The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[jimmy101]

I'm actually with Logan on this one. Just because lbw percentages aren't a definitive stat to determine biased home umpiring, doesn't mean that it is meaningless as a stat to look into it. IMO deciding that these Pakistan bowlers having unusually high lbw percentages is due purely to factors other than home umpiring is a bigger assumption than the other way around.

Hm, I dunno. I'd say the balance of the umpire's off-shore bank account would be more of a definitive stat... Nah, just kidding. Everything in Pakistan is paid for with cash.

 

[_00_deathscar]

1. Cricket hasn’t changed that much. At least statistically. The mean batting and bowling averages have pretty much been the same in the last 100 years.

2. There is also a psychological aspect. It is impossible to ignore Don Bradman. So obviously cricket fans would love to know more about the cricket in the first fifty years of last decade.

3. Generally speaking, most ATG teams have pre-1950 cricketers in two positions : The openers and Don Bradman.

It is literally impossible to ignore the likes of Hobbs, Sutcliffe and Hutton in an ATG team. In the future if we have an opener averaging 50+ and brilliant in all conditions, maybe we would pick them and those three would be slowly forgotten. Unfortunately since Hutton retired, there has been only one opening batsman in the same caliber as those three.

Maybe that does point to the change? That there are a lot more openers now who are more attacking in nature (Sehwag, Hayden, Warner etc). The role has somewhat shifted. There aren’t timeless tests anymore.
Apart from the 2000s when averages were ridiculous, have they really shifted that much? There were more players averaging 55+ in the earlier eras than in the 90s for example.
So what happened? Did players get worse? That doesn’t seem likely - just seems like a mix of more of a role shift and also that the sport has somewhat standardised.
It just seems strange to pick someone who has slightly better numbers (not 99 good) and having never watched them hit a ball.

Re: all conditions - that ones easy. There are far more conditions now than there were back in the 20s. So you’re asking a player to be good at about 6-8 different conditions (he probably excels in 2-3) vs back then when most teams only toured 2-3 nations at best.

Athletically and as a sport as a whole, cricket has come on - just simple in numerical terms. Earlier you had England and Australia. Then West Indies, India, Pakistan but the latter two were still largely not accessible to everyone within their countries.

Hence my point that Bradman was an absolute statistical anomaly. Everyone else wasn’t so far ahead of the very best of the last 20-30 years, and in the case of openers certainly not that far ahead of someone like Gavaskar - considering practically no one on this forum watched many of the real oldies, what basis do we have for picking them?

I’d say cricket has definitely changed more than football. For starters as mentioned above, just simply in numerical terms, cricket went from being a sport for the elite to a sport for everyone. Football was never a sport of the elite, it was always open to everyone.

Generally speaking in football, from the 50s you’d consider Pele and Di Stefano and Puskas (and maybe Lev Yashin as keeper), but I can’t think of anyone you’d really pick pre TV era or at least pre video era.

 

[jimmy101]

Football was never a sport of the elite, it was always open to everyone.

Professionalism in football wasn't legalised until 1885 bro. Aeons ago, but the point still exists.

 

[_00_deathscar]

I think my overall point is that we're essentially, quite possibly, rating a bunch of Gerd Mullers far higher than they actually were - statistical beasts. But no one would say he was one of the definitive best players of all time (good a player though he was), because people were able to actually watch him play.

Cricket statistics are of course far more nuanced than football, but it does feel like that sometimes.

 

[jimmy101]

Huh? Gerd Muller is absolutely one of the best footballers of all time. Formed an integral part of the legendary '74 West German team.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Huh? Gerd Muller is absolutely one of the best footballers of all time. Formed an integral part of the legendary '74 West German team.

Yes, like I said, he was an excellent player, but he's never getting into any All Time World XI, probably not even the 5th or 6th one. He was a great player, but not 'one of the best footballers of all time' - even just accounting for strikers. What he absolutely was is a statistical beast.
What I'm saying is that maybe we're overrating some of these older players, especially considering we never watched many of them. Essentially we're just playing book cricket...

 

[bagapath]

Barrington belonged to the generation after May and, certainly, Compton. So he didn't lose out to them in comparison, actually. Being a dour player he wasn't exactly everyone's favorite. He was the Boycott when Dexter was the Pietersen, of their era. So naturally he was not rated on par with the exciting stroke makers who played with him or just preceded him.

