The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Slifer]

While I think the top 5 are really packed close together and it's difficult to separate them, if I had to choose one to lead the group (not be apart from), I think I agree that it has to be Tendulkar. And if it is Tendulkar, it's because of technique, consistency and longevity and if that's part of the reason many others chose the little master, it's difficult to see Smith pass him on that basis.

Longevity for me, is about the only thing that sets him apart. Technique, imo is subjectective. Yeah Sachin had text book technique but there's absolutely nothing wrong with thinking outside the box provided the results are positive. Which they are.

 

[centurymaker]

He can stand out by averaging more than his contemporaries, which he currently does. He can stand out by being the only one who averages 50+ away from home. By comparison the other 3 contenders average at most 46. Smith averages 54. There's more but I'll save that for later.

Batting stocks and techniques are not the greatest in this era, partly down to the dominance of T20 cricket now. Look at the way Root is batting now.

So comparisons with contemporaries are all good and great. But here we are dealing with being best of all time. Margins are thin. And I suspect unless Smith plays another 3-4+ years, it would be hard to separate him from the pack.

You may think he has separated himself but large majority will not- for a variety of reasons. I am just highlighting that there will not be any consensus on it unless he plays longer and more people start to think so.

 

[Slifer]

Batting stocks and techniques are not the greatest in this era, partly down to the dominance of T20 cricket now. Look at the way Root is batting now.

So comparisons with contemporaries are all good and great. But here we are dealing with being best of all time. Margins are thin. And I suspect unless Smith plays another 3-4+ years, it would be hard to separate him from the pack.

You may think he has separated himself but large majority will not- for a variety of reasons. I am just highlighting that there will not be any consensus on it unless he plays longer and more people start to think so.

How has he not? He's averages the most and is the only one to average 50+ away. And it's not by a little either, he averages 8 runs more away than his rivals.

And I will gander to guess that a player like Root has played pos attacks like WI much more than Smith has and Smith is still well clear of him. Afaic, Smith is to the rest, what Sachin was to the batsmen of the 90s. Then Sachin took a hit in the early 2000s (tennis elbow and all that jazz) then the Laras and Pontings closed the gap before. Then Sachin found a second wind and ended up above them all even as he somewhat petered out towards the end.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Heh Cute little strawman thrown in there but at no point did I say he couldn't be considered no 2 no matter what, I was specifically opining on your hypothetical that he finishes averaging 60.

Re: Longevity I did touch on that in referencing Sachin's, Sanga's & Punter's records after more Tests than Smith has played.

Anyway not sure why you seem to be taking this so personally, it's just a cricketing nerds discussion and I've acknowledged Smith is one of a group of players who a case could be made for them being 2nd to the Don, and maintain that amongst those elites it comes down to personal preference.

I did try and spell it out here, but I can see why it would get lost in the shuffle:

Anyway if your point is that he's not a clear no. 2, and never will be no matter what he does, that's absolutely fine and perfectly reasonable.

However I'm just pointing out that the various reasons you are putting forward are not consistent with reality. A good reason would just be to say "not as much longevity as Sachin". Which is an inarguable fact.

You can have whatever opinion you want, I'm not offended at all by your opinions. The reason I kept responding, which again I specified above, was correcting your poor reasoning.

ie. Sangakkara having a "similar record", which is false. And Smith's home record (as affected by batting-friendly conditions) being a major factor in him standing out which is also objectively, statistically false. Hence why it looked to me, superficially at least, like you are specifically trying to come up with reasons to rate him lower (and failing).

If you just said "Smith would not be a clear no. 2 because Sachin had more longevity" I wouldn't be calling your comments out at all because it's entirely factual (I would still disagree though)

 

[centurymaker]

How has he not? He's averages the most and is the only one to average 50+ away. And it's not by a little either, he averages 8 runs more away than his rivals.

