The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Spark]

I kind of quietly hate you all for making me read the last ~5 pages or so of this thread because of how many reports have come from it.

 

[vcs]

Bumrah's bowling in WI was fast bowling sorcery of the highest order. Those deadly outswingers from middle to off. I would have him in my team for the year even though he played less. Not caring about stats at least for this.

Yep. Deadly outswingers in the first match, sending stumps cartwheeling. Then hooping inswingers in the next. How do you deal with that as a batsman?

 

[Spark]

Actually you know what a big part of the mess that is this thread is that people can never stick to the actual topic (ATG teams, Test cricket), so I'm just going to move everything that's not that into a new thread from now.

EDIT: Which has now been done, in case you're wondering what I'm referring to.

 

[Logan]

Best batting performance of the decade?
Perera’s 153*

Best bowling performance of the decade?
Steyn’s 7-51

 

[honestbharani]

Agreed.

 

[ankitj]

Best batting performance of the decade?
Perera’s 153*

Best bowling performance of the decade?
Steyn’s 7-51

DoG disagrees with 7-51

 

[honestbharani]

Lol.. I actually still think the same as I did 4 years ago.

 

[Logan]

DoG disagrees with 7-51

In DoG’s list, 5 out the Top 10 performances have taken place in England.

In DoG’s list, only 7 out of the Top 100 performances have taken place in India. Out of the 7, only one was by an overseas bower and that was Dale Steyn.

 

[Red]

Well, it makes more sense than your only reason for his apparent ODI greatness being "hundred in WC finals".. And him being selected in an AT ODI XI is just the same as MSD being selected in an AT T20I XI. If you want me to pull out a statistical analysis for why he is not great, you gotta wait till I finish my work day. But subjectively, I watched almost all of his ODIs and he was not the best keeper nor the best opener and therefore not an ATG in this format. Maybe my post should read AT greatness instead of just greatness but that is where I stand. He is an ATG in tests but not in ODIs. Many people just assume he was an ATG in that format based on test success, just like that poster did with MSD and T20.

"Well, it makes more sense than your only reason for his apparent ODI greatness being "hundred in WC finals"- I have never said that his reason for being great is hundreds in ODI finals, that I can recall.

I ask for comprehensive reasons. You say "I watched him and he wasn't the best keeper or opener". That's hardly a comprehensive reason.

I dont think that "people just assume he was an ATG in that format based on test success", at all. Where on earth does that idea come from?

You're clutching at straws, really hard, here.

 

[Red]

Wait a min , so many Aus posters are picking Steve smith instead of Viv Richards in their AT XI despite Viv Richards would make AT XI of 95 % retired cricketers.

So Steve smith has done enough to replace Viv Richards in AT XI but Rohit sharma hasn't done enough to replace Gilchrist in ODI AT XI despite the fact that even before Rohit emergence as a great ODI opener, Gilchrist wasn't sure of his place in AT XI. Talk about hypocrisy

Lol that you came up with that response to my post simply asking him to explain why he asserts Gilly wasnt great at ODIs.

At least your ban will help with general coherence in the thread.

 

[marc71178]

What a load of bollocks. Symonds regularly bowled 10 overs in a game.

Yet he didn't bowl at all in a lot more innings then the times he bowled 10...

He is nowhere near good enough to come into contention as an all rounder.

 

[jimmy101]

Is there anyone here who was actually genuinely offended by sunilz's posting? Personally I find him very entertaining.

 

[Coronis]

So been toying with the Bradman opening theory and come up with this.

Hayden
Bradman*
Ponting
Smith
Chappell
Border
Gilchrist+
Warne
Davidson
Lillee
McGrath

I’ll cop flack for no Miller but thoughts otherwise? Lindwall so very unlucky to miss out.

 

[stephen]

Honestly I think you'd be better off promoting Ponting to opener than Bradman. The best batsman gets to decide where they bat. If Tendulkar wants to hide down at 4 in the Indian side, or Waugh wants to hide down at 5 in the Australian side for so long then so be it. They were the best in their sides and got to choose where to bat.

 

[Coronis]

Honestly I think you'd be better off promoting Ponting to opener than Bradman. The best batsman gets to decide where they bat. If Tendulkar wants to hide down at 4 in the Indian side, or Waugh wants to hide down at 5 in the Australian side for so long then so be it. They were the best in their sides and got to choose where to bat.

Fair point.

