The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[akilana]

Don
Kallis
Murali
Imran
Hadlee

 

[honestbharani]

Sachin
Lara
Murali
Warne
Wasim

 

[Coronis]

Grace
Hobbs
Bradman
Sobers
Imran

 

[Red]

When I look at Hobbs' stats I often note that Ranjitsinhji averaged more than him in FC cricket in overall I much harder era. I prefer rating post-WW1 players as basically equals even though I could easily argue that Smith is greater than Bradman. Quite annoying really.

500-1000 words on this topic, go.

 

[Red]

5 greatest from each nation, post WW2 (must be retired)

Bradman
Warne
McGrath
Gilchrist
Miller

Hutton
Botham
Trueman
Laker
Boycott

Sobers
Richards
Marshall
Ambrose
Lara

Imran
Wasim
Waqar
Miandad
Younis

Tendulkar
Kapil
Dravid
Kumble
Gavaskar

Steyn
Kallis
GPollock
DeVilliers
Donald

Hadlee
Crowe
Vettori
Cairns
Fleming

Murali
Sangakkara
Jayawardene
Jayasuriya
DeSilva

 

[ataraxia]

Bradman
Miller
Sobers
Gilchrist
Grace

Will do 499 words on it some point soon.

 

[AndrewB]

When I look at Hobbs' stats I often note that Ranjitsinhji averaged more than him in FC cricket in overall I much harder era.

Not trying to knock Ranji at all, but CB Fry was another Sussex batsman before 1914 who averaged over 50, and they drew more matches in this era than any other county, so it might seem that Sussex had unusually good wickets for the era.

 

[ataraxia]

500-1000 words on this topic, go.

It is sadly rather easy to conclude that Sir Donald George Bradman is inferior to Steven Peter Devereux Smith. Let us start by investigating the quality of the home pitches Sir Donald George Bradman played on compared to those that Steven Peter Deveraux Smith played on. Bill Ponsford averaged over the mark of 80 in the Australian first-class domestic competition of the Sheffield Shield. Similarly otherworldly figures are found for Bill Woodfull et al. Yet in Tests Sir Donald George Bradman averaged a comparativelymere ~98 at home. I think we can determine that Sir Donald George Bradman's overseas average is luckily high. All of his overseas Tests were played in rather familiar England, which included the famous 1930 and 1948 tours. He played a small amount of Tests overseas compared to in the batting paradise of inter-war Australia, and we can reasonably assume given Sir Donald George Bradman's lower first-class batting average that he got fairly lucky with form when he played in England. Also, he may have struggled if more countries played against him, given his small dismissal to Jack Cowie.

But those are all fairly minor points, given to the gargantuan point I am about pounce upon. That point is the difference in professionalism between the likes of Steven Peter Deveraux Smith and Sir Donald George Bradman, and more importantly, that same difference in professionalism between the players they played against.
The pace of the bowlers is one I sometimes think about. I don't actually think the likes of Harold Larwood would have their pace exceed the 130s. The amount of training that bowlers have these days compared with the yesteryear of the 1930s is of utmost significance to this exercise. I don't think with more training the batting prowess of Sir Donald George Bradman would jump up a significant level given that his prowess was made of the elements of natural talent and supreme (as of that time period) hand-eye coordination, both which cannot really be significantly improved by coaching. Compare this to that of even the great bowlers (e.g. Hadlee) and the difference of the difference that training and more importantly coaching between the likes of Sir Donald George Bradman and Bill Voce would make. Word salad, I know, but hopefully you get the point.

Also the difference of the quality of the fielding against Steven Peter Deveraux Smith and Sir Donald George Bradman is a huge difference. The possibility of run outs was much lower than is today, alongside that of catches, and conversely, misfields. This is why I rate the likes of WG and Ranji. We extend this leniency to Hobbs, O'Reilly, Bradman, Hutton, even more recent players like Sobers, G Pollock, and Lillee. Cricket is a far more developed sport than back in the day. I just cannot bring myself to rate Smith above Bradman, and it is only fair to apply it across the board. I will always rate Hammond above Hussey, even though when directly pitted together the latter will probably win.


502 words. Dragged some parts out a bit on purpose tbf but still a rather nice essay.

