The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Daemon]

Lara is generally rated on par with Sachin because he played some amazing innings and had massive series the kind Sachin didn't. And Smith will have similar arguments over Sachin because he's also piled up some immense Lara-esque series. This is something Tendulkar didn't quite do so it's a solid plus in Smith's favour.

But saying Smith should be rated above Sachin if he gets to a 60 average in a span of 100 tests is nonsensical because it's literally something Sachin did as well.

I didn't say that, but Teja said he needed to average 65 over 125 tests.

I don't think the bar needs to be quite that high unless Smith minnow bashes or scores all his runs on flat tracks and unimportant series for the next 40-50 tests.

 

[h_hurricane]

Yes but the thing about Viv is the same thing about Akram - they were bloody good and had that psychological effect on their opponents, but the stats tell us that those things don't count as much as the players felt they did.

If you compare Viv's contemporaries, the great batsmen of the same era were Gavaskar, Miandad, Border and Chappell.

Gavaskar was an opener who had a different set of challenges.
Miandad wasn't as good overseas as at home. Neither was he good against the WI.
Border was great overseas but not did not have a great record against WI. Also his output with the bat is a bit underwhelming (11K runs in 265 innings). I am not getting into the not out argument by the way. A hundred every 10 innings isn't that impressive either.
Chappell toured less and didn't face as many varying challenges as Viv. Else he would have to be right up there.

As far as Akram is concerned, he is rightly considered as an ATG but not as good as a Mcgrath or an Ambrose unless his batting is considered.

SO Viv > Miandad or Border is far easier to buy than Akram > Ambrose or Mcgrath.

 

[stephen]

Certainly Viv had the best peak of the 80s batsmen. But we don't rate Mohammed Yousef as being better than Kallis because he had a better peak year.

Viv was great, but he wasn't leagues above his contemporaries. He didn't have to face the best bowling attack of his era and still ended up behind others of his era statistically.

I think he is overrated because of his powerful aura and that of his side at the time. Which is, funnily enough, the exact opposite of what has happened to Ponting.

 

[Daemon]

@Daemon would you rate Sachin higher if he retired at the end of 2004 having played for a full 15 years with 9.8k runs in 120 tests @ 58?

Those were his raw stats at that point. Within that period, he was also the standout batsman by 6-7 runs in one of the ATG fast bowling decade of the 90s.

Don't you think him playing for a decade after that and averaging 50+ is not a notable upgrade to the above?

If not, how do you justify your logic here?

It's a notable upgrade in terms of output, but it also meant he spent close to a decade in reasonably friendly conditions averaging 48.

I think Tendulkar playing longer definitely makes me rate him higher than if he retired in 2004, especially given his second peak in the late 00s, but the relatively lower output means it doesn't make that massive a difference to me to require Smith to average 65 over 125 tests just to be declared better than him.

Smith would have to have an enormous run to end up with that. If that includes some of the monster series we've seen from him and not mindless minnow bashing on flat tracks, then I'd have no problem putting him definitively at #2 behind Bradman. Don't forget the gap between Smith and his contemporaries is massive as well.

 

[Daemon]

Anyways it doesn't matter, Smith will probably get done for cheating soon enough

 

[Teja.]

Yeah, fair enough. You’re looking to rate the average quality of the batsman over their career regardless of how big it is once it’s like 10+ years and I’m trying to rate based on the marginal value added by the player over their replacement over their entire career.

All the other batsman I rate the same or higher than Sachin also played for around 20 or more years and were similarly prolific.

I guess we just view this differently.

 

[Daemon]

marginal value added by the player over their replacement over their entire career.

Doesn’t this place too much importance on the pipeline

 

[Teja.]

Doesn’t this place too much importance on the pipeline

I mean, there is a point is where a player sticking around is hurting a team but it doesn't matter in the current comparison anyway since Sachin from 05-13 is a player who would be a overall positive to any side in history considering he averaged 50 and scored 20+ hundreds.

There is no way that I'd take a guy who averaged 60 over 12 years over a guy who averaged 40 for 4 years, 60 for 10 years and 50 for 10 years because the first bloke started his career late and retired early compared to the second.

 

[Teja.]

Anyway, the idea that you don't credit a batsman significantly higher for playing for 10 more years and being an excellent test batsman is something that tells me we see cricket rating very differently. Yesterday there were people ITT who were saying that they would even rate Sachin higher if he retired in 2002 after having a Smith like dominant run in the 90s and that genuinely boggles my mind that a batsman would be punished for selflessly playing for 11 more years instead of retiring after a full 13 year career averaging significantly more than the other players of his generation.

Anyway, I think I've covered my view on the topic really.

 

[Coronis]

Found this on my phone from a few months ago.