 

[Logan]

Among batsmen who made their debuts pre-1950, only half a dozen cricketers(Trumper, Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Bradman, Hutton) are spoken about. Rest are forgotten.

Except Sydney Barnes who is impossible to ignore because of his records, no other bowler pre-1950 is hardly mentioned.

Obviously some of the older cricketers are overrated. None of us have seen Hobbs or Sutcliffe play. Yet most of us would say Hobbs was a better batsman because we have been subconsciously taught or read from our childhood that Hobbs was better.

I have often mentioned and subsequently been criticised for saying this. Unless there is a Don Bradman level difference, I would often rate modern day greats ahead of yesteryear legends. They may have been very good but most of them played at the game at it’s infancy and barely played outside England and Australia. Gavaskar > 3 English legendary openers. Murali and Warne > Grimmett and O’Reily. Ponting and Kallis > Hammond.

 

[jimmy101]

What I'm saying is that maybe we're overrating some of these older players, especially considering we never watched many of them. Essentially we're just playing book cricket...

100%. The amount of influence statistics has over some of the posters on this forum is staggering. To have a bloke like Ken Barrington in an English ATXI & not know a singular thing about him besides his averages home/away, or whatever, isn't really my vibe. It's funny how no-one has mentioned anything of his batting skill-set. What about his superb back-foot play? His wristy pull-shots which could pierce the tightest of fields? His immense reserves of concentration? Wally Grout best summed up the approach of Ken Barrington to an England crisis when he said he seemed to have a Union Jack trailing behind him as he walked to the wicket. He deliberately tightened his defence after early setbacks & soon became almost immovable.

But no, it's always numbers around these parts. Ultimately, that's the sad thing about it bro. No-one wants to read about cricketers anymore, and even if they did, they lack the good sense or judgement to take anything on-board. Like I said earlier, this revisionist history is a symptom of the internet age, where averages & other measures are just a click away. It's laughable that these fart-huffing stats-lord posters think they've uncovered a gem that the people around during the time were too stupid to recognise.

 

[mr_mister]

Among batsmen who made their debuts pre-1950, only half a dozen cricketers(Trumper, Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Bradman, Hutton) are spoken about. Rest are forgotten.

Except Sydney Barnes who is impossible to ignore because of his records, no other bowler pre-1950 is hardly mentioned.

Obviously some of the older cricketers are overrated. None of us have seen Hobbs or Sutcliffe play. Yet most of us would say Hobbs was a better batsman because we have been subconsciously taught or read from our childhood that Hobbs was better.

I have often mentioned and subsequently been criticised for saying this. Unless there is a Don Bradman level difference, I would often rate modern day greats ahead of yesteryear legends. They may have been very good but most of them played at the game at it’s infancy and barely played outside England and Australia. Gavaskar > 3 English legendary openers. Murali and Warne > Grimmett and O’Reily. Ponting and Kallis > Hammond.

O'Reilly and Grimmet might get rated slightly worse than Murali and Warne... Fair enough since neither took 700 test wickets. But both those '30s leggies are pretty much rated higher than every single other spinner in history. So to say only Barnes is talked about as a legendary bowler pre 1950 is nonsense. Tate and Larwood too

 

[jimmy101]

There are quite a few legendary pre-war bowlers. It can be argued that modern bowling & bowling tactics developed sooner than modern batsmanship.

 

[Logan]

O'Reilly and Grimmet might get rated slightly worse than Murali and Warne... Fair enough since neither took 700 test wickets. But both those '30s leggies are pretty much rated higher than every single other spinner in history. So to say only Barnes is talked about as a legendary bowler pre 1950 is nonsense. Tate and Larwood too

Can we seriously compare Larwood to a Steyn or even Anderson? Playing 20 odd Tests in Eng/Aus in the 30s is different from playing around 100 Tests this decade in 4 different continents? Would Larwood have been like Anderson and underperformed in Asia or would he have performed well like a Marshall or Steyn?

 

[Logan]

There are quite a few legendary pre-war bowlers. It can be argued that modern bowling & bowling tactics developed sooner than modern batsmanship.

How many pre-1950 or even pre-1970 bowlers are picked in an ATG team?

Sydney Barnes occasionally. That’s about it.

