The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[stephen]

Going back to the point made earlier about modern bowlers not playing as many ODIs as those in the 1990s.

Bowling records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

vs

Bowling records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

In the 1990s the bowlers who took the most wickets also averaged the least, roughly speaking. The top wicket takers were Wasim, Waqar, Kumble, Srinath, Warne, Saqlain and Donald, all of which took 200+ wickets and played 110+ matches. This decade, the top wicket takers are Malinga, Shakib, Tahir, Jadeja and Starc. Only Malinga has taken 200+ wickets. Of the bowlers who have an average < 25, only Tahir has played more than 100 ODIs.

If you take out 5+ team tournaments, Starc has only played 64 ODIs across the decade. 6.4 ODIs per year for the best bowler of his generation. Bumrah has played 40 ODIs outside 5+ team tournaments, which works out to around 8 per year. Compare this to the 90s where Wasim and Waqar both played 150+ ODIs outside the 5+ tournaments, while most of the other great bowlers of that era played 100+. Even the guys who played for half the decade were clocking up 80+ matches outside the big tournaments.

Compare this to the batsmen during this era. Against top 8 sides, Kohli has played 174 ODIs that were not in a 5+ tournament. In fact the top 14 run scorers have all played 100+ ODIs outside major tournaments. Even Sanga, who retired half way through the decade clocked up 100+ ODIs vs top 8 sides in this era.

The last ten years have put the "meaningless" into the "just another meaningless ODI". At least as far as batting statistics are concerned. It's why modern batting statistics cannot be trusted the way you can trust statistics from the past. They're no longer representative of the best players from each nation.

 

[Logan]

That Murali is better than Warne depends on where in the world you're playing.

Muttiah Muralitharan has taken more wickets at a better average, better strike rate and a better economy rate than Shane Warne.

Countries with above 25 average
Murali : 5/14
Warne : 5/11

Countries with above 30 average
Murali : 1/14
Warne : 3/11

Worst Average in Any Country
Murali : 30 in Australia
Warne : 49 in Pakistan

Opponents with above 25 average
Murali : 4/15
Warne : 6/11

Opponents with above 30 average
Murali : 2/15
Warne : 2/11

Worst Average against
Murali : 31 against India
Warne : 56 against India

Overall Avg/SR/ER

Murali : 23 / 35 / 3.93
Warne : 26 / 36 / 4.25


Clearly Muralitharan is a better bowler than Warne in ODIs. It is an obvious fact that everyone knows.

You would know that already if you were objective and didn’t have a bias against Asian players.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

General warning for everyone in this thread that it's getting a bit overly heated. You can argue your case with telling people they seem stupid or that they're posting nonsense etc.

I'm not going to give out any infractions for what's passed as it was all borderline but try to be a bit less personal if you all want to keep avoiding them.

I expect this thread to be locked by now. The same nonsense keeps on repeating itself. It's embarrassing

 

[Prince EWS]

General warning for everyone in this thread that it's getting a bit overly heated. You can argue your case without telling people they seem stupid or that they're posting nonsense etc.

I expect this thread to be locked by now. The same nonsense keeps on repeating itself. It's embarrassing

 

[stephen]

How many times will you be proved wrong again and again? And yet you post the same non-sense

Andrew Symonds played the majority of his career in number 5 position. This is Kapil and Symonds’ record at number 7 position

At number 7 position

Symonds
Matches : 20
Average : 21
SR : 91

Kapil
Matches : 75
Average : 24
SR : 87

"Proved".

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Kapil was a gun but he was half the batsman Symonds was, 1983 heroics notwithstanding. Cherry picking stats by position when players didn't play a huge amount of their career in that position doesn't change that. Hell, even comparing stats of Asian players to Australian players requires care because Australian players play on much larger grounds on average.

 

[Logan]

A couple of times I picked Symonds in drafts I had him at #5

Symonds wasn’t a lower order batsman. He was a middle order batsman.

 

[Logan]

"Proved".

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Kapil was a gun but he was half the batsman Symonds was, 1983 heroics notwithstanding. Cherry picking stats by position when players didn't play a huge amount of their career in that position doesn't change that. Hell, even comparing stats of Asian players to Australian players requires care because Australian players play on much larger grounds on average.

How is it cherry picking stats?

Symonds played 20 odd matches at number 7 position. Kapil Dev played 75 matches at number 7 position.

Symonds was a middle order batsman.

Kapil Dev played at number 6 and 7.

So if you are picking Symonds, it can mean only two things

a) You will be picking Symonds over Kohli, Viv or ABD in the middle order

b) You will be picking Symonds to play at number 7 where he has hardly played 20 matches and his numbers play in comparison to Kapil

 

[sunilz]

Symonds was a middle order batsman.

Kapil Dev played at number 6 and 7.

So if you are picking Symonds, it can mean only two things

a) You will be picking Symonds over Kohli, Viv or ABD

b) You will be picking Symonds to play at number 7 where he has hardly played 20 matches and his numbers play in comparison to Kapil

Please stop this conversation. No one is ready to change their opinion. Let's give it a rest.

 

[stephen]

Clearly Muralitharan is a better bowler than Warne in ODIs. It is an obvious fact that everyone knows.

