The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[srbhkshk]

he is held below them because he sucked ass playing spin.

 

[smash84]

I guess if you don't think he deserves to be rated higher for playing on for 12 more years and averaging 50, we just see cricket rating differently.

Maybe the premium we put on longevity is different.

Question for you. Where do you rate Lara in pantheon of greats, and specifically in comparison to Tendulkar?

 

[mr_mister]

Who is elevating SAchin here to be greater than he actually is? The only batsman who is being elevated in this discussion is Smith, no one else.

I'm saying not knocking down Sachin a smidgeon for his final 15 tests sucking is strange to me.

 

[trundler]

Tendulkar should either be rated for his stellar returns in the 90s or as a guy with unparalleled longevity with an elite average but it makes no sense to mark him down for merely being great after a decade of being the GOAT #4. A peak is a few years; 150 tests isn't one.

 

[mr_mister]

he is held below them because he sucked ass playing spin.

eh, he fared poorly in India but did fine against Murali in all conditions

 

[Teja.]

Maybe the premium we put on longevity is different.

Question for you. Where do you rate Lara in pantheon of greats, and specifically in comparison to Tendulkar?

Both are ATGs and the top two batsmen of the last 30 years.

Personally I put Sachin on one tier with batsmen like Hobbs, Hammond, Sobers and Hutton as being the contendors for being the best after Bradman.

In a slight level below that, I'd have Lara, Richards, Chappell, Gavaskar etc.

 

[mr_mister]

Tendulkar should either be rated for his stellar returns in the 90s or as a guy with unparalleled longevity with an elite average but it makes no sense to mark him down for merely being great after a decade of being the GOAT #4. A peak is a few years; 150 tests isn't one.

Okay, I genuinely feel Ponting's stock dropped a tad just from his final few years. And that's not a bad thing. Dhoni as well did a bit of harm to his ODI record by playing on too long IMO. It's like, there's more to a career than peaks. Players have a bad period during their career and it lowers their average, so their rating in my eyes drops. That period coming at the end doesn't change that for me.

 

[smash84]

Both are ATGs and the top two batsmen of the last 30 years.

Personally I put Sachin on one tier with batsmen like Hobbs, Hammond, Sobers and Hutton as being the contendors for being the best after Bradman.

In a slight level below that, I'd have Lara, Richards, Chappell, Gavaskar etc.

Fair enough, we definitely rank batsmen differently then.

 

[trundler]

I've argued Ponting > Chappell because Punter played twice as many tests and didn't cherry pick his tours FTR.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Okay, I genuinely feel Ponting's stock dropped a tad just from his final few years. And that's not a bad thing. Dhoni as well did a bit of harm to his ODI record by playing on too long IMO. It's like, there's more to a career than peaks. Players have a bad period during their career and it lowers their average, so their rating in my eyes drops. That period coming at the end doesn't change that for me.

Dhoni's drop is like 5 years or something now though, it's ridiculously bad. Ponting's on the other hand, wasn't long but it was very, very sharp. Sachin's wasn't quite as sharp as Ponting's (though bad - took his overall average down by 2+ as I recall), and nowhere near as long as Dhoni's either (was 2 years) - ~1 year or something you could argue just bad form, he'll get it back etc..

 

[smash84]

Tendulkar should either be rated for his stellar returns in the 90s or as a guy with unparalleled longevity with an elite average but it makes no sense to mark him down for merely being great after a decade of being the GOAT #4. A peak is a few years; 150 tests isn't one.

Why not? Sachin was incredibly consistent all throughout the "peak". Others have more variation in theirs. Kind of like McGrath, very consistent.

 

[trundler]

Why not? Sachin was incredibly consistent all throughout the "peak". Others have more variation in theirs. Kind of like McGrath, very consistent.

Usually people mean peak to be a very good run of form. 150 tests is longer than almost every career ever.

 

[mr_mister]

Dhoni's drop is like 5 years or something now though, it's ridiculously bad. Ponting's on the other hand, wasn't long but it was very, very sharp. Sachin's wasn't quite as sharp as Ponting's (though bad - took his overall average down by 2+ as I recall), and nowhere near as long as Dhoni's either (was 2 years) - ~1 year or something you could argue just bad form, he'll get it back etc..

Statisically I'd say Sachin's was actually sharper than Ponting's but less protracted.

At the end Ponting had 4 years and 41 tests averaging 37. Still had 4 tons though including a couple of double tons.

Sachin had 2 years and 16 tests averaging 25 with a highest score of 81

 

[smash84]

Usually people mean peak to be a very good run of form. 150 tests is longer than almost every career ever.

Yes, he was extremely consistent all throughout. He was a run machine. Which is why I mentioned someone like McGrath as an example. A great average from almost the beginning to the end.

 

[trundler]

Yes, he was extremely consistent all throughout. He was a run machine. Which is why I mentioned someone like McGrath as an example. A great average from almost the beginning to the end.

Yeah McGrath is the Tendulkar of fast bowling but without the choking

 

[honestbharani]

I'm saying not knocking down Sachin a smidgeon for his final 15 tests sucking is strange to me.

I dont think that is what is happening here. You are confusing the argument for longevity as a factor in measuring greatness. One of the reasons Sachin is an ATG is BECAUSE he played that many tests and that many years at that level. I am definitely not removing the last few tests and the failures in those of any batsman I rate. The point is that with most batsman that happens at the end of their careers and that has not happened yet with Smith. So if you wanna compare a Smith who is 31, and has played regular test cricket for 7 years with a Sachin, do it with those parameters. Full career comparison of SAchin with Smith can happen when BOTH have completed their careers.

 

[honestbharani]

Statisically I'd say Sachin's was actually sharper than Ponting's but less protracted.

At the end Ponting had 4 years and 41 tests averaging 37. Still had 4 tons though including a couple of double tons.

Sachin had 2 years and 16 tests averaging 25 with a highest score of 81

Why is "the end" 4 years for Ponting and 2 years for Sachin? This is cherry picking, not what others have done.

 

[h_hurricane]

In another discussion on Botham vs Kapil, mr_mister was mentioning that Botham should get some leeway for playing too long. And he played 29 tests less than Kapil.

Why not use the same argument in Sachin vs Smith ? Sachin is in fact the perfect example of stats taking a beating when someone plays so much more outside the natural length of an average career.

 

[mr_mister]

Why is "the end" 4 years for Ponting and 2 years for Sachin? This is cherry picking, not what others have done.

the final year before these 4 years for Ponting was 2008 where he averaged 47.

for Sachin going one further year back to 2011 he also had a good year and averaged 47.


So yeah I'm dunno what to tell you I'm just basing it on when it looks like their form started to deteriorate. Hopefully this answer satisfies for once

 

[mr_mister]

In another discussion on Botham vs Kapil, mr_mister was mentioning that Botham should get some leeway for playing too long. And he played 29 tests less than Kapil.

Why not use the same argument in Sachin vs Smith ? Sachin is in fact the perfect example of stats taking a beating when someone plays so much more outside the natural length of an average career.

What were my exact words? You could be right but in my mind right now, I mainly rate Botham over Kapil for them having similar stats but Botham scoring way more centuries and a few more fivefers in way less tests.