The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Daemon]

Never got this logic. The whole "would be better in a better team" idea is great and makes sense but it's not going to make that much of a statistical difference, if any.

If you really think that playing in a crap team hurts your stats that much then how good would you have to think Hadlee or Andy Flower were? Or maybe the idea is that only mediocre/middling players are affected and the very best are just as great regardless of what is around them?

It helps to play against one less good team.

As a bowler it also helps having a good captain and great fielders.

Helps when your bowling teammates don’t give freebies to let the batsmen get their eye in.

Helps when the batsmen can’t just play you out and score off the rest.

As a batsman I don’t think the influence is as great, short of having to come in a 2/****all and practically open the batting.

It really just depends on exactly how bad the team we’re talking about is and a whole bunch of other variables but in general I think yes, a better team helps you perform better.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It helps to play against one less good team.

As a bowler it also helps having a good captain and great fielders.

Helps when your bowling teammates don’t give freebies to let the batsmen get their eye in.

Helps when the batsmen can’t just play you out and score off the rest.

As a batsman I don’t think the influence is as great, short of having to come in a 2/****all and practically open the batting.

It really just depends on exactly how bad the team we’re talking about is and a whole bunch of other variables but in general I think yes, a better team helps you perform better.

Yeah as I said I understand the reasoning behind the logic but it doesn't always seem to hold up practically. Playing a bad (or not as good) team didn't hurt Andy Flower, or Richard Hadlee, unless you think Hadlee was a 17-18 average Test bowler in a stronger team. Or you think that guys at an ATG level overcome any handicap a weaker team gives them because they are just that good, but lesser players like a Srinath would be more heavily influenced by it. Which is definitely a possibility.

Otherwise it's incongruous to be thinking that the strength of your team holds a lot of importance, and still rate Marshall > Hadlee as a bowler at the same time

 

[Jack1]

Yeah as I said I understand the reasoning behind the logic but it doesn't always seem to hold up practically. Playing a bad (or not as good) team didn't hurt Andy Flower, or Richard Hadlee, unless you think Hadlee was a 17-18 average Test bowler in a stronger team. Or you think that guys at an ATG level overcome any handicap a weaker team gives them because they are just that good, but lesser players like a Srinath would be more heavily influenced by it. Which is definitely a possibility.

Otherwise it's incongruous to be thinking that the strength of your team holds a lot of importance, and still rate Marshall > Hadlee as a bowler at the same time

They would have had better stats in a better team. Averages at least. Flower would have averaged at least 60 in a decent team - being in a weaker team means always facing fresher bowlers and the opposition always try the hardest against the best player - bigger problem when the rest of your team sucks as they can focus all time, energy and planning on you

 

[TheJediBrah]

They would have had better stats in a better team. Averages at least.

I highly doubt it. That would make them statistically the best of their eras easily. Would be too much of a coincidence for the best to come from the weakest sides IMO.
We've had this discussion before re. Flower. You could be right, but it's also possible that in a stronger team he could have actually averaged less due to the team requirements and match situations.

 

[Daemon]

Yeah as I said I understand the reasoning behind the logic but it doesn't always seem to hold up practically. Playing a bad (or not as good) team didn't hurt Andy Flower, or Richard Hadlee, unless you think Hadlee was a 17-18 average Test bowler in a stronger team. Or you think that guys at an ATG level overcome any handicap a weaker team gives them because they are just that good, but lesser players like a Srinath would be more heavily influenced by it. Which is definitely a possibility.

Otherwise it's incongruous to be thinking that the strength of your team holds a lot of importance, and still rate Marshall > Hadlee as a bowler at the same time

It’s impossible to know to what degree it would affect any given individual player. All I’m saying is that across the board, it’s more likely than not you would benefit by playing in a better team.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It’s impossible to know to what degree it would affect any given individual player. All I’m saying is that across the board, it’s more likely than not you would benefit by playing in a better team.

Yeah maybe. I know I definitely don't. I tend to perform a lot better when there are wickets falling around me and the situation is tough, and can't buy a run if I come in at 2-150 on a road.

 

[Jack1]

Yeah maybe. I know I definitely don't. I tend to perform a lot better when there are wickets falling around me and the situation is tough, and can't buy a run if I come in at 2-150 on a road.

I think the motive is to score as many runs against your name as possible regardless of the opposition and match situation for an elite player like Flower. In amateur cricket it's meaningless, sometimes it's more fun to bat well when the team is garbage as you are playing more for fun. Bradman obviously took this to an extreme level then possibly trolled everyone by getting out for a duck in his last test

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think the motive is to score as many runs against your name as possible regardless of the opposition and match situation for an elite player like Flower. In amateur cricket it's meaningless, sometimes it's more fun to bat well when the team is garbage as you are playing more for fun. Bradman obviously took this to an extreme level then possibly trolled everyone by getting out for a duck in his last test

That's what I'm thinking. Maybe a player of Flower's class performs to his level regardless of the team he's in or the situation, whereas a lesser player would have a notable difference playing in a stronger team.

