The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[TheJediBrah]

This is where the whole concept breaks down. What are we selecting for? I suppose each country's AT XI plays half their games at home, but the World XI spread its games fairly equally?

In terms of arguing about the sheer goodness of players, I reckon away performances matter a lot more; an Amarnath would probably perform better playing for any other country and a Warner worse. So their ranking differ from what their raw stats might suggest.

In reality though, how are players developing and what are they trying to achieve? For the best results for your team you are going to put as much effort as possible to be as good as possible in the 1 country that you will play half your games. It would be dumb, and sub-optimal, to try and be equally good in 10 different countries when you are barely going to play in most of them

The best players are going to develop a technique that will be most effective at home. (Well the very best will be awesome everywhere lol but that's another thing)

 

[Coronis]

Hence why he's an undisputed member of the best after Bradman club.

What else can he achieve, be unarguably the sole owner of that title? I don't see that as a likely possiblity

I think you misunderstand - I don’t disagree with his rating - or what he will likely do/end up being rated at the end of his career.

The original post basically said it was impossible for him to be rated above that group no matter what he does, all I’m saying is there is a possibility (no matter how slight) for him to improve his standing and seperate himself from them. i.e There IS room for improvement

lets assume he plays til summer 2025 - if in those 14 tests he somehow scored 10 tons or something I’d probably say yeah I’ll put him above them on his own.

note: I am not saying this is likely at all only that he has a possibility to improve his record and seperate himself from the pack.

 

[Coronis]

There was a stat that said over his entire career Steve Smith has averaged exactly 30 runs per wicket against deliveries at 144+ Kmph, while averaging 60 against deliveries 125-144 Kmph.

I am not sure if the difference is as stark for other batsmen. Anyway to find out?

Where does this stat come from?

 

[centurymaker]

Where does this stat come from?

It was shown during the Ashes coverage.
In the 4th or 5th Test.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It was shown during the Ashes coverage.
In the 4th or 5th Test.

Not what he was asking brah

 

[centurymaker]

Sky Sports UK (or some other official organisation) has probably been keeping a record of the speed of all deliveries bowled in Test Cricket in the modern era. Steve Smith's stat is coming through that I suppose.

 

[Victor Ian]

Not what he was asking brah

why not?

 

[peterhrt]

Sky Sports UK (or some other official organisation) has probably been keeping a record of the speed of all deliveries bowled in Test Cricket in the modern era. Steve Smith's stat is coming through that I suppose.

Yes they have something on this. Simon Doull reported that Ross Taylor's average dropped into the low twenties against deliveries of 144 kph plus.

Sky also showed Steyn and Murali averaging 31 against left-handers, Warne 28. Ashwin was averaging 31 against right-handers a couple of years ago.

Another stat they came up with was 38% of Wasim Akram's Test wickets being batsmen with career averages under 20. The norm is apparently around 25%.

 

[bagapath]

He went from being rated as on par with Tendulkar and Lara to being clear-cut inferior as if not even on a similar level. That just doesn't add up tbh.

People are just to shallow. They look at final average and judge without consideration for retirement age, no. of tests played, overall record, batting technique and the impact the player had. Ponting's impact on opposition was second to none. He was a scary batsman to bowl to coming in at No.3. You knew he was gonna take the entire game away!

With Smith I don't like his technique of completely covering/hogging the stumps, it's heavily reliant on having excellent eyes and hand and eye coordination. It's against all textbook batting advice tbh. With age, it will show up more like against Mark Wood but I highly doubt he will hang around till 38+ for us to see sustained drastc decline.

I agree with the point on Ricky.
That's why I maintain that what Smith has achieved after 100 tests is on par with what all those champions had achieved after similar no of tests. So what he does from here onwards won't change his legacy much. he will belong in that elite group give or take a few points in his batting avg.

 

[bagapath]

See this is the problem. I’m saying Smith still has a chance to change his legacy as his career isn’t over. What I’m seeing all you guys say is “nope he can’t change it now no matter what he does”. (note: I’m not saying what he will or won’t do, just that it is possible for him to improve on his legacy depending on his future performance - no matter how likely or unlikely it is - its not set in stone quite yet)

Even if he flies high in the last phase of his career or sinks down fast, what he has achieved so far has already put him in this league of players. I don't think he can lose that legacy with a few bad years or soar even higher with an extra golden sunset phase.

 

[ataraxia]

Even if he flies high in the last phase of his career or sinks down fast, what he has achieved so far has already put him in this league of players. I don't think he can lose that legacy with a few bad years or soar even higher with an extra golden sunset phase.

So you're saying each of his first, second, and third 34 tests matters more than his last 34 tests?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Even if he flies high in the last phase of his career or sinks down fast, what he has achieved so far has already put him in this league of players. I don't think he can lose that legacy with a few bad years or soar even higher with an extra golden sunset phase.