1900-1945
Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Bradman*
Hammond
Headley
Gregory
Oldfield+
Larwood
Grimmett
O’Reilly
Barnes

1946-1999
Hutton
Gavaskar
Barrington
Tendulkar
Chappell*
Sobers
Knott+
Imran
Hadlee
Marshall
Laker

2000-
Smith*
Hayden
Sangakkara
Smith
Lara
Kallis
Gilchrist+
Steyn
Muralitharan
Anderson
McGrath

 

[honestbharani]

Its not a great argument for Mr2 if one of the very few posters who agrees with him is Pratters, is it?

But kidding aside, Mr2, the point is very simple. Teja has some galaxy brain logic that tells him some kind of numbers that Smith has to hit to be better than Sachin. I do not subscribe to that. Where I do agree with Teja (and I guess most who have contributed on this debate) is that you cannot compare an entire 24 year career of Sachin with a 7 year window of Smith's career and call him better. Right now, all Smith has is 72 tests (more like 66) and a 7 year (closer to 5 in reality) peak. If we are to take those numbers, Sachin has done it twice at completely different points of time (and eras of cricket). So, that argument does not fly. And while I do think Smith's record against India is extremely over rated by select few posters here, I do agree his Ashes performances do mean he is putting up the Lara argument against Sachin. But once again, that is like 1 good series, 1 great series and 1 ATG series with the bat and only two of them were in tough batting conditions against a strong attack, relatively speaking.
Simplest point here being, unless Smith has called time on his career or has been dropped for good, it is never an apples to apples comparison when you compare a few years of Smith to a two and a half decade career of Sachin.

 

[Teja.]

Its not a great argument for Mr2 if the one of the very few posters who agrees with him is Pratters, is it?

But kidding aside, Mr2, the point is very simple. Teja has some galaxy brain logic that tells him some kind of numbers that Smith has to hit to be better than Sachin. I do not subscribe to that. Where I do agree with Teja (and I guess most who have contributed on this debate) is that you cannot compare an entire 24 year career of Sachin with a 7 year window of Smith's career and call him better. Right now, all Smith has is 72 tests (more like 66) and a 7 year (closer to 5 in reality) peak. If we are to take those numbers, Sachin has done it twice at completely different points of time (and eras of cricket). So, that argument does not fly. And while I do think Smith's record against India is extremely over rated by select few posters here, I do agree his Ashes performances do mean he is putting up the Lara argument against Sachin. But once again, that is like 1 good series, 1 great series and 1 ATG series with the bat and only two of them were in tough batting conditions against a strong attack, relatively speaking.
Simplest point here being, unless Smith has called time on his career or has been dropped for good, it is never an apples to apples comparison when you compare a few years of Smith to a two and a half decade career of Sachin.

The 65 in 120 tests is pretty weird out of context citing from other posters (not you) ftr. I never definitively said he would have to average that to be better than Sachin. I said that if he only has a 12-13 year career, then he'd have to be significantly better within that period to be considered to be a better batsman than a guy who played for 24 years (with a 65? to indicate the possibility of discussion).

 

[stephen]

Found this on my phone from a few months ago.

1900-1945
Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Bradman*
Hammond
Headley
Gregory
Oldfield+
Larwood
Grimmett
O’Reilly
Barnes

1946-1999
Hutton
Gavaskar
Barrington
Tendulkar
Chappell*
Sobers
Knott+
Imran
Hadlee
Marshall
Laker

2000-
Smith*
Hayden
Sangakkara
Smith
Lara
Kallis
Gilchrist+
Steyn
Muralitharan
Anderson
McGrath

Distinct lack of Warne in all these teams.

 

[srbhkshk]

Why use Border or Miandad's WI record for a comparison against Viv when Viv didn't have to play against WI.

 

[h_hurricane]

Why use Border or Miandad's WI record for a comparison against Viv when Viv didn't have to play against WI.

Because Border didn't do all that well against WI and Miandad failed against WI.

Against bowlers of similar class that Viv played in his era (Lillee, Hadlee and Imran), he in fact did very well.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

So, Viv succeeded in the best challenge thrown at him. Border and certainly Miandad didn't do as well.

 

[srbhkshk]

Yeah but facing the Windies was a far harder challenge than these three guys and the bunch around them.

 

[h_hurricane]

Yeah, I agree with that. It is an unknown. A harder challenge for sure.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

2000-
Smith*
Hayden
Sangakkara
Smith
Lara
Kallis
Gilchrist+
Steyn
Muralitharan
Anderson
McGrath

Cook for Hayden and a better #8 for Anderson. (Warne would be fine but leaves Kallis to bowl a lot. Could pick Philander too)

Also a bit weird to have Lara ahead of time than Sachin when he's four years older

 

[h_hurricane]

Distinct lack of Warne in all these teams.

It isn't an unfathomable opinion to pick Murali ahead of Warne (or Laker)

 

[Nintendo]

Cook for Hayden and a better #8 for Anderson. (Warne would be fine but leaves Kallis to bowl a lot. Could pick Philander too)

Also a bit weird to have Lara ahead of time than Sachin when he's four years older

Why cook over haydos?