 

[Jack1]

Bowlers can’t target/plan for him as much in a stronger team. The bowlers will also get tired from the rest of Flower’s team helping more with bat and ball in a stronger side. Same for batsmen and bowlers against Hadlee i would think

 

[TheJediBrah]

If we think they are potentially significant factors though then we have to rate Flower as a better bat than Sachin and Lara

just looking at Flower's other stats and he averaged 55 in non-Test first-class cricket (eg. county cricket, Zim domestic, where presumably his teams weren't particularly weak), yet you reckon he would average 60+ in a stronger Test team?

 

[srbhkshk]

With Daemon on this, don't think it makes a major difference for the batsman but it just seems very logical that it will make a difference for bowlers.

Do think that there's probably some asymptote effect going on here, maybe the batsman are just never really set against an ATG bowler bowling well so it doesn't make a lot of difference to them but does make a difference to middling bowlers.

 

[TheJediBrah]

With Daemon on this, don't think it makes a major difference for the batsman but it just seems very logical that it will make a difference for bowlers.

Do think that there's probably some asymptote effect going on here, maybe the batsman are just never really set against an ATG bowler bowling well so it doesn't make a lot of difference to them but does make a difference to middling bowlers.

literally just paraphrased what I've been saying. So yeah agreed, theoretically

 

[srbhkshk]

literally just paraphrased what I've been saying. So yeah agreed, theoretically

No I am just guessing about the second point, I actually don't have any problem with believing that Hadlee was a bowler who could average 18-19.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Anyway this is why I dislike adjusting stats based on these sort of "what if" scenarios, because it's so speculative and a lot of the time it just doesn't make sense. Like with the aforementioned Andy Flower example. Another one would be someone earlier predicting that Srinath would have averaged 25 in a stronger attack, which just doesn't hold up. Look at a bowler like Jason Gillespie who was easily a better bowler than Srinath, and played in one of the strongest teams ever and still averaged >25.

Yeah of course it's speculation and I realise no one's trying to claim it's a truly accurate assessment but it just never quite sits right with me.

 

[harsh.ag]

Anyway this is why I dislike adjusting stats based on these sort of "what if" scenarios, because it's so speculative and a lot of the time it just doesn't make sense. Like with the aforementioned Andy Flower example. Another one would be someone earlier predicting that Srinath would have averaged 25 in a stronger attack, which just doesn't hold up. Look at a bowler like Jason Gillespie who was easily a better bowler than Srinath, and played in one of the strongest teams ever and still averaged >25.

Yeah of course it's speculation and I realise no one's trying to claim it's a truly accurate assessment but it just never quite sits right with me.

Maybe that's because you're from Australia.

Not being snarky, it could genuinely be the reason. Not easy to put yourself in such different shoes.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Maybe that's because you're from Australia.

Not being snarky, it could genuinely be the reason. Not easy to put yourself in such different shoes.

Not sure I get what you're saying. I'm talking purely about the numbers. As I've reiterated a few times the logic behind why a stronger team around you would help is self explanatory.

 

[Daemon]

If we think they are potentially significant factors though then we have to rate Flower as a better bat than Sachin and Lara

No we don't, we just have to accept that maybe he would be more effective in a stronger team.

Sachin and Lara themselves were in a pretty **** team for parts of his career.

Anyways I agree that putting arbitrary numbers to it is just far too much and giving anyone a 5 point reduction in average is..dodgy tstl.

 

[TheJediBrah]

No we don't, we just have to accept that maybe he would be more effective in a stronger team.

Sachin and Lara themselves were in a pretty **** team for parts of his career.

Anyways I agree that putting arbitrary numbers to it is just far too much and giving anyone a 5 point reduction in average is..dodgy tstl.

Yeah that's the only real sticking point for me, when you start looking at individual players and putting numbers on it. Ymmv but I don't believe for a second that Hadlee would average 17 in a stronger team and be statistically that much better than anyone in 50 years either side of him.

 

[Burgey]

Based on the idea from Bhagapath pertaining to fast bowlers, here's the batsmen

96-00

Tendulkar
Lara
Waugh
De Silva

01-05

Ponting
Dravid
Lara
Kallis

06-10

Kallis
Tendulkar
Sangakkara
Sehwag

11-15

Sangakkara
Clarke
Amla
Pietersen

16-20

Smith
Kohli
Williamson
Root

Michael Clarke very stiff not to be in the 06-10 group tbh

 

[Victor Ian]

I'm with Jedi on this. It's all speculation. How many easy wickets, which bring the average down, are not there for a bowler in a strong team?
Is it ludicrous to suggest McGrath could have averaged 18 if the other guys didn't clean up all his hard work?
Is Hadlee's 18 average in first class because he played in strong teams, or because the standard is lower? Dunno.