If he did somehow finish with an average of 60, or close to it, he should be held above all but Bradman IMO. That's almost certainly not going to happen though

 

[Qlder]

Greg Chappell averaged 59.05 in his last two years, Clive Lloyd 60.14 and Ken Barrington 67.11. If anyone can break the stereotype and do the same it would be Steve Smith

 

[TheJediBrah]

Depends on who he ends up playing. He would have to feast on WI at home, Aus don't play minnows enough for that to be a factor.

 

[centurymaker]

Yes they have something on this. Simon Doull reported that Ross Taylor's average dropped into the low twenties against deliveries of 144 kph plus.

Sky also showed Steyn and Murali averaging 31 against left-handers, Warne 28. Ashwin was averaging 31 against right-handers a couple of years ago.

Another stat they came up with was 38% of Wasim Akram's Test wickets being batsmen with career averages under 20. The norm is apparently around 25%.

I guess they show certain stats from time to time that really stand out.

 

[Bolo.]

Not when you play you play half of your conditions in those conditions. You still add the same value to your team overall. Yeah, Smith had tougher home conditions but you yourself said he doesn't get bonus points for merely being ok in those conditions. And it's not like Smith went toe to toe with Hayden in Australia. I don't think he averages 58 there in any universe. Even if Hayden was an FTB, he was the most consistently brutal one irrespective of opposition strength.Smith wasn't that. Being a consistent match winner in conditions you are most likely to face is worth something. The obvious retort is that Smith had a much harder shot of achieving this which is true but I would certainly put him above Hayden if he had shown any proof that he would be capable of it if he had the chance. Obviously, I'm not saying averaging 58 in Australia and 58 in SA are equivalent. Far from it. If Smith had an Elgar or Amla record at home I wouldn't hesitate to put him significantly ahead of Hayden. But he didn't. To me the difference between meh and ok in conditions A is worth less than between great and elite in conditions B regardless of what those conditions are. Hayden is much more likely to wreck an ATG attack on a good batting deck than Smith. Smith has his strengths too which is why he's about equal with Hayden for me but both also have weaknesses that largely cancel out. The McGrath example seems like a wilful misinterpretation of what I mean. McGrath didn't average 29 at home. He gets extra points because he was elite at home which was the biggest challenge during his career. You want to give Smith brownie points for tough conditions when he didn't master those tough conditions without saying so. Smith wasn't Kallis. Skill wise Smith was a much better player in English/NZ conditions but I'm taking Hayden on turners and bouncy decks.

Value add and quality are correlated, but they are not the same thing. Value add depends on the rest of your team. Quality is independent.

If you want to discuss value, equalising Smiths home away split wouldn't change much. Doing the same for Hayden and Sehwag would make their teams stronger. I don't think this implicitly makes him better though.

You seem to be separating home and away to less of a degree than me. When I say I'm looking at his away record, I mean it completely independently of home.

Obviously home is still important. There are several arguments people make about why away is a better measure, but nobody is ignoring home.

You think Smith would be significantly ahead of Hayden with an Elgar/Amla home record? I think the gap between him and them is pretty small.

 

[centurymaker]

Depends on who he ends up playing. He would have to feast on WI at home, Aus don't play minnows enough for that to be a factor.

What you are suggesting is that if he feasts on a team like West Indies, then he'd be rated higher than everyone else..

Is that really what will separate him from the top10 / top15 batsmen? I certainly don't think it will make even an ounce of difference.

He averages 150 vs Windies already. Him continuing to destroy a minnow (which may not even survive/play Tests in the future) will only invite arguments that will show how he's stat-padded 4 average points from a single minnow. For example, people will take Windies out from his stats and show his average without Windies is like 54.8, I don't think it will work in his favour.

 

[centurymaker]

Greg Chappell averaged 59.05 in his last two years, Clive Lloyd 60.14 and Ken Barrington 67.11. If anyone can break the stereotype and do the same it would be Steve Smith

Chappell retired early at age 35.

Lloyd and Barrington played close to 40 & 38 respectively, so are better examples

 

[TheJediBrah]

What you are suggesting is that if he feasts on a team like West Indies, then he'd be rated higher than everyone else..

no I'm talking purely about his average, which while being a superficial marker people look to, would at least then represent well his career

He's already above most others around his level with his achievements in a more bowling friendly era, how little he played against minnows compared to others, in so many different conditions home and away and against the strongest of opposition

 

[centurymaker]

Even if he flies high in the last phase of his career or sinks down fast, what he has achieved so far has already put him in this league of players. I don't think he can lose that legacy with a few bad years or soar even higher with an extra golden sunset phase.

I somewhat agree but also disagree. What he does here onwards will have some impact, though not as significant.