And I will gander to guess that a player like Root has played pos attacks like WI much more than Smith has and Smith is still well clear of him. Afaic, Smith is to the rest, what Sachin was to the batsmen of the 90s. Then Sachin took a hit in the early 2000s (tennis elbow and all that jazz) then the Laras and Pontings closed the gap before. Then Sachin found a second wind and ended up above them all even as he somewhat petered out towards the end.

I think you have misunderstood. I am not saying he has not separated himself from his 3 rivals from this generation, he has. But I am talking overall--amongst ATGs.


Anyway back to contemporaries, look a couple of his three rivals may not even go down an ATGs in Test Cricket. This is where test cricket is at. This is the T20 era where techniques have gone to the rubbish bin, bazball is taking over. Brook is the new thing... Kohli such a massive weakness outside off. He is not ATG in tests. Across formats yes but solely tests he is not. And we don't know where Root and Williamson are headed... (they may not end up as ATGs either) Previous eras we had like 10, even 15 great batsmen. There's 1 main reason (other than fewer ATG bowlers in 00s). It's T20 and the impact it has had on batting techniques. Players are incapable of playing movement and lack discipline & concentration at the same time. We will have even fewer proper test ATGs in the future given where the game is headed.

 

[Slifer]

I think you have misunderstood. I am not saying he has not separated himself from his 3 rivals from this generation, he has. But I am talking overall--amongst ATGs.


Anyway back to contemporaries, look a couple of his three rivals may not even go down an ATGs in Test Cricket. This is where test cricket is at. This is the T20 era where techniques have gone to the rubbish bin, bazball is taking over. Brook is the new thing... Kohli such a massive weakness outside off. He is not ATG in tests. Across formats yes but solely tests he is not. And we don't know where Root and Williamson are headed... (they may not end up as ATGs either) Previous eras we had like 10, even 15 great batsmen. There's 1 main reason (other than fewer ATG bowlers in 00s). It's T20 and the impact it has had on batting techniques. Players are incapable of playing movement and lack discipline & concentration at the same time. We will have even fewer proper test ATGs in the future given where the game is headed.

Considering all he's done so far he has to be first an atg and up there with the half dozen or so considered the 2nd best after the Don. The half dozen fwiw would probably be something like: Sachin, Hobbs, Sobers, Hutton, Viv (yes I know overrated). Then after those players come the Sunils, Laras, Chappells, Sutcliffes, Pontings etc.

I'm more inclined to include Smith with the former group because they represent what most considered the best of their respective generations.

 

[centurymaker]

Considering all he's done so far he has to be first an atg and up there with the half dozen or so considered the 2nd best after the Don. The half dozen fwiw would probably be something like: Sachin, Hobbs, Sobers, Hutton, Viv (yes I know overrated). Then after those players come the Sunils, Laras, Chappells, Sutcliffes, Pontings etc.

I'm more inclined to include Smith with the former group because they represent what most considered the best of their respective generations.

Yeah atm he is a little more in the first group than he is in the 2nd group. Let's see what the future holds. Unfortunately no test cricket for 4 months and WC is still far away. This period is as bad as the IPL window.

 

[Slifer]

Yeah atm he is a little more in the first group than he is in the 2nd group. Let's see what the future holds. Unfortunately no test cricket for 4 months and WC is still far away. This period is as bad as the IPL window.

Fair enough.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Considering all he's done so far he has to be first an atg and up there with the half dozen or so considered the 2nd best after the Don. The half dozen fwiw would probably be something like: Sachin, Hobbs, Sobers, Hutton, Viv (yes I know overrated). Then after those players come the Sunils, Laras, Chappells, Sutcliffes, Pontings etc.

I'm more inclined to include Smith with the former group because they represent what most considered the best of their respective generations.

I would have Lara in the first group. He could dominate some of the best bowlers, and attacks, in the history of the game.

 

[Bolo.]

Considering all he's done so far he has to be first an atg and up there with the half dozen or so considered the 2nd best after the Don. The half dozen fwiw would probably be something like: Sachin, Hobbs, Sobers, Hutton, Viv (yes I know overrated). Then after those players come the Sunils, Laras, Chappells, Sutcliffes, Pontings etc.

