The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[aussie tragic]

For a batsman the top three(not the only three) categories to judge IMO

1. Overall Average

2. Average against different opponents

3. Average in Different countries

Last 2 points are the most boring and inaccurate way to assess how good a batsman was IMO.

 

[honestbharani]

I have increasingly started to weight "big series performances" when I rate a player's career overall. So, for example, when I evaluate Warner at the end of his career, he won't necessarily be weighed down massively by his poor away record (although it'll certainly count) but it will be weighed down specifically by his failures in India 2017 and England 2019, which were both tight series in which even okay performances would probably have tilted the series decisively in Aus's favour from a final result POV, but he just went missing completely as a senior batsman and opener.

It also helps you realize how much of a team game cricket really is. I wont necessarily agree that your way is the way I would rate players but it is fair enough and thought-provoking.

 

[Logan]

I don't have a horse in this Stokes-Perera debate, both ATG innings, but those are just facts devoid of context.

Take the "all bowlers averaged < 25" factoid for instance. One of those 4 was a Steyn on the verge of retirement, and Philander wasn't able to bowl I think due to injury. None of which takes away from the excellence of the knock mind you, and I don't disagree that the innings will forever be underrated because it was a low-profile series between two "unfashionable" teams, by a player for whom this will most probably be a career highlight that he won't come close to repeating.

Quoting those facts is not a good way to make the argument though.

Steyn took 4 wickets in the first innings BTW

 

[Logan]

Last 2 points are the most boring and inaccurate way to assess how good a batsman was IMO.

IMO, that is two extremely important points to judge how good or great a batsman was. To assess how good he was in different conditions and different bowlers.

 

[ankitj]

As I didn’t watch either knock, and the highlights of both were great, could you please give me a detailed statistical analysis to confirm this point of view?

See DoG's rating. Pretty detailed statistical analysis.

 

[h_hurricane]

IMO, that is two extremely important points to judge how good or great a batsman was. To assess how good he was in different conditions and different bowlers.

It does not give something useful always though, as we found in the case of Sobers yesterday. When he was a teenager on his first trip to NZ, he was a left arm spin allrounder with 40% of his batting dismissals being run outs. On his second trip, he was clearly exhausted after a herculean effort in Australia.

 

[Logan]

It does not give something useful always though, as we found in the case of Sobers yesterday. When he was a teenager on his first trip to NZ, he was a left arm spin allrounder with 40% of his batting dismissals being run outs. On his second trip, he was clearly exhausted after a herculean effort in Australia.

Even if you jusifty Sobers’ failure in NZ, how would you justify Sobers’ failure against NZ at home?

Sobers vs NZ in NZ : 250 runs in 8 innings

Sobers vs NZ in NZ : 150 runs in 10 innings

BTW, I don’t agree with your reasons about Sobers’ failure in NZ. The reasons just seems to be an excuse to justify his failure.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Most of the commonly used methods to judge the quality of an innings can be very misleading. The biggest one imo, is judging the quality of an attack by the names involved. People have a hard time grasping the fact that great bowlers can have off days and merely decent ones can be better than more heralded names at times.

Unpopular opinion to illustrate this: Pujara scored a hundred in the 2015 series in SL where he carried his bat on a green pitch to win India the series. It doesn't really get mentioned when Pujara is discussed, it's all about his knocks against Australia. But I will maintain till the end of time that Dhammika ****ing prasad bowled as well as Cummins did in the series vs India recently, and was a nightmare to face. Most people though, will look at the respective scorecards for Colombo 2015 and Sydney 2019 and without a second thought say the latter came against vastly superior bowling when I'm not really sure that's the case. And that's why watching the tests, or reading an account from a historian can provide more value at times than just a stat or a scorecard. Old match reports are often inaccurate and may have some exaggerations but they're very valuable.

 

[h_hurricane]

Even if you jusifty Sobers’ failure in NZ, how would you justify Sobers’ failure against NZ at home?

Sobers vs NZ in NZ : 250 runs in 8 innings

Sobers vs NZ in NZ : 150 runs in 10 innings

BTW, I don’t agree with your reasons about Sobers’ failure in NZ. The reasons just seems to be an excuse to justify his failure.

Sobers vs NZ in WI was hardly a failure. You could call it below par.

Let me ask you, Hansie Cronje dismissed Tendulkar so many times, but Wasim Akram couldn't dismiss him in 7 tests. What will you deduct from it ? These anomalies exist in cricket.

Another example. Tendulkar averaged in 30s when he played against SA team with Donald in it. Likewise for Australian team with Mcgrath in it. His overall record does not tell this. Would you say he was weak against great bowlers ?

 

[Spark]

8-10 innings is not enough to tell us anything remotely meaningful whatsoever. Like, are we serious? Imagine making a definitive judgment about a player after five games.

This is the problem with chopping a batsman's career into ever finer and finer pieces and trying to draw firm, decisive conclusions from them. The amount of information you have to work with - often just two or three series - is so small, and hence by definition the error bars so massive, that it genuinely, objectively cannot tell us anything useful. It is statistical malpractice to try and say anything with such a small sample size.

 

[Logan]

You picked examples of batsmen against specific bowlers.

But are you telling me Sobers’ average of 23 against NZ in 14 Tests is an anomaly? I don’t believe it.

We have differing views about it. Let’s agree to disagree

 

[aussie tragic]

IMO, that is two extremely important points to judge how good or great a batsman was. To assess how good he was in different conditions and different bowlers.

To show a stupid example of what you call the ultimate rating factor.

Bradman was dismissed 8 times by Hedley Verity bowling SLA, that's 10% of his innings.