 

[honestbharani]

"Well, it makes more sense than your only reason for his apparent ODI greatness being "hundred in WC finals"- I have never said that his reason for being great is hundreds in ODI finals, that I can recall.

I ask for comprehensive reasons. You say "I watched him and he wasn't the best keeper or opener". That's hardly a comprehensive reason.

I dont think that "people just assume he was an ATG in that format based on test success", at all. Where on earth does that idea come from?

You're clutching at straws, really hard, here.

The idea comes from posts like yours. I mean, I at least gave reasons. You have said nothing as to why he should be considered an ODI ATG. FYI, he is not.

 

[Red]

Yet he didn't bowl at all in a lot more innings then the times he bowled 10...

He is nowhere near good enough to come into contention as an all rounder.

Why not? Economy rate of 5 per over in the era he played in is pretty good for a 5th bowler.

 

[Red]

The idea comes from posts like yours. I mean, I at least gave reasons. You have said nothing as to why he should be considered an ODI ATG. FYI, he is not.

haha....your reasons were literally "I watched him and he wasn't the best keeper or opener".

So my reasons are "I watched him and he was the best keeper and opener".

Cool?


Anyway, here are some articles for you to read:

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/21245902/the-cricket-monthly-%E2%80%8Athe-greatest-odi-cricketer

The best over 50 overs | The Cricket Monthly | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[stephen]

I wanted to clarify the thoughts I had earlier in the Rohit vs Gilchrist for opener.

Gilchrist was, at worst, the second best keeper/batsman in ODI history. If you don't want to pick Dhoni for whatever reason (and you're not picking Buttler) then he's really the only choice (I guess you could pick De Kock, but Gilchrist was better than De Kock).

As a keeper he has no holes in his resume. He kept very well to both top shelf pace (McGrath, Gillespie and Fleming, who were all very different quicks) and spin (including both Warne and Hogg). As an aggressive opener he was the best of his generation, being arguably a better batsman than both Jayasuriya and Sehwag. While he wasn't Tendulkar, literally nobody else has been as good as Tendulkar, so that barely matters.

If Rohit did what he did ten years ago I'd have a lot more respect for it. But right now I think his statistics flatter him. Like Mark Waugh, his average as opener is significantly higher than his overall average but that probably is because he learned the game in the middle order before getting promoted in his prime. The game is also significantly easier for openers and the problem I have with Rohit in an ATG side is that he can cost you runs because he takes too long to get started and only makes it up once he gets to 40 or 50. His strike rate is nothing flash for his era either. There's nothing wrong with it by any means, but it's not exceptional.

Paradoxically I think Rohit would be more valuable the worse the rest of the team was. Because he tends to go large, and only improve his strike rate as his innings progresses, I think he'd be the perfect opener for a side that had a weak middle order. Sure, they would lose when he failed, but when he went large they would definitely win more often. Contrast that to an AT XI, he'd hurt the team when he played a 25(35) type of innings. Gilchrist would be better with his 30(30) innings'. Gilchrist was tested more against quality bowling attacks than Rohit as well.

One area where Rohit really does stand out above his peers (i.e. openers of the last ten years) is his extraordinary ability to get a score of 50+. Most of his best contemporaries are scoring a 50+ score around 30-33% of the time, but Rohit gets there a whopping 40% of the time. That's a phenomenal statistic.

In isolation, Rohit is certainly in the top tier of openers in history. In fact it would be fair to say that he is almost certainly the best "high averaging" opener after Tendulkar. For an ATG side though I think there are better options because building an ODI side is about managing resources and Rohit up top means that the faster scoring middle order bats will likely not get as much time in the middle to really pile on the hurt. His average (and his tendency to go large) is what really stands out and that's something that disproportionately helps weaker sides. For stronger sides, strike rate is more important in an opener. And as I said, his strike rate is very good, but not exceptional.

Personally, I genuinely believe that the best balance historically in an ODI side has been an aggressive opener partnered with a high averaging opener. Waugh/Gilchrist, Hayden/Gilchrist, Ganguly/Tendulkar (Tendulkar played both roles), Tendulkar/Sehwag, Amla/De Kock etc... The current English openers are bucking the trend somewhat by both filling the "aggressive opener" role. This probably only works because they have such a strong batting lineup down the order. If we split and rank openers historically into the two categories, we get two lists that look a bit like this:

High average (era adjusted) (not in order):
Tendulkar
Sharma
Greenidge
Hayden
Amla
Waugh
Dilshan
Haynes
Guptill
Watson

Aggressive (era adjusted) (not in order):
Tendulkar
Roy
Bairstow
Gilchrist
Jayasuriya
Warner
Sehwag
Gayle
De Kock
Gibbs

Personally I think for most sides, pairing someone from the first group and someone from the second group works well. Tendulkar kind of breaks the rules because he was both, but for an AT side, I'd rather pair him with another aggressive opener since that gives a better platform for the middle order. Jayasuriya and Gilchrist are both great options because they bring a second skill to the table.

