The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Socerer 01]

When McGrath retired, some bloke on here suggested nobody really noticed him taking all those wickets and he was never as good as Ambrose/Wasim because batsmen's techniques had gotten worse. He's rated appropriately now, of course, and if anything exaggeratedly as ever few years I see people add 2kph to his average speed. Border was seen as worse than Harvey until the end of the previous century and I think S Waugh was held in higher esteem than Ponting until the latter retired too.

thats so old school, the modern way to diss McGrath is to say that Garner from the 80s is a better batsman than him

 

[ataraxia]

Why is he 'realistically more like a 75–80 average batter'?

Yeh I just don’t understand this. Do you mean if he played in the modern era or what? He WAS a 99 averaging batsman in an era where the other best batsmen averaged 50 with a few averaging a bit more. Same as today

On reflection, probably an overstatement, but a few things:

• when excluding India and SA, whose bowling attacks were pretty **** (when your great bowlers are Cyril Vincent, Buster Nupen, and Lala Amarnath...), he averaged 88.3
• flat pitches of the 30s – averages were much higher. A lot of averages in the low 60s were forged then
• that his average is so far above the norm is an indication that there was an element of fluke

Maybe I'm doing a disservice to England's bowling attack of the time; their averages look worse than they should be due to Bradman's existence. But he wasn't an 100 averaging bat. Still insane.

 

[TheJediBrah]

On reflection, probably an overstatement, but a few things:

• when excluding India and SA, whose bowling attacks were pretty **** (when your great bowlers are Cyril Vincent, Buster Nupen, and Lala Amarnath...), he averaged 88.3
• flat pitches of the 30s – averages were much higher. A lot of averages in the low 60s were forged then
• that his average is so far above the norm is an indication that there was an element of fluke

Maybe I'm doing a disservice to England's bowling attack of the time; their averages look worse than they should be due to Bradman's existence. But he wasn't an 100 averaging bat. Still insane.

At least you're aware of what you're doing.

Also the "excluding weaker teams" applies to almost every batsman. It's hardly something unique to Bradman

 

[Nintendo]

On reflection, probably an overstatement, but a few things:

• when excluding India and SA, whose bowling attacks were pretty **** (when your great bowlers are Cyril Vincent, Buster Nupen, and Lala Amarnath...), he averaged 88.3
• flat pitches of the 30s – averages were much higher. A lot of averages in the low 60s were forged then
• that his average is so far above the norm is an indication that there was an element of fluke

Maybe I'm doing a disservice to England's bowling attack of the time; their averages look worse than they should be due to Bradman's existence. But he wasn't an 100 averaging bat. Still insane.

Yeah, he averaged 99.94, not 100.

 

[ataraxia]

At least you're aware of what you're doing.

Also the "excluding weaker teams" applies to almost every batsman. It's hardly something unique to Bradman

I mean, I'd say the same thing to everyone else. They're basically FC attacks, so I'll rate them the same.

also your voice on pre-1975 cricket is about as informed as a Martian underwater hockey connoisseur

 

[TheJediBrah]

also your voice on pre-1975 cricket is about as informed as a Martian underwater hockey connoisseur

Know more than you clearly

 

[ataraxia]

Know more than you clearly

Of course, just check my location

 

[trundler]

also your voice on pre-1995 cricket is about as informed as a Martian underwater hockey connoisseur

ftfy

 

[Prince EWS]

ftfy

Yeah it's not like he's going to go digging through the archives.

 

[Coronis]

On reflection, probably an overstatement, but a few things:

• when excluding India and SA, whose bowling attacks were pretty **** (when your great bowlers are Cyril Vincent, Buster Nupen, and Lala Amarnath...), he averaged 88.3
• flat pitches of the 30s – averages were much higher. A lot of averages in the low 60s were forged then
• that his average is so far above the norm is an indication that there was an element of fluke

Maybe I'm doing a disservice to England's bowling attack of the time; their averages look worse than they should be due to Bradman's existence. But he wasn't an 100 averaging bat. Still insane.

So… what how much are you lowering players like Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Headley, Hutton etc.? Is McCabe really a 40 average player?


Also I’d love to see you describe to Bradman how you think he was partially a fluke. Too bad he’s not around.

 

[trundler]

Is McCabe really a 40 average player?

This is probably true tbh. Maybe not 40 but if you substitute club standard opposition with below average he probably averages in the low 40s. McCabe is definitely not as good as Walters.

 

[Slifer]

So… what how much are you lowering players like Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Headley, Hutton etc.? Is McCabe really a 40 average player?


Also I’d love to see you describe to Bradman how you think he was partially a fluke. Too bad he’s not around.