 

[smash84]

I'm actually with Logan on this one. Just because lbw percentages aren't a definitive stat to determine biased home umpiring, doesn't mean that it is meaningless as a stat to look into it. IMO deciding that these Pakistan bowlers having unusually high lbw percentages is due purely to factors other than home umpiring is a bigger assumption than the other way around*

*not saying that anyone here is doing that, but I don't get why everyone is jumping down Logan's throat as if he's claiming that these lbw stats are purely definitive proof of biased umpiring and not at all due to other factors, which from what I can tell he isn't

Not sure if this is a serious post.

TJB are you old enough to have ever watched a test match played in Pakistan? Or have you started watching cricket from 2010?

 

[Coronis]

100%. The amount of influence statistics has over some of the posters on this forum is staggering. To have a bloke like Ken Barrington in an English ATXI & not know a singular thing about him besides his averages home/away, or whatever, isn't really my vibe. It's funny how no-one has mentioned anything of his batting skill-set. What about his superb back-foot play? His wristy pull-shots which could pierce the tightest of fields? His immense reserves of concentration? Wally Grout best summed up the approach of Ken Barrington to an England crisis when he said he seemed to have a Union Jack trailing behind him as he walked to the wicket. He deliberately tightened his defence after early setbacks & soon became almost immovable.

But no, it's always numbers around these parts. Ultimately, that's the sad thing about it bro. No-one wants to read about cricketers anymore, and even if they did, they lack the good sense or judgement to take anything on-board. Like I said earlier, this revisionist history is a symptom of the internet age, where averages & other measures are just a click away. It's laughable that these fart-huffing stats-lord posters think they've uncovered a gem that the people around during the time were too stupid to recognise.

Averages and numbers in general are the main things that get posted in this specific thread they’re far easier things to quantify when talking about players in an ATG context. Stats are always going to take precedence in a thread like this. Personally, I do try and read as much information on any player I’m interested in, regarding their playing style and the more first hand accounts, the better. Its not just about players stats, for me at least. I will however use them when I think they’re pertinent to a discussion. Stats aren’t everything, but neither are opinions of past players or other experts.

 

[jimmy101]

How many pre-1950 or even pre-1970 bowlers are picked in an ATG team?

Sydney Barnes occasionally. That’s about it.

Heaps of contenders...

AUS: Grimmett, O'Reilly, Lindwall, Gregory, Miller (there also good reason to believe Spofforth & Turnber were up to standard)
ENG: Barnes, Tate, Voce, Larwood, Verity, Bedser, Laker, Rhodes (again, you've also got guys like Lohmann, Richardson, Hirst, Peel
WI: Constantine
RSA: Faulkner
IND: Amar Singh, Mohammad Nissar, Mankad
NZ: Cowie

 

[h_hurricane]

That's because you weren't there at the time & have just looked up their individual stats with no context.

In 20 years time there will be CW posters asserting that Voges was a forgotten ATG purely cause of his average. But those of us who were around at the time know better. This is the crux of my argument that Coronis seems to have missed.

It is not that I disrespect people who have watched cricket back then. I still believe, one inherent issue with that audience is that the players who dig deep and play the unattractive yet highly efficient game like Barrington will always be criminally under-rated just because he curbed his natural instincts and didn't have Dexter's imperious strokeplay. I am not a big fan of rating players merely using numbers, never will be. It is just that they still matter at the end of the game and he is so far ahead of his English peers.

I have developed a lot of respect for Barrington recently after reading that he curbed his natural game to serve his team for a long time. Very few cricketers have done that in history. Imagine some one starting off flamboyant like Sehwag and then ending up having the temperament of a Dravid. Must be a really driven individual isn't he ?

 

[jimmy101]

Averages and numbers in general are the main things that get posted in this specific thread they’re far easier things to quantify when talking about players in an ATG context. Stats are always going to take precedence in a thread like this. Personally, I do try and read as much information on any player I’m interested in, regarding their playing style and the more first hand accounts, the better. Its not just about players stats, for me at least. I will however use them when I think they’re pertinent to a discussion. Stats aren’t everything, but neither are opinions of past players or other experts.

If anything you're probably a good example of the obsessed type which rates players & picks teams based almost solely on statistics.

 

[jimmy101]

I have developed a lot of respect for Barrington recently after reading that he curbed his natural game to serve his team for a long time. Very few cricketers have done that in history. Imagine some one starting off flamboyant like Sehwag and then ending up having the temperament of a Dravid. Must be a really driven individual isn't he ?

Absolutely, if there's ever a batsman to bat for your life, it's Ken!

 

[Coronis]

If anything you're probably a good example of the obsessed type which rates players & picks teams based almost solely on statistics.