This means either (a) Hedley Verity was the greatest bowler of all-time, (b) Bradman couldn't play SLA, so should not be considered an ATG, (c) Bradman was the best ever against SLA bowling as he averaged 172.00 in the innings Verity dismissed him, or (d) nit-picking stats should never be used as the sole basis for determining ATG's.

 

[jimmy101]

Stats aren't be all/end all. Alec Bedser, for example, was widely acclaimed by most writers during his day, including former players Trevor Bailey & Tom Graveney, to be the greatest English post-war pace bowler England produced, even better than Trueman. Yet doesn't really get much of a mention anymore possibly because of his average in comparison to Trueman &/or other ATGs. What stats wont tell you is Bedser was relied on by the team far more heavily than Trueman, especially in the 1948 series. If you go back further, Larwood, who was considered by most contemporary writers to be the unequivocally finest fast bowler of his day, also has relatively-medicore stats, yet this didn't alter anyone's opinion of him. It's not merely a case of old-timey writers waxing lyrical exclusively about "stylish" players. Such eye-witness testimonials from past players & cricket writers, alike, shouldn't be scoffed at so dismissively.

 

[Bolo.]

I actually agree with these thoughts on Rohit as the opener in the ATG XI. My point has been that there are MUCH better options than Gilchrist, like the one I chose, a certain BC Lara.

Ya, I have no problem with rating 20+ openers ahead of Gilly. I just like Stephens analysis in relation to both of them. Gilly comes nowhere near my atg team, but his points are still valid.

Hmm, how often does this happen, though, outside of bitter types like Shane Warne et al?

In general I just find it baffling that something so simple as "I watched him play" is just flat-out discounted in favour of statistical analysis that I find extremely simplistic and a long, long way from robust. It's not something I find impressive when analysing current players, I don't find it convincing with historical players either. As ever, these matters are complex and a variety of viewpoints - some of which are qualitative and non-quantitative - are ideal.

I can tell you that waugh was the best bat I ever watched, and it isnt even close. The gulf between him and the next best is pratictically Bradman-rest difference. He shredded RSA like nobody else has even gotten close to, including top attacks in rough conditions. Are you comfortable with my eye test, even though we both know my conclusions are wrong?

 

[jimmy101]

No problem with anyone thinking M Waugh is the GOAT ODI opener, the only problem I have with that, personally, is the Bradman-esque gulf part of it all. Impossible.

 

[Logan]

To show a stupid example of what you call the ultimate rating factor.

Bradman was dismissed 8 times by Hedley Verity bowling SLA, that's 10% of his innings.

This means either (a) Hedley Verity was the greatest bowler of all-time, (b) Bradman couldn't play SLA, so should not be considered an ATG, (c) Bradman was the best ever against SLA bowling as he averaged 172.00 in the innings Verity dismissed him, or (d) nit-picking stats should never be used as the sole basis for determining ATG's.

Never said stats are the sole basis. Just said stats are more important than views of eminent cricket writers and historians.

 

[bagapath]

my ATG ODI team will have Gilly as an opener because I go for his high impact batting and not looking merely at averages

Tendulkar
Gilchrist
Richards
Kohli
ABDV
Dhoni + *
S Pollock
Akram
Warne
Garner
McGrath

Jayasurya
Hayden
Kallis
Bevan
Hussey
Butler +
Symonds
Imran *
Waqar
Murali
Donald

 

[Spark]

Ya, I have no problem with rating 20+ openers ahead of Gilly. I just like Stephens analysis in relation to both of them. Gilly comes nowhere near my atg team, but his points are still valid.



I can tell you that waugh was the best bat I ever watched, and it isnt even close. The gulf between him and the next best is pratictically Bradman-rest difference. He shredded RSA like nobody else has even gotten close to, including top attacks in rough conditions. Are you comfortable with my eye test, even though we both know my conclusions are wrong?

I mean if that is quite literally the extent of your analysis then sure I'm not gonna weight it very highly.

 

[stephen]

my ATG ODI team will have Gilly as an opener because I go for his high impact batting and not looking merely at averages

Tendulkar
Gilchrist
Richards
Kohli
ABDV
Dhoni + *
S Pollock
Akram
Warne
Garner
McGrath

Jayasurya
Hayden
Kallis
Bevan
Hussey
Butler +
Symonds
Imran *
Waqar
Murali
Donald

Interesting XIs. Playing Gilchrist and Dhoni in the same XI is a bit greedy :P. Pollock at 7 is also interesting.

The second XI having Kallis at 3 is a hard sell, especially since Ponting isn't already picked. It's not like his bowling is necessary either with Jayasuriya and Symonds both in the side and well as 4 genuine ATGs.

Hayden is also an interesting choice. Personally I always felt that Mark Waugh was a better ODI opener than Hayden. At least until Hayden's purple patch around the 07 WC where he went on a rampage and only missed out on player of the tournament because McGrath decided to have the GOAT tournament.

 

[honestbharani]

my ATG ODI team will have Gilly as an opener because I go for his high impact batting and not looking merely at averages

Tendulkar
Gilchrist
Richards
Kohli
ABDV
Dhoni + *
S Pollock
Akram
Warne
Garner
McGrath

Jayasurya
Hayden
Kallis
Bevan
Hussey
Butler +
Symonds
Imran *
Waqar
Murali
Donald

Lemme give this a whirl..


Sachin
Lara
Richards
Kohli
AB
Dhoni +*
Flintoff
Akram
Warne
Ambrose
Murali



Rohit
Jayasuriya
Ponting *
Bevan
Buttler +
Hussey
Kapil
Klusener
Saqlain
Starc
McGrath