The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[ataraxia]

See, by all accounts Walcott was a very good keeper. Obviously we do not have the kind of footage we have of even the 90s players (or even 80s for that matter) but most people seem to agree he was a very good keeper and was still one of the greatest batsmen in the world. With all due respect to Gilly, that is a hard combo to be ahead of. If you are selecting an all time side, I would probably pick Gilly coz Walcott did not keep enough, but if you list them in sides against each other and want to do a player v player comparison, I would still give the nod to Walcott as I m simply think he was a better cricketer overall than Gilchrist

IMO only absurd leaps of logic can conclude that Walcott is better than Gilly but should be below him in the broad all-time XI pecking order.

 

[ataraxia]

It's funny but makes sense on paper. I think it's because once you get to the stage of all-time best teams split this way every player, batter or bowler, is pretty similar in terms of what they bring to the table.

The only outlier is Bradman (and maybe Gilchrist?). Every other player you can pretty much match by an opposition player.

Sobers to whom (incl. his bowling)?

 

[TheJediBrah]

The same objective reasons that anyone would state to say Border = Richards, I assume? And I was not arguing, I simply asked coz you did not bring up any aspect of disagreement, just an overall "lol, u r wrong coz I dont agree with u" type post.

And yeah, I do agree it was more strongly worded than what I meant but I still think Murali is the greatest ever spinner by a comfortable margin and therefore, inspite of Grimmett's greatness, that is one of the easiest calls of this comparison.

See, by all accounts Walcott was a very good keeper. Obviously we do not have the kind of footage we have of even the 90s players (or even 80s for that matter) but most people seem to agree he was a very good keeper and was still one of the greatest batsmen in the world. With all due respect to Gilly, that is a hard combo to be ahead of. If you are selecting an all time side, I would probably pick Gilly coz Walcott did not keep enough, but if you list them in sides against each other and want to do a player v player comparison, I would still give the nod to Walcott as I m simply think he was a better cricketer overall than Gilchrist.

Lol.. Weekes was one of the greatest batsmen of his time and was regarded as the best of his era by many. Ponting was 3rd in his own era. If you want to weigh the Bradman factor so high that it cancels out every other players' strengths and weaknesses, be my guest. I agree that ultimately in this comparison it will be the weightage an individual gives to Bradman that will swing the vote. I am fine with that. Just that for me, it is not as big as it seems to be for you and I stand by every other rating. I already explained the Walcott point and the Miller point. Its about impact on the game and I think overall, how I rated them is how they will impact a game against each other. I don't have to resort to calling any post that disagrees with mine as biased or trolling like you have done about my post. I rank them this way and I think I have enough reason to. If you feel the Don factor is bigger than all these others, sure. That is one way to look at it too. For me, I go by the overall side and how I would feel if they lined up against each other.

Nah.. to me Ponting was clearly a level below Lara and Sachin and I believe Weekes is in that level amongst ATG batsmen. And I already explained Walcott over Gilly.

This is clearly all you justifying your bias. You may not even be aware you're doing it. You can think that Murali was the greatest spinner by a comfortable margin if you want, you can even think that it negates Bradman's advantage. You can think all these things, regardless of how far-fetched they are. Anyone can have an opinion.

But don't be surprised when everyone disagrees with you because your opinion is ****

 

[TheJediBrah]

Sobers to whom (incl. his bowling)?

His bowling wasn't really ATG level, but more than handy given how good a batsmen he was. I can't think of anyone to match him though, so yeah maybe.

 

[ataraxia]

And yeah, I do agree it was more strongly worded than what I meant but I still think Murali is the greatest ever spinner by a comfortable margin and therefore, inspite of Grimmett's greatness, that is one of the easiest calls of this comparison.

I'm genuinely interested to hear you justify this - I recently justified to myself that Grimmett is the best spinner ever - not saying that's right though.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don't put Murali in the top 5 tbh, and his controversial action doesn't even come into it. He's stats are skewed by playing >70% of his Tests in Asia and playing a ridiculous amount against genuine minnows (nearly 200 wickets @ average ~15 against Ban and Zim). Unless you can guarantee he's playing all the time in Asia I wouldn't pick him ahead of (from Australia alone) any of Warne, O'Reilly or Grimmett. And that's before even taking into account that he brings nothing to the table with the bat and for most of his career his fielding was quite poor.

 

[vcs]

I don't put Murali in the top 5 tbh, and his controversial action doesn't even come into it. He's stats are skewed by playing >70% of his Tests in Asia and playing a ridiculous amount against genuine minnows (nearly 200 wickets @ average ~15 against Ban and Zim). Unless you can guarantee he's playing all the time in Asia I wouldn't pick him ahead of (from Australia alone) any of Warne, O'Reilly or Grimmett. And that's before even taking into account that he brings nothing to the table with the bat and for most of his career his fielding was quite poor.

You don't put Murali in the top 5 spinners of all time?

 

[TheJediBrah]

You don't put Murali in the top 5 spinners of all time?

It's tough to compare him against the earlier guys tbf. He was definitely one of the top 2 in modern times.

 

[Red]

I'd like to get Martin Crowe in there somehow, if just to get another kiwi. You wouldn't lose much replacing Lawry or Simpson with him IMO.

