subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
The term ATG gets put out a lot nowadays. On this forum, I see it be used for players who for me don't qualify to be there.
I prefer ATG is be a much more exclusive category, meaning elite of the greatest players. So they need elite stats, long enough careers and reputations as the best of their era. To me, an ATG wouldn't seem too out of place in an ATG XI. Obviously, its a bit subjective, but I would likely only have around 30 cricketers in history make this cut.
Below that is the category of great, or a national-level great. Great records but fall slightly short on reputations to be considered best of the best.
I would also have the category of worldclass cricketers, those who were top of their times but didn't play long enough to be considered a great.
Interested to hear other thoughts.
I prefer ATG is be a much more exclusive category, meaning elite of the greatest players. So they need elite stats, long enough careers and reputations as the best of their era. To me, an ATG wouldn't seem too out of place in an ATG XI. Obviously, its a bit subjective, but I would likely only have around 30 cricketers in history make this cut.
Below that is the category of great, or a national-level great. Great records but fall slightly short on reputations to be considered best of the best.
I would also have the category of worldclass cricketers, those who were top of their times but didn't play long enough to be considered a great.
Interested to hear other thoughts.