Cherry Picking Stats

[SillyCowCorner1]

300 isn't an absolute bar. But part of being an ATG (in the modern era) to me is displaying excellence over a significant period. 300 wickets is normally the expectation for being in the ATG clubs. Part of greatness is scaling these heights. All things being equal, you would opt for the bowler who scaled heights over the other who did not.

If Rubel Hossain had more matches to play, (and I mean Bangladesh already are not playing enough test matches per year) he'd already been an ATG bowler.

/s

 

[subshakerz]

If Rubel Hossain had more matches to play, (and I mean Bangladesh already are not playing enough test matches per year) he'd already been an ATG bowler.

/s

Sorry, I assume posters would understand that 300 wickets alone wouldn't qualify without doing well with all the other stuff.

 

[Line and Length]

300 isn't an absolute bar. But part of being an ATG (in the modern era) to me is displaying excellence over a significant period. 300 wickets is normally the expectation for being in the ATG clubs. Part of greatness is scaling these heights. All things being equal, you would opt for the bowler who scaled heights over the other who did not.

By your illogical thinking, all bowlers pre-Trueman don't warrant inclusion in "the ATG club".

Bowlers such as Syd Barnes, Clarrie Grimmett, Ray Lindwall et al shouldn't be rated below more recent players such as Brett Lee, Stuart Broad, Daniel Vettori etc simply because they didn't take 300 wickets. The obvious factor you are overlooking is the number of Tests played in an earlier era.

 

[subshakerz]

By your illogical thinking, all bowlers pre-Trueman don't warrant inclusion in "the ATG club".

Bowlers such as Syd Barnes, Clarrie Grimmett, Ray Lindwall et al shouldn't be rated below more recent players such as Brett Lee, Stuart Broad, Daniel Vettori etc simply because they didn't take 300 wickets. The obvious factor you are overlooking is the number of Tests played in an earlier era.

I already mentioned this criteria applies 'in the modern era', basically late 70s onwards.

 

[Line and Length]

I already mentioned this criteria applies 'in the modern era', basically late 70s onwards.

Fair enough.

 

[Shady Slim]

300 isn't an absolute bar. But part of being an ATG (in the modern era) to me is displaying excellence over a significant period. 300 wickets is normally the expectation for being in the ATG clubs. Part of greatness is scaling these heights. All things being equal, you would opt for the bowler who scaled heights over the other who did not.

that's fine if you're willing to recant that now but you gotta admit that's most definitely not what you said in the post i quoted from the other thread

my apologies if in that thread you recanted the absolutism but i didn't notice but yeah

 

[TheJediBrah]

300 isn't an absolute bar. But part of being an ATG (in the modern era) to me is displaying excellence over a significant period. 300 wickets is normally the expectation for being in the ATG clubs. Part of greatness is scaling these heights. All things being equal, you would opt for the bowler who scaled heights over the other who did not.

Well obviously but that's never going to be the case in an actual discussion

 

[subshakerz]

that's fine if you're willing to recant that now but you gotta admit that's most definitely not what you said in the post i quoted from the other thread

my apologies if in that thread you recanted the absolutism but i didn't notice but yeah

Well having exceptions doesnt disapprove a rule.

Would be interested to know if you have any particular minimum wicket number in your mind below which you normally couldn't consider someone an ATG. Could a modern pace bowler with 220 wickets @22 with a 50 strikrate seriously stake a claim as an ATG?

 

[subshakerz]

Well obviously but that's never going to be the case in an actual discussion

'Being equal' basically being in the same ballpark as far as record and rating in concerned.

 

[Coronis]

I already mentioned this criteria applies 'in the modern era', basically late 70s onwards.

So I’m assuming you don’t consider Garner, Holding and Roberts as ATG’s?

 

[subshakerz]

So I’m assuming you don’t consider Garner, Holding and Roberts as ATG’s?

Holding and Garner are borderline cases for me. I recognize they lost some of their test career due to WSC.

 

[Slifer]

So I’m assuming you don’t consider Garner, Holding and Roberts as ATG’s?

Atg by team imo:

WI: Marshall, Ambrose
Pak: Imran, Wasim
Australia: Lillee, McGrath,
RSA: Steyn, Donald
Eng: Trueman
Nz: Hadlee

The following players I go back and forth and on a different day, I'd say yes:

WI: Holding, Garner, Walsh
Pak: Waqar
RSA: Pollock (S)
Australia: Davidson, Lindwall

Obviously, I'm not considering any players currently playing.

 

[Line and Length]

Holding and Garner are borderline cases for me. I recognize they lost some of their test career due to WSC.

Having watched them operate with Roberts, I rate all 3 very highly. I haven't seen a better fast bowling unit and they are ATG both individually and as a team.

 

[subshakerz]

Atg by team imo:

WI: Marshall, Ambrose
Pak: Imran, Wasim
Australia: Lillee, McGrath,
RSA: Steyn, Donald
Eng: Trueman
Nz: Hadlee

The following players I go back and forth and on a different day, I'd say yes:

WI: Holding, Garner, Walsh
Pak: Waqar
RSA: Pollock (S)
Australia: Davidson, Lindwall

Obviously, I'm not considering any players currently playing.

Yeah I more or less agree with this list. Confirmed ATGs all in the 300 plus category and not by accident.

 

[Slifer]

Yeah I more or less agree with this list. Confirmed ATGs all in the 300 plus category and not by accident.

Tbh that's by amazing coincidence....

 

[subshakerz]

Tbh that's by amazing coincidence....

You dont think if Lindwall, Garner, and Holding had 100 more wickets at the same average, at least one of them wouldnt comfortably enter the ATG list?

 

[Line and Length]

You dont think if Lindwall, Garner, and Holding had 100 more wickets at the same average, at least one of them wouldnt comfortably enter the ATG list?

They don't need 100 more wickets to be ATGs. They are already there.

 

[Slifer]

You dont think if Lindwall, Garner, and Holding had 100 more wickets at the same average, at least one of them wouldnt comfortably enter the ATG list?

O'Reilly has less than 300 wickets and as a spinner I'd consider him an atg. And like I said I go back and forth with the second group of bowlers.

 

[subshakerz]

O'Reilly has less than 300 wickets and as a spinner I'd consider him an atg. And like I said I go back and forth with the second group of bowlers.

Yeah for premodern bowlers I dont put the 300 expectation.