 

[Bolo.]

I wanted to clarify the thoughts I had earlier in the Rohit vs Gilchrist for opener.

Gilchrist was, at worst, the second best keeper/batsman in ODI history. If you don't want to pick Dhoni for whatever reason (and you're not picking Buttler) then he's really the only choice (I guess you could pick De Kock, but Gilchrist was better than De Kock).

As a keeper he has no holes in his resume. He kept very well to both top shelf pace (McGrath, Gillespie and Fleming, who were all very different quicks) and spin (including both Warne and Hogg). As an aggressive opener he was the best of his generation, being arguably a better batsman than both Jayasuriya and Sehwag. While he wasn't Tendulkar, literally nobody else has been as good as Tendulkar, so that barely matters.

If Rohit did what he did ten years ago I'd have a lot more respect for it. But right now I think his statistics flatter him. Like Mark Waugh, his average as opener is significantly higher than his overall average but that probably is because he learned the game in the middle order before getting promoted in his prime. The game is also significantly easier for openers and the problem I have with Rohit in an ATG side is that he can cost you runs because he takes too long to get started and only makes it up once he gets to 40 or 50. His strike rate is nothing flash for his era either. There's nothing wrong with it by any means, but it's not exceptional.

Paradoxically I think Rohit would be more valuable the worse the rest of the team was. Because he tends to go large, and only improve his strike rate as his innings progresses, I think he'd be the perfect opener for a side that had a weak middle order. Sure, they would lose when he failed, but when he went large they would definitely win more often. Contrast that to an AT XI, he'd hurt the team when he played a 25(35) type of innings. Gilchrist would be better with his 30(30) innings'. Gilchrist was tested more against quality bowling attacks than Rohit as well.

One area where Rohit really does stand out above his peers (i.e. openers of the last ten years) is his extraordinary ability to get a score of 50+. Most of his best contemporaries are scoring a 50+ score around 30-33% of the time, but Rohit gets there a whopping 40% of the time. That's a phenomenal statistic.

In isolation, Rohit is certainly in the top tier of openers in history. In fact it would be fair to say that he is almost certainly the best "high averaging" opener after Tendulkar. For an ATG side though I think there are better options because building an ODI side is about managing resources and Rohit up top means that the faster scoring middle order bats will likely not get as much time in the middle to really pile on the hurt. His average (and his tendency to go large) is what really stands out and that's something that disproportionately helps weaker sides. For stronger sides, strike rate is more important in an opener. And as I said, his strike rate is very good, but not exceptional.

Personally, I genuinely believe that the best balance historically in an ODI side has been an aggressive opener partnered with a high averaging opener. Waugh/Gilchrist, Hayden/Gilchrist, Ganguly/Tendulkar (Tendulkar played both roles), Tendulkar/Sehwag, Amla/De Kock etc... The current English openers are bucking the trend somewhat by both filling the "aggressive opener" role. This probably only works because they have such a strong batting lineup down the order. If we split and rank openers historically into the two categories, we get two lists that look a bit like this:

High average (era adjusted) (not in order):
Tendulkar
Sharma
Greenidge
Hayden
Amla
Waugh
Dilshan
Haynes
Guptill
Watson

Aggressive (era adjusted) (not in order):
Tendulkar
Roy
Bairstow
Gilchrist
Jayasuriya
Warner
Sehwag
Gayle
De Kock
Gibbs

Personally I think for most sides, pairing someone from the first group and someone from the second group works well. Tendulkar kind of breaks the rules because he was both, but for an AT side, I'd rather pair him with another aggressive opener since that gives a better platform for the middle order. Jayasuriya and Gilchrist are both great options because they bring a second skill to the table.

Quality post.

Giving Gilly a lot of the benefit of doubt, particularly against the current players. Its too early to judge most of them relative to him. Everyone you mentioned could end up clearly above him, although they could go backwards as well.