The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[mr_mister]

Gotta admit, cricket magazines aren't really as good as they used to be. Was in the newsagent earlier this morning & came across this. Can't believe I paid $17.00 for this...

You've really taken a set against Coronis... He's pretty harmless

 

[smash84]

That’s why peer acclaim should not be the only thing that matters.

Yes, ideally it should be a combination of a lot of different factors. But cricketers probably won't be stats junkies. I think they'd rather rate peers based on what they saw and use their own judgment than to start looking up spreadsheets.

Cricketers rating their peers who they've watched a fair bit of, might be a better tool to evaluate cricketers than just spreadsheets in the event that the gap between the judgment and the stats isn't too large.

And a gap between Marshall and Lillee's average is 2-3 runs? That is not a huge gap and so having Lillee > Marshall is not an unreasonable opinion to have. Especially for people who have watched both of them play and have even played against both of them.

 

[Logan]

Yet the opinions of a bunch of random web-forum users, many of whom weren't even born at the time, should be trusted?

You are free to blindly believe and form opinions based on historians, ex-cricketers and writers who could have been biased. Even though you have never seen none of those greats, you are blindly willing to accept what those people thought of them back then. Fine. Good for you.

 

[jimmy101]

You are free to blindly believe and form opinions based on historians, ex-cricketers and writers who could have been biased. Even though you have never seen none of those greats, you are blindly willing to accept what those people thought of them back then. Fine. Good for you.

No offence, but I'll take Richie Benaud's opinion before yours.

 

[Logan]

Yes, ideally it should be a combination of a lot of different factors. But cricketers probably won't be stats junkies. I think they'd rather rate peers based on what they saw and use their own judgment than to start looking up spreadsheets.

Cricketers rating their peers who they've watched a fair bit of, might be a better tool to evaluate cricketers than just spreadsheets in the event that the gap between the judgment and the stats isn't too large.

And a gap between Marshall and Lillee's average is 2-3 runs? That is not a huge gap and so having Lillee > Marshall is not an unreasonable opinion to have. Especially for people who have watched both of them play and have even played against both of them.

Regarding Marshall and Lillee, it isn’t just their averages or strike rates. Marshall performed against everyone and everywhere. Lillee didn’t. Lillee played 60 out of 70 Tests in Aus/Eng. Out of 355 wickets, Lillee took 328 wickets just in Aus/Eng. I find it impossible to rate Lillee ahead of Marshall who was devastating everywhere.

I would rate Andy Roberts ahead of Dennis Lille even if Roberts had a slightly less average or strike rate. Roberts proved himself in more countries.

Peer acclaim isn’t everything. I think most of us have seen the careers of Akram and Donald. I think there is negligible difference between both though I personally found Donald better. But most ex-cricketers and historians speak as if Akram was the bowling equivalent of Bradman. Wasim Akram was the most versatile bowler I have seen but when it comes to actually taking wickets, I wouldn’t rate him as highly some of his peers.

 

[Logan]

No offence, but I'll take Richie Benaud's opinion before yours.

Ok

 

[ataraxia]

No offence, but I'll take Richie Benaud's opinion before yours.

The problem is, people get paid for what they say and they have a discernible bias towards cricketers from their own country when they've played for them. The latter has weakened over time but the former has only got more prominent.

 

[ataraxia]

Regarding Marshall and Lillee, it isn’t just their averages or strike rates. Marshall performed against everyone and everywhere. Lillee didn’t. Lillee played 60 out of 70 Tests in Aus/Eng. Out of 355 wickets, Lillee took 328 wickets just in Aus/Eng. I find it impossible to rate Lillee ahead of Marshall who was devastating everywhere.

I would rate Andy Roberts ahead of Dennis Lille even if Roberts had a slightly less average or strike rate. Roberts proved himself in more countries.

Peer acclaim isn’t everything. I think most of us have seen the careers of Akram and Donald. I think there is negligible difference between both though I personally found Donald better. But most ex-cricketers and historians speak as if Akram was the bowling equivalent of Bradman. Wasim Akram was the most versatile bowler I have seen but when it comes to actually taking wickets, I wouldn’t rate him as highly some of his peers.

Logan, who's better, Philander or Anderson? And who has better stats?

 

[Daemon]

The problem is, people get paid for what they say and they have a discernible bias towards cricketers from their own country when they've played for them. The latter has weakened over time but the former has only got more prominent.

It's also more profitable to write about exciting cricketers.

People will lap up a story on Kohli picking his nose but Pujara's double hundred this week will go by unnoticed.

 

[jimmy101]

The problem is, people get paid for what they say and they have a discernible bias towards cricketers from their own country when they've played for them. The latter has weakened over time but the former has only got more prominent.

It's probably best to treat it on a case by case basis. Benaud, for example, is someone who for the most part can be trusted. Whereas the opinions of people such as Bill Lawry, or Geoff Boycott, probably deserve to be taken with a pinch of salt.

 

[ataraxia]

It's also more profitable to write about exciting cricketers.

People will lap up a story on Kohli picking his nose but Pujara's double hundred this week will go by unnoticed.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Koh...hrome..69i57.806j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

https://www.google.com/search?q=Puj...hrome..69i57.734j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Guess which one has more results?

 

[honestbharani]

I don't understand this Coronis & jimmy101 cat fighting. Is it a CW based thing or has there been angst on another forum which has spilled over here? Both seem pretty decent fellas generally from what I've had to do with them, and tbh it's a bit sad to get into a fight over Ken Barrington, who no one has ever seemed to give a toss about, even when he was playing.