I was about to laugh at the suggestion of Vettori in any kind of Test ATG team but looking at Red Hill's XI it's not a crazy call given you also have Warne + 3 ATG quicks. Vettori could average 30 with the bat and perform a good holding role with the ball if necessary.

In reality I’d take OReilly or Grimmett over either Benaud or Vettori, but I liked the all round factor they offer and I thought I needed another NZer.

Crowe or Williamson could replace Border or Ponting and that’d work just fine too.

 

[stephen]

It's reasonable to say that Warne and Murali are in the same class as a bowler, though I'd back Murali to take bags full against minnows more frequently than Warne. Against the top 7 opponents both bowlers are pretty close.

It's also reasonable to say that O'Reilly or Grimmett could well have been better than them both, especially O'Reilly who was a bit quicker.

Ultimately I don't think any difference between bowling attacks is going to make a difference. Australia have 12 players - Bradman was statistically a shade better than Neil Harvey combined with Michael Clarke.

I mean we've been watching Smith be utterly incredible over the last few years. He's been unbelievably good. Bradman was 50% better than Smith.

It's just an absurd difference that can't really be made up by guys who are better by small margins.

 

[trundler]

I don't put Murali in the top 5 tbh, and his controversial action doesn't even come into it. He's stats are skewed by playing >70% of his Tests in Asia and playing a ridiculous amount against genuine minnows (nearly 200 wickets @ average ~15 against Ban and Zim). Unless you can guarantee he's playing all the time in Asia I wouldn't pick him ahead of (from Australia alone) any of Warne, O'Reilly or Grimmett. And that's before even taking into account that he brings nothing to the table with the bat and for most of his career his fielding was quite poor.

Grimmett struggled against England. He feastsd heavily on a very ordinary SA outfit. You're basically penalising Murali for playing in the modern era and having the holes in his record put under a magnifying glass. Also dismissing his record in Asia is foolish. As if Australian conditions are the default. Murali was a much better bowler than Warne in Asia and had a lot of success versus Warne's bunnies England too. Nevertheless, Warne vs Murali is not worth getting into again. Murali was comfortably superior to the vanilla ol' timey offie. Laker feasted on some notoriously bad pitches and didn't come close to Murali statistically. No one did besides O'Reilly and Grimmett. The former played so little that I switch between rating him above and below Warne and Murali and the latter was easily Murali's inferior over closer inspection.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Grimmett struggled against England. He feastsd heavily on a very ordinary SA outfit. You're basically penalising Murali for playing in the modern era and having the holes in his record put under a magnifying glass. Also dismissing his record in Asia is foolish. As if Australian conditions are the default. Murali was a much better bowler than Warne in Asia and had a lot of success versus Warne's bunnies England too. Nevertheless, Warne vs Murali is not worth getting into again. Murali was comfortably superior to the vanilla ol' timey offie. Laker feasted on some notoriously bad pitches and didn't come close to Murali statistically. No one did besides O'Reilly and Grimmett. The former played so little that I switch between rating him above and below Warne and Murali and the latter was easily Murali's inferior over closer inspection.

The reason his record in Asia is a factor, not "dismissed" as you put it, is because of the, on average, friendlier conditions there for spinners. Hence why it is relevant when comparing to other spinners. Nothing to do with "default" conditions.

In honesty I have as little interest getting Warne v Murali as anyone. It's why I didn't bring up his dubious action and the reactions to it as a factor in judging him. It's not worth the hassle and we all know what all the arguments are by now.

 

[trundler]

Imran and Kapil did better at home than in England. Lots of visiting bowlers struggle in Australia. Home conditions matter more than 'friendlier' conditions imo.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Imran and Kapil did better at home than in England. Lots of visiting bowlers struggle in Australia. Home conditions matter more than 'friendlier' conditions imo.

I wouldn't say they matter more, but they definitely do matter.

 

[stephen]

Post-2000 Warne averaged close to 30 in Australia. Overall his away record was better than his home record.

Nothing suggests that Murali was better in Asia than Warne. Both were belted in India, both had fantastic records in Sri Lanka. Both went well in Pakistan. I'm not even sure Warne played in Bangladesh.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Warne played the 2006 2-match series in Bangladesh. Not sure he did much but yeah it was only 2 games.

 

[Daemon]

Nothing suggests that Murali was better in Asia than Warne.

lol

hb vs stephen is always excellent entertainment

 

[TheJediBrah]

lol

hb vs stephen is always excellent entertainment

How?
"Ben Hilfenhaus is as good as Jimmy Anderson "
"Stop spreading your hatred filled lies"
"something, something, stats in Australia "
" no u"

 

[stephen]

lol

hb vs stephen is always excellent entertainment

Away/ neutral against against Pakistan and India their records are virtuality identical. Warne has an excellent record in Sri Lanka, averaging less than Murali there.

As I said, there is little to suggest Murali was any better in Asia. Unless you want to read something into Murali's record against Bangladesh.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Away/ neutral against against Pakistan and India their records are virtuality identical. Warne has an excellent record in Sri Lanka, averaging less than Murali there.

As I said, there is little to suggest Murali was any better in Asia. Unless you want to read something into Murali's record against Bangladesh.

If this is all accurate then you have an excellent point. Seems Warne was better than I thought he was. I just saw how **** he did in India and equated that as him in Asia.