I'm more inclined to include Smith with the former group because they represent what most considered the best of their respective generations.

Best of their generation often gets used for bats, but look at bowlers to see why it doesn't really make sense. Steyn could have been worse than the 5th best bowler from the 80s and he would still have been the best from his generation.

 

[Slifer]

I would have Lara in the first group. He could dominate some of the best bowlers, and attacks, in the history of the game.

Yeah but in his generation, Lara is generally rated second best after Sachin.

 

[Slifer]

Best of their generation often gets used for bats, but look at bowlers to see why it doesn't really make sense. Steyn could have been worse than the 5th best bowler from the 80s and he would still have been the best from his generation.

Very good observation regarding Steyn. Probably applies to some of the current crop as well.

 

[honestbharani]

Smith, for me, is very much in the Sobers-Lara-Sachin-Viv bracket. I dont think what he has done so far has been enough for me to rate him better than any of them, except maybe Viv. I suspect that is where he will end up, below Sachin but above Viv.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Hobbs probably has the best case among everyone in the group to be second best ever after Bradman, Dominance+Peak +Technique +Series dominance+ Adaptibility+ Longevity all rolled in one.Marginally Below Hobbs for me are Sobers and Smith and then I have Richards,Hammond, Tendulkar,Hutton,Lara etc.

 

[kyear2]

Smith, for me, is very much in the Sobers-Lara-Sachin-Viv bracket. I dont think what he has done so far has been enough for me to rate him better than any of them, except maybe Viv. I suspect that is where he will end up, below Sachin but above Viv.

Yeah, think he's already firmly in that top 5 or 6 already and while his position in there may change, I don't see him superceding it or dropping out of it.

And I know that with Ponting (and Kholi to a lesser extent) his drop off impacted his final positioning, but was it more his drop off or did most already see him as below Lara and Sachin and the drop off was confirmation of that? Not saying it was, but just a though.
Because Viv had a drop off as well and it impacted his less.

 

[CricAddict]

Hobbs probably has the best case among everyone in the group to be second best ever after Bradman, Dominance+Peak +Technique +Series dominance+ Adaptibility+ Longevity all rolled in one.Marginally Below Hobbs for me are Sobers and Smith and then I have Richards,Hammond,Tendulkar,Hutton,Lara etc.

No way is Smith better than Tendulkar or Lara as of now. Smith's career is a part of Tendulkar's career.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah, think he's already firmly in that top 5 or 6 already and while his position in there may change, I don't see him superceding it or dropping out of it.

And I know that with Ponting (and Kholi to a lesser extent) his drop off impacted his final positioning, but was it more his drop off or did most already see him as below Lara and Sachin and the drop off was confirmation of that? Not saying it was, but just a though.
Because Viv had a drop off as well and it impacted his less.

Ponting was incredibly good but for only a relatively short period of time. It was only really 2002-2008 that he was that great standard which is always going to compare unfavourably to someone that did it for way longer

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

No way is Smith better than Tendulkar or Lara as of now. Smith's career is a part of Tendulkar's career.

Smith has had the best peak ever bar Bradman imho.Also has had monster series.Those factors on itself make me have him have him over anyone bar Hobbs,Sobers who managed to have nearly similar high level peak as Smith to add with longevity, Monster series etc.

 

[centurymaker]

Ponting was incredibly good but for only a relatively short period of time. It was only really 2002-2008 that he was that great standard which is always going to compare unfavourably to someone that did it for way longer

Steve Smith's peak/prime also lasted about 5 years. It was from 2014-2019.

(in fact, in 2018 he really didn't really play and was below par in SA)

Smith hasn't been at the same level since Ashes 2019. This is quite similar to Ponting tbh. Just that Smith hasn't yet fallen off completely, though it might happen as he ages or might not happen at all

 

[centurymaker]

Steve Smith's peak (2014-2019)




Ricky Ponting's peak (1999-2000, 2001-2006)



Not whole lot different.

But are just raw numbers ofcourse.