The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[mr_mister]

I think if Procter had managed at least one fifty in his 7 tests I'd find it easier to believe he was an ATG all rounder denied the chance to show it.

His bowling record is obviously amazing even in his 7 tests but yeah finding out these 5 consecutive tons were in the B comp is very interesting

 

[harsh.ag]

Honestly, I wouldn't have rated Barry Richards that highly if he hadn't

a) Performed better than Greenidge while they played together (though it can be argued Greenidge took those games more lightly than Barry did + Greenidge was in the early part of his career and not as good yet as he would become in the 80s); and
b) Killed it in WSC

Things like dominating the Lillee led Western Australia attack and having a delightful way of going about his runmaking are just cherries on top.

 

[trundler]

Okay, now go and watch highlights of Mark Waugh batting, look at his non-Test First Class average of 58 and his average after seven Tests of 61 and tell me you wouldn't rate him as one of the best batsmen of all time based on all that if not for what happened when he actually played a lot of Tests.

Exactly. Saying Barry Richards was better than Arthur Morris with absolute certainty looks kinda iffy to me. Morris had a similarly impressive start to his test career and averaged higher in FC cricket. But of course 60s Shield cricket in an era when NSW beat one of the strongest WI teams ever in a tour game was much, much weaker than 70s CC with loads of more teams.

For the record، I seriously doubt Love, Bevan and co were significantly better than Khawaja for the same reasons. For all I know Love could've been Khawaja 2.0 and Richards could've been Mark Waugh. With the given evidence I'll take Bruce Mitchell's massive cojones and Hadlee's once in a lifetime feats over perhaps more exciting but unproven prospects whose reps may have benefited from nostalgia and nerdy hero worship.

 

[jimmy101]

But of course 60s Shield cricket in an era when NSW beat one of the strongest WI teams ever in a tour game was much, much weaker than 70s CC with loads of more teams.

Wot?

 

[Starfighter]

Eric Hollies once bowled Donald Bradman for a duck. Abdul Razzaq once took 20 runs off a Glenn McGrath over. Jason Gillespie once hit a double ton. Inzamam-ul-Haq once successfully ran a tight single.

Ok, ok. That last one never happened, but what exactly is your point here?

That, weirdly, just watching a player doesn't tell you half the story about how good they are.

Not sure why you have such a bee in your bonnet anyway.

 

[trundler]

Wot?

https://youtu.be/zbU34c4OzKs

Just making a point about the era Morris played in and how stellar his FC numbers were too. But his decline after a godly start lowers his rank in our eyes yet a guy with a comparative test career start and comparative FC success is deemed way better.

 

[jimmy101]

That, weirdly, just watching a player doesn't tell you half the story about how good they are.

Not sure why you have such a bee in your bonnet anyway.

Neither am I really. Might need to see a proctologist for my Procter-obsession. Just seems obvious in my eyes that he's a top 10 all-time fast bowler & never understood why he's lack of Test match experience s even a factor. I keep banging on about watching footage of him because of his unorthodox action, which was one of his greatest weapons. The other being his wrist-work at the point of his release. Also seemed to have the mental side of the game figured out.

 

[jimmy101]

https://youtu.be/zbU34c4OzKs

Just making a point about the era Morris played in and how stellar his FC numbers were too. But his decline after a godly start lowers his rank in our eyes yet a guy with a comparative test career start and comparative FC success is deemed way better.

Oh for sure. It's just that Morris had retired from Shield cricket in the 60's.

 

[mr_mister]

I've always found Sid Barnes sort of going missing from these debates interesting

He averaged 63 from 13 tests and 54 in FC(great for an opener) yet he's rated nowhere near Barry Richards who only played 4 tests.