You would know that already if you were objective and didn’t have a bias against Asian players.

Why are you trying trying to bait me by putting words in my mouth? I said which one you pick depends on where in the world you want to play. Pre-injury ODI Warne was as good as Murali everywhere except the subcontinent. Post Injury Warne won Australia a world cup, basically through force of will alone. Saqlain was just as good as either of them (probably even better than both). But you can only know that by watching the game, not by looking at averages. If the only thing you ever look at with a player is a single statistic, you're not talking cricket, you're talking bollocks.

 

[trundler]

Murali and Saqlain over Warne in ODIs is pretty much a no brainer

 

[Logan]

Please stop this conversation. No one is ready to change their opinion. Let's give it a rest.

You are right.

He is using arguments like “adjusted averages”, “adjusted strike rate”, “subcontinent pitches” , “larger grounds”, “WC wins”, “pre-injury Warne” etc

I don’t think I will engage in a debate with him anymore.

 

[stephen]

Murali and Saqlain over Warne in ODIs is pretty much a no brainer

Things are only no brainers for people with no brains.

 

[stephen]

You are right.

He is using arguments like “adjusted averages”, “adjusted strike rate”, “subcontinent pitches” , “larger grounds”, “WC wins”, “pre-injury Warne” etc

I don’t think I will engage in a debate with him anymore.

Since when have you *engaged* in debate? You've done nothing but trotted out nothing but nationalistic bait that out of boredom I've happily taken.

If you're going to actually talk cricket, you need to acknowledge that cricket is a sport that's played in a multitude of venues, under a multitude of conditions and that the best you can hope to do with statistics is use them to give you an indication or a hint as to the quality of a player. ODI and T20 cricket in particular is an entirely different beast to test cricket. It's far newer, the rules have been changed more rapidly and the playing conditions over the decades have been radically different.

 

[CricAddict]

Do these guys get the same warnings others get via email about forum atmosphere for this sort of posting?

Gilchrist is accepted into plenty of standard ATG ODI XIs, it's not controversial. All this anti-Australian **** coming from this bloc of Indian posters is pretty tiresome.


The men's ODI XI of the last 25 years | ESPNcricinfo 25 year Anniversary | ESPNcricinfo.com

Except for Kallis at 6, this XI looks very good. I will just sub out Kallis for either Symonds or Klusenar or Kapil and the ATG XI is done.

 

[sunilz]

Devil's advocate here but I dont see why all this hubbub over trying to knock down what Chappell achieved. It's not like Tendulkar played all atg attacks during his time. As memory serves me Tendulkar did also play quite a few tests vs the 'mighty' Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. No team Chappell played was remotely as bad as those two teams.

You can point out that Gavaskar faced weak attacks against WI in 1980 but others can't point out that Chappell was untested against quality spin bowling in Asia. Nobody has agenda here.

This is sample space of Chappell overseas test in some countries
WI :5
Pak :3
IND :0
SL:1


You can accept him as undisputed ATG based on his World championship record . Don't expect others to do the same. AFAIC both Kohli and Steve Smith are superior to Greg Chappell.

 

[CricAddict]

I absolutely don't see Mark Waugh striking at run a ball or Tendulkar striking at 120 in ODIs today. That is insane to think.

I can absolutely visualize it. In this T20 era and in current conditions, both would have struck runs even faster than that.

 

[stephen]

I can absolutely visualize it. In this T20 era and in current conditions, both would have struck runs even faster than that.

People don't seem to remember that players like Haynes and Greenidge were perceived as being attacking, aggressive players back in the day. They absolutely would be hitting at 90+ these days. Viv, well Viv would have killed somebody with a modern bat. Not a bowler mind you, someone in the crowd, while the ball was still on the up.

Imagine how sweetly Mark Waugh would caress the ball to the boundary with modern bats (or over it as is the modern fashion in ODIs).

 

[CricAddict]

You are right.

He is using arguments like “adjusted averages”, “adjusted strike rate”, “subcontinent pitches” , “larger grounds”, “WC wins”, “pre-injury Warne” etc

I don’t think I will engage in a debate with him anymore.

I do think all of these are valid arguments and debating factors like these separate the forum guys from common cricket followers.

While you might argue using Bumrah or Starc's average on era adjustment, we can all see with our own eyes that the volume of runs and wickets have increased multifold now compared to previous decades in ODIs. A 250 score was winning in my childhood but it is a losing score now. 400 was unimaginable earlier. You get the point.

So, back to the original point of the discussion, you can't just compare Rohit's average to Gilchrist, Jayasuriya or Sehwag's average blindly and say he is superior. Those who have seen them play live will attest to them being equals and one no less than the other.

 

[harsh.ag]

It's also simpler than that. Stephen has more knowledge about Aussie cricket so he can put forward more nuanced arguments for Aussie players. That is basically why he has those preferences. If he was English, we would be hearing a lot more about Flintoff, Bairstow, KP, Lamb, Roy, Fairbrother.

I don't think it's wrong though. What else can we do but speak from the wealth of our own knowledge for the most part.

 

[Coronis]

Aussie All Time XI

Hayden
Simpson
Bradman*
Smith
Labuschagne
Chappell
Gilchrist+
Warne
Cummins
Lillee
McGrath