My thoughts exactly. If you lower Don by 20-25% then you have to do the same to his contemporaries. Fair is fair. So a Hutton all of a sudden goes from 56 to 43 ish, Hobbs similarly. I have a hard time accepting that Hobbs is on the same level as a Chris Gayle.

The fact of the matter is, we just have to accept that the Don was an unparalleled freak. And the fact is, there have been a steady flow of great batsmen from Bradman’s time to now who all had overlapping careers: Bradman overlapped with Hutton who overlapped with the 3Ws who overlapped with Sobers, who overlapped with Gavaskar, who overlapped with Border, who overlapped with Sachin who overlapped with Kohli. Continous flow of batsmen from the Don's time til now, with all of the greats averaging anywhere from 50 to 60. Then there's the ONE outlier. He was just a freak of nature plain and simple.

 

[Coronis]

My thoughts exactly. If you lower Don by 20-25% then you have to do the same to his contemporaries. Fair is fair. So a Hutton all of a sudden goes from 56 to 43 ish, Hobbs similarly. I have a hard time accepting that Hobbs is on the same level as a Chris Gayle.

The fact of the matter is, we just have to accept that the Don was an unparalleled freak. And the fact is, there have been a steady flow of great batsmen from Bradman’s time to now who all had overlapping careers: Bradman overlapped with Hutton who overlapped with the 3Ws who overlapped with Sobers, who overlapped with Gavaskar, who overlapped with Border, who overlapped with Sachin who overlapped with Kohli. Continous flow of batsmen from the Don's time til now, with all of the greats averaging anywhere from 50 to 60. Then there's the ONE outlier. He was just a freak of nature plain and simple.

One of these things is not like the others…

 

[ataraxia]

My thoughts exactly. If you lower Don by 20-25% then you have to do the same to his contemporaries. Fair is fair. So a Hutton all of a sudden goes from 56 to 43 ish, Hobbs similarly. I have a hard time accepting that Hobbs is on the same level as a Chris Gayle.

???

Hobbs was half a month shy of 46 when Bradman made his test debut. They're not contemporaries lol. What a preposterous thing to suggest that Hobbs' average should be downgraded for um, what, actually there's no reason for it at all.

Hutton, like, was known for being sublime against like Lindwall–Davidson–Miller–Benaud on a sticky. As in, not a flat pitch bully. There's 11 years of overlap, sure, but it's rather disingenuous to suppose that they are really of the same era.

 

[Slifer]

???

Hobbs was half a month shy of 46 when Bradman made his test debut. They're not contemporaries lol. What a preposterous thing to suggest that Hobbs' average should be downgraded for um, what, actually there's no reason for it at all.

Hutton, like, was known for being sublime against like Lindwall–Davidson–Miller–Benaud on a sticky. As in, not a flat pitch bully. There's 11 years of overlap, sure, but it's rather disingenuous to suppose that they are really of the same era.

The point is, Bradman is from that general era. If you're going to downgrade his average by 20-25% then you'll have to do it for his contemporaries. Otherwise just accept that the man is a freak.

 

[Slifer]

One of these things is not like the others…

The point being you can down grade Bradman’s average without doing the same to his near contemporaries.

 

[Red]

On reflection, probably an overstatement, but a few things:

• when excluding India and SA, whose bowling attacks were pretty **** (when your great bowlers are Cyril Vincent, Buster Nupen, and Lala Amarnath...), he averaged 88.3
• flat pitches of the 30s – averages were much higher. A lot of averages in the low 60s were forged then
• that his average is so far above the norm is an indication that there was an element of fluke

Maybe I'm doing a disservice to England's bowling attack of the time; their averages look worse than they should be due to Bradman's existence. But he wasn't an 100 averaging bat. Still insane.

Define “element of fluke” as you see it applying to bradmans career

 

[ataraxia]

Define “element of fluke” as you see it applying to bradmans career

If his career were simmed 1000 times, I think his average test average would be around 95 rather than 100.

The point is, Bradman is from that general era. If you're going to downgrade his average by 20-25% then you'll have to do it for his contemporaries. Otherwise just accept that the man is a freak.

Man, saying Hobbs, Bradman, and Hutton are of the same general era and thus must be treated the exact same as each other is just weird. Logically, you seem to think that Viv and Younis Khan are of the same general era. Should they therefore be treated equivalently, and Younis Khan rated above Viv due to his superior average? Not unless you're trundler.

 

[Red]

If his career were simmed 1000 times, I think his average test average would be around 95 rather than 100.

Considering this is pure speculation it could also be around 105

 

[ataraxia]

Considering this is pure speculation it could also be around 105

I do realise, but given how stratospheric his average is it's probably inflated beyond its "genuine" value.