 

[ataraxia]

Not trying to knock Ranji at all, but CB Fry was another Sussex batsman before 1914 who averaged over 50, and they drew more matches in this era than any other county, so it might seem that Sussex had unusually good wickets for the era.

Fry's underrated. Joe Vine, another Sussex stalwart of that time, averaged under 30 and played Tests. Guess he was a bowler as well as an opening batsman though.

 

[Logan]

Five Greatest from India

Sachin

Gavaskar

Kapil

Dravid

Kohli

 

[CricAddict]

Bradman, Sobers, Hadlee as with everyone and then Sachin and Imran are my top 5.

 

[CricAddict]

5 greatest from each nation, post WW2 (must be retired)

Bradman
Warne
McGrath
Gilchrist
Miller

Hutton
Botham
Trueman
Laker
Boycott

Sobers
Richards
Marshall
Ambrose
Lara

Imran
Wasim
Waqar
Miandad
Younis

Tendulkar
Kapil
Dravid
Kumble
Gavaskar

Steyn
Kallis
GPollock
DeVilliers
Donald

Hadlee
Crowe
Vettori
Cairns
Fleming

Murali
Sangakkara
Jayawardene
Jayasuriya
DeSilva

Good list. Saw that you have mentioned that they should be retired. But out of current crop, only Steve Smith, Stokes, Kohli, Rabada and Williamson are contenders to replace the above and I believe strongly they all will or have already.

 

[Logan]

My predictions :

Steve Smith could end up as the second greatest Test batsman. So he is a lock along with Bradman, Warne, McGrath and Gilchrist.

Rabada is a tricky one. Kallis, Steyn and Donald are Top 5 easily. There are many ATG SA batsmen but most of them barely played 20 Tests.

Ben Stokes has no chance. Too many legendary names of the past. Hutton, Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Trueman, Botham etc.

Kane Williamson is a lock. He is already the best NZ batsman ever. He will never displace Hadlee as the best NZ cricketer.

Kohli is already Top 5. He has already surpassed Dravid and Kumble. I am sure he will end up only below Sachin or maybe surpass Sachin too.

 

[ankitj]

I do feel people are jumping the gun here with respect to Steve Smith. I am not suggesting he is not an ATG already but sometimes you do have let a career play out before making huge claims. I mean, if you are calling him one of your top 5 greatest cricketers of all time, that is ridiculously high even given what he has racked up so far.

If he ends as undisputedly 2nd best bat after Bradman, he would have a very strong claim for top 5 of all time. He may not end there which is another matter.

 

[Coronis]

If he ends as undisputedly 2nd best bat after Bradman, he would have a very strong claim for top 5 of all time. He may not end there which is another matter.

Haha like anything will ever be undisputed on CW, we just had an essay on Smith vs Bradman!

 

[honestbharani]

If he ends as undisputedly 2nd best bat after Bradman, he would have a very strong claim for top 5 of all time. He may not end there which is another matter.

Haha like anything will ever be undisputed on CW, we just had an essay on Smith vs Bradman!

No but we usually can seperate the noise... I think if he does end up the second greatest batsman since Bradman, he will easily be in the top 5 of all time for most folks. But my point is, he may not end there.

 

[Logan]

Apart from Don Bradman, every other choice for Top 5 is subjective.

Personally, I feel Murali with 1300+ wickets and Sachin with almost 35000 runs and 100 centuries deserves to be there though many people won’t agree with me.

 

[vcs]

He can finish with a Test average in the early '60s, which would make him a very strong contender for the greatest since Bradman, but that may not be enough for people to rate him in the top 5 cricketers.

One can justifiably rate all-rounders like Imran, Hadlee, and Sobers ahead, or McGrath/Murali/Tendulkar who were ATGs in all forms of the game, or someone like Gilchrist who is almost undisputed choice for WK-batsman in most AT XIs for Tests and ODIs.

 

[Logan]

Smith could end up with an average of 60.

Kohli could end up with an average of 55+ in Tests, 50+ in T20s and 60+ in ODIs.

Does Kohli’s extraordinary performance in all formats not give him an advantage?

 

[honestbharani]

Apart from Don Bradman, every other choice for Top 5 is subjective.

Personally, I feel Murali with 1300+ wickets and Sachin with almost 35000 runs and 100 centuries deserves to be there though many people won’t agree with me.

I would actually agree with this. Add Sobers as well. The fifth maybe the trickiest choice of them all.