What is your definition of ATG?

[Coronis]

Australia: Bradman, Miller, Lillee, Chappell, Border, Warne, McGrath, Waugh, Ponting, Smith, maybe Lindwall and O'Reilly

WI: Headley, Sobers, Viv, Marshall, Ambrose, Lara

Pakistan: Imran, Wasim

India: Gavaskar, Tendulkar, maybe Kapil

SA: Kallis, Steyn, Donald, maybe G.Pollock and S. Pollock

NZ: Hadlee

SL: Murali, maybe Sanga

England: Barnes, Hutton, Hobbs, Trueman, Botham, maybe Laker

Maybe I am missing 1-2. Kallis and Pollock can make it as allrounder players, not based on their main discipline.

But overall around 30 - 35 ATGs in cricket history by my reckoning.

Fair few others I’d like to argue, but really you don’t think Gilchrist or Hammond are ATG?

 

[Line and Length]

None of the WI's 3 Ws?

 

[Coronis]

For me probably as a general guideline I’d prefer ~50 matches and an average of 50+ as a batsman and 25- as a bowler. Obviously there are some exceptions to this (mainly in matches played for some pre 60’s players) but its a good place to start looking for the ATG’s imo. AR’s and wicketkeepers are less definable.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Fair few others I’d like to argue, but really you don’t think Gilchrist or Hammond are ATG?

Didn't even notice that. Gilchrist I'd argue was one of the top 5 cricketers of all time

 

[subshakerz]

Fair few others I’d like to argue, but really you don’t think Gilchrist or Hammond are ATG?

My bad, I missed out Gilly and Hammond. Would add Alan Knott also.

 

[subshakerz]

None of the WI's 3 Ws?

All greats but not ATGs.

 

[subshakerz]

WG is probably the 3rd best player of all time, so a huge misd. Definitely need Hammond in there along with some keepers (Gilchrist, Knott, Ames, perhaps Flower although mediocre with the gloves). Watling just misses out.

I reckon 60-70 ATGs.

60 to 70 is way too many.

Once you lump in Dravid with Tendulkar, you lose the essence of being an ATG. They are clearly different classes of players.

 

[Coronis]

Once you lump in Dravid with Tendulkar, you lose the essence of being an ATG. They are clearly different classes of players.

I mean, Bradman is a different class of player to Tendulkar. Tendulkar is a different class of player to Waugh, etc.

 

[ZK$]

ATG Batsmen: Bradman, Hobbs, Sobers, Tendulkar, Smith, Richards, Lara, Hutton, Hammond, Gavaskar, Chappell, Ponting, Sangakkara, Kallis, Border, Waugh

ATG Bowlers: Murali, Warne, O’Reilly, Barnes, Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee, Ambrose, Steyn, Imran, Lillee, Trueman, Wasim, Donald, Garner, Lindwall, Holding, Waqar, Cummins

There’s probably a few obvious ones that I’m missing.

 

[subshakerz]

I mean, Bradman is a different class of player to Tendulkar. Tendulkar is a different class of player to Waugh, etc.

I don't mind giving Bradman a category of his own.

Waugh to be is a borderline ATG but the point is to keep the grouping small and exclusive.

 

[subshakerz]

ATG Batsmen: Bradman, Hobbs, Sobers, Tendulkar, Smith, Richards, Lara, Hutton, Hammond, Gavaskar, Chappell, Ponting, Sangakkara, Kallis, Border, Waugh

ATG Bowlers: Murali, Warne, O’Reilly, Barnes, Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee, Ambrose, Steyn, Imran, Lillee, Trueman, Wasim, Donald, Garner, Lindwall, Holding, Waqar, Cummins

There’s probably a few obvious ones that I’m missing.

Personally I don't think Kallis, Holding, Garner, Waqar and Cummins qualify. They are all great level. Kallis is an ATG as an all-rounder.

In their careers, they didn't have that high of a reputation to separate them from the rest of the pack. Cummins just needs time though.

 

[trundler]

I mean, Bradman is a different class of player to Tendulkar. Tendulkar is a different class of player to Waugh, etc.

Yeah no way Waugh makes it if you're leaving out the 3 Ws and Dravid.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah no way Waugh makes it if you're leaving out the 3 Ws and Dravid.

Fair enough, I rate Waugh higher than others but I am willing to exclude him.

 

[trundler]

Fair enough, I rate Waugh higher than others but I am willing to exclude him.

Yeah fair enough if you limit ATG to 'contender for best ever' but then Waugh shouldn't be there IMO.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah fair enough if you limit ATG to 'contender for best ever' but then Waugh shouldn't be there IMO.

I think the idea when you say 'All Time Great' then you are limiting the pool for who that player should be compared with. Their reputation and record elevates them to be discussed with the elite.

An ATG merits comparison with the best of any era.

A great will be judged by his era pretty much.

Dravid, Chanders and Younis Khan shouldnt be compared with Sobers, Gavaskar and Viv. Tendulkar, Lara and Ponting can.

Which is why I wouldnt put Kallis as an ATG with the bat. Nobody during his playing career rated him that high on batting skills alone. As an all-round player, definitely.

This is the reason why someone like Shaun Pollock suffers a bit is because though his all-round record was ATG worthy, his reputation was not quite there.

 

[ZK$]

Yeah, it’s pretty subjective. Walsh and Dravid should probably be there.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Kallis might not be with the bat alone but he's definitely there as a player

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah, it’s pretty subjective. Walsh and Dravid should probably be there.

Nah. Walsh and Dravid don't make it to the upper echelon.

 

[Zinzan]

Gilchrist I'd argue was one of the top 5 cricketers of all time

That would be a weak argument.

Fantastic player, and rightly in most people's all time Test XI with the gloves, but most def not a top 5 cricketer of all time.

 

[ZK$]

Nah. Walsh and Dravid don't make it to the upper echelon.

Yeah, they’re probably the best of the next tier for me.