at 30 (and averaging 30 after 30 tests) and last 100 wickets at 24.

All interchangeable. Equal class.

 

[Dan]

I would rate both A and B the same. It does not matter when you peak and at what stage you hit a trough. A player should be judged based on his whole career, not parts.

If Ricky Ponting had retired three years earlier than he did, would you rate him more highly?

 

[h_hurricane]

If Ricky Ponting had retired three years earlier than he did, would you rate him more highly?

Yes, because in that case nobody would know whether he would have hit a trough later or not. If he had retired in 2007 averaging 60 with 9-10 K runs, how would any one know whether he would have ended up averaging 51 odd in 2012 ? He should have been rightly treated as a batsman with 60 avg.

 

[Dan]

Yeah this is a debate that's been had on here ad nauseum, but I still think it's ridiculous that apparently Ponting should have retired to 'protect his legacy' by maintaining a higher overall career average rather than continuing to play and score runs to help his team, albeit at a reduced rate.

 

[h_hurricane]

Yeah this is a debate that's been had on here ad nauseum, but I still think it's ridiculous that apparently Ponting should have retired to 'protect his legacy' by maintaining a higher overall career average rather than continuing to play and score runs to help his team, albeit at a reduced rate.

Longevity definitely needs to be counted. What I meant was Ponting retiring with 9K @ 60 should have been rated better than 13K @ 52. Perhaps, if he hadn't declined as much and scored 13K @ 56-57, he would have been rated the same as 9K @60.

The issue is not that he declined, it is that he declined more than expected.

 

[Dan]

But that 13k at 52 contains the 9k at 60!

He’s being punished for having a very good career (4k at 45ish) on top of an ATG one (9k at 60), because he didn’t retire at his precise peak (because he was, y’know, still a better batsman post-Roach than anyone else Australia could have replaced him with).

 

[Coronis]

I would rate both A and B the same. It does not matter when you peak and at what stage you hit a trough. A player should be judged based on his whole career, not parts.

I agree, it shouldn’t but, it never seems to work out that way realistically.

 

[h_hurricane]

He isn't punished there.That 40-45 average doesn't bring him down to the level of Mark Waugh or David Gower. What it means is that he was ATG*(more than ATG)+ATVG which makes him ATG not ATG*. I know everyone doesn't subscribe to this view but that is just me

 

[ankitj]

Thought experiment here, 4 players, 2 batsmen 2 bowlers.

Batsman A averages 60 for his first 75 tests, and 40 for his second 75.
Batsman B averages 40 for his first 75 tests, and 60 for his second 75.

Bowler A averages 20 for his first 60 tests, and 30 for his second 60.
Bowler B averages 30 for his first 60 tests and 20 for his second 60.

Which players do you rate higher, and why?

Intuitively A in both cases.

 

[OverratedSanity]

But that 13k at 52 contains the 9k at 60!

It's incredible that so many people disagree with something this obvious.

 

[h_hurricane]

The main issue I have with rating 13K @ 52 equal to 9K@60 is that there might be another player who scored 9K@55 in part of his career and then ending up with 13K@54. How do we prove 13K@52 is greater than 13K@54 then ? My brain is obviously hurting..

 

[Spark]

Yes, because in that case nobody would know whether he would have hit a trough later or not. If he had retired in 2007 averaging 60 with 9-10 K runs, how would any one know whether he would have ended up averaging 51 odd in 2012 ? He should have been rightly treated as a batsman with 60 avg.

Everybody knew he was declining and was hitting a trough. He stayed in the side because the team needed him, regardless of what damage it did to his statistics.

Ponting could absolutely have retired in, say, 2007 with a statistical record that places him in contention for second greatest batsman of all time. And Australia would have won fewer Test matches.

 

[Spark]

The main issue I have with rating 13K @ 52 equal to 9K@60 is that there might be another player who scored 9K@55 in part of his career and then ending up with 13K@54. How do we prove 13K@52 is greater than 13K@54 then ? My brain is obviously hurting..

The answer is that this is an entirely mathematical comparison with little actual relation to how player careers actually evolve and what the average replacement-level Test batsman in the last decade has produced.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Ill always have a bit more respect for a player who plays on trying to to regain his form and extend his career over the hypothetical player who gets his average as high as possible and ****s off as soon as he realises he isn't at his peak.