I need to know what's doing, because it seems to me a waste of energy to be arguing among yourselves here when there are perfectly mediocre Indian supporters ripe for the picking after their side got belted last night.

Seriously fellas, sometimes you have to go for the low hanging fruit.

Think they achieved it when you got involved.

 

[stephen]

Tbf that's pretty close to an England XI if you took out all players from the 20th century.

 

[Slifer]

Regarding Marshall and Lillee, it isn’t just their averages or strike rates. Marshall performed against everyone and everywhere. Lillee didn’t. Lillee played 60 out of 70 Tests in Aus/Eng. Out of 355 wickets, Lillee took 328 wickets just in Aus/Eng. I find it impossible to rate Lillee ahead of Marshall who was devastating everywhere.

I would rate Andy Roberts ahead of Dennis Lille even if Roberts had a slightly less average or strike rate. Roberts proved himself in more countries.

Peer acclaim isn’t everything. I think most of us have seen the careers of Akram and Donald. I think there is negligible difference between both though I personally found Donald better. But most ex-cricketers and historians speak as if Akram was the bowling equivalent of Bradman. Wasim Akram was the most versatile bowler I have seen but when it comes to actually taking wickets, I wouldn’t rate him as highly some of his peers.

I'm with you on this one. Marshall is an all weather bowler who proved himself all over the world. Lillee proved himself mostly in England and Australia. And as much as there are bowlers who think Lillee was the best, just as many say the same about Mars including Lillee's own teammate.

I've heard Ian Chappell say that the gap between Sobers as an AR is similar to that of Bradman as a batsman. I am as biased as anyone else but this is a serious exaggeration and just goes to show you really can't rely too much on past players/so called expert opinions. And no way is Barry Richards greater or whatever than Sunil....seriously??!!

 

[honestbharani]

When cricket fans/nerds like us get into naming any all time XIs we obviously have to go by stats to a certain extent when it involves players we have not seen. And to me, that is fine. But it is also always gonna happen that guys who were more involved in the game and had more opportunities to watch more of the greats will go by what they felt about each player when doing a similar exercise. Like Jimmy101 said, it is upto us to try and discern where the subjectiveness can be considered valid enough to overpower the objective metrics. And that comes with our own biases as well. To me, as long as one can be consistent on the principles than move the goalposts around based on which players they like, either is fine.

 

[stephen]

Lillee's influence on world cricket was far greater than he's given credit for by the Indian stats brigade. The ISB would have you believe that you need to perform all around the world in all conditions to be considered a great. But that's not true. Lillee influenced so many bowlers, including Hadlee who modeled his action on Lillee. Lillee was also a part of WSC - one of the biggest stars in fact. WSC has been the largest influence on international cricket over the last 50 years.

But Lillee, like Warne, Botham, Miller, Pieterson and a few others over the years had that X-Factor. That ability to glue you to the television when they're playing because something magical is going to happen.

The ISB can slice and dice the stats however they like but cricket is entertainment and for many people Lillee was cricket. He loomed larger in the minds of the public than Marshall did. Marshall was better statistically than Lillee, but there are plenty of reasons, some cricket related and some non- cricket related for rating Lillee higher than Marshall.

Now personally I think Marshall was better than Lillee and indeed was the best fast bowler ever. But the ISB writing off Lillee because he played the majority of his tests in the first world is a bit silly.

 

[honestbharani]

Lillee's influence on world cricket was far greater than he's given credit for by the Indian stats brigade. The ISB would have you believe that you need to perform all around the world in all conditions to be considered a great. But that's not true. Lillee influenced so many bowlers, including Hadlee who modeled his action on Lillee. Lillee was also a part of WSC - one of the biggest stars in fact. WSC has been the largest influence on international cricket over the last 50 years.

But Lillee, like Warne, Botham, Miller, Pieterson and a few others over the years had that X-Factor. That ability to glue you to the television when they're playing because something magical is going to happen.

The ISB can slice and dice the stats however they like but cricket is entertainment and for many people Lillee was cricket. He loomed larger in the minds of the public than Marshall did. Marshall was better statistically than Lillee, but there are plenty of reasons, some cricket related and some non- cricket related for rating Lillee higher than Marshall.

Now personally I think Marshall was better than Lillee and indeed was the best fast bowler ever. But the ISB writing off Lillee because he played the majority of his tests in the first world is a bit silly.

Not true since the IPL happened. And for the rest of your post, the Aussie Bias Brigade are silly to just rate any Aussie player higher based on whatever argument suits that player. At least stats have the simplicity and fairness of objectivity, even though they mean little without context. The ABB is just pure unadulterated crap.

FWIW, I do think it is possible for a player to have been both influential and yet, moderate when talking about ATGness. Lillee seems to fall in that bracket. He seems to have been one of the best fast bowling coaches ever and has an immense record wherever he did play, but the fact is his record is incomplete. To me, he is an ATG but obviously a level below the elite ATG fast bowlers.

 

[Logan]

Lillee had a huge impact on fast bowling. Yet I wouldn’t rate him among Top 10 fast bowlers ever.

 

[stephen]

Sorry, I should have said that WSC has been the biggest positive influence on cricket over the last 50 years. The IPL had been influential but its impact has certainly not been positive - players are retiring younger from real cricket to make bank playing franchise rubbish around the world now which is making cricket overall worse.

 

[Logan]

Many said ODI cricket wasn’t real cricket back in the 70s and 80s. They said WSC had a negative influence too.

The power centre has shifted to India and Australian cricketers, board and even fans aren’t happy.