If Barnes had managed to squeeze out one more series and ended up with a similar amount of tests played to Headley and Pollock, while maintaining an average over 55(which surely wouldn't have been too hard) would he be considered in their ATG tier? With these short careers it's kinda funny how fickle stats become

 

[Starfighter]

I've always found Sid Barnes sort of going missing from these debates interesting

He averaged 63 from 13 tests and 54 in FC(great for an opener) yet he's rated nowhere near Barry Richards who only played 4 tests.

If Barnes had managed to squeeze out one more series and ended up with a similar amount of tests played to Headley and Pollock, while maintaining an average over 55(which surely wouldn't have been too hard) would he be considered in their ATG tier? With these short careers it's kinda funny how fickle stats become

You could argue that Barnes played against weaker bowling attacks or something, but I think it's mainly a case of him being too far in time for most people to remember. Richards was significantly more recent, played in WSC etc. I do think there's a case of South Africa's stocks rising in hindsight during isolation. People often talk about them potentially being a match for the West Indies in the early-mid eighties sort of period, and while they would have been better than England and Australia it should be remembered that they were beaten by the rebel WI side. Australian cricket went on without Barnes.

 

[morgieb]

You could argue that Barnes played against weaker bowling attacks or something, but I think it's mainly a case of him being too far in time for most people to remember. Richards was significantly more recent, played in WSC etc. I do think there's a case of South Africa's stocks rising in hindsight during isolation. People often talk about them potentially being a match for the West Indies in the early-mid eighties sort of period, and while they would have been better than England and Australia it should be remembered that they were beaten by the rebel WI side. Australian cricket went on without Barnes.

I think the thing with Barnes is that Australia were regularly playing when he wasn't, which wasn't the case with Richards. Why did Barnes never play again after the 48 Ashes anyway? Heard there were some off-field controversies but that came to light later on.

By the mid 80's I think South Africa were kind of past it though so I'm not sure the rebel tour should count for that much.

EDIT: Turns out Barnes temporarily retired after the Invincibles tour.

 

[the big bambino]

Barnes played all bar one of his tests in the period just after the war when he was lucky enough to catch England decimated by the war. However in Bedser he probably played a better bowler than Richards faced in his four tests. While Richards CV has the advantage of WSC, Barnes played against some strong bowling in Australian fc cricket.

 

[mr_mister]

I'm pretty sure Barnes' test career being short was all personality reasons and nothing to do with form/skill. Even with that temporary retirement you think he should have been worth another go with his record when he put his hand up again

He's got an interesting story. Real character

 

[jimmy101]

Probably his supposed rift with the establishment coupled with strong competition from Brown & Morris contributed to his relatively short Test career.

 

[Starfighter]

coupled with strong competition from Brown & Morris contributed to his relatively short Test career.

I don't think so when he was selected over Brown when available, forcing the Brown to bat down the order and likely ending his test career when Loxton bumped him out of no 6.

 

[mr_mister]

Barnes played all bar one of his tests in the period just after the war when he was lucky enough to catch England decimated by the war. However in Bedser he probably played a better bowler than Richards faced in his four tests. While Richards CV has the advantage of WSC, Barnes played against some strong bowling in Australian fc cricket.

Faced Cowie too

 

[the big bambino]

True. Could be wrong but I suspect Barnes may have had mental problems. In any case he seemed to do things that upset selectors and board members. Australia was strong in his era so he wasn't indispensable.

 

[morgieb]

I'm pretty sure Barnes' test career being short was all personality reasons and nothing to do with form/skill. Even with that temporary retirement you think he should have been worth another go with his record when he put his hand up again

He's got an interesting story. Real character

Yeah the main reason he didn't get recalled was down to personality factors.

In his case though a under-rated reason for his Test career being so short is the war. By the time Tests resumed he was already 30.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah Barnes was ****ed up. Huge talent, another what might’ve been.

 

[jimmy101]

I don't think so when he was selected over Brown when available, forcing the Brown to bat down the order and likely ending his test career when Loxton bumped him out of no 6.

Can't imagine his cricket whites looking all that crisp after such an event, assuming that's what you mean by "down the order".