The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[kyear2]

At the beginning of his career, the lbw laws were that you couldn't be dismissed if the ball pitched outside of the off stump, was just a different sport.
The levels and standard of professionalism, training and fitness is no where near what it was even in the 80's

The level of competition though is a primary concern. Sobers, Smith, Sangakkara etc have at various times been criticized for some of the bowling attacks they faced and it's nothing compared to whom Hobbs played against.

I'm not saying he's not in the club, he has to be given credit for what he did during his time, but he's not the best after Bradman. Hutton faced so many times of magnitude better bowling than Hobbs did, but that someone isn't taken into account and let's not even start with the attacks Sunny faced.

 

[ataraxia]

Hey kyear do you downrate Bradman significantly for the same reason? Or is there a hypothetical cutoff that happens to coincide with the beginning of the career of a totally dominating sportsman?

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Wilt surely does.

Wilt was probably averaging this thing call triple double for his whole career.All the wrong information like playing against short guys,Plumbers etc. nonsense have been made to discredit Wilt since 90s by mainly Jordan fans on trying to have Mike over Wilt anyway.This only has got more prevalent since Wilt’s death anyway.

Best description for Wilt - Quicker than Jordan,Stronger than Shaq,More athletic than Lebron and nearly as tall as Kareem.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Wilt was probably averaging this thing call triple double for his whole career.All the wrong information like playing against short guys,Plumbers etc. nonsense have been made to discredit Wilt since 90s by mainly Jordan fans on trying to have Mike over Wilt anyway.This only has got more prevalent since Wilt’s death anyway.

Best description for Wilt - Quicker than Jordan,Stronger than Shaq,More athletic than Lebron and nearly as tall as Kareem.

It's pretty clear the @kyear2 is either a Jordan or Lebron fan trying to discredit one of the biggest rivals to NBA GOAT title.

 

[kyear2]

Wilt surely does.

Really trying to not go down this rabbit hole, but the almost undisputed mount Rushmore of basketball is seen to be MJ, Lebron, Kareem and Magic. Wilt is undisputed top 10 but for a player with his numbers, some would believe he should be undisputed no 1, him or Russell because of the championships. But back then there were less teams, worst competitive structure and the league just want what it was in later years.

Nothing wrong with saying the game has evolved.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Really trying to not go down this rabbit hole, but the almost undisputed mount Rushmore of basketball is seen to be MJ, Lebron, Kareem and Magic. Wilt is undisputed top 10 but for a player with his numbers, some would believe he should be undisputed no 1, him or Russell because of the championships. But back then there were less teams, worst competitive structure and the league just want what it was in later years.

Nothing wrong with saying the game has evolved.

Many people rate Wilt over Magic and even Kareem.

 

[kyear2]

It's pretty clear the @kyear2 is either a Jordan or Lebron fan trying to discredit one of the biggest rivals to NBA GOAT title.

Neither actually. I believe Michael is the greatest, then LBJ and Kareem not in any particular order, but that isn't controversial in any way.

You will not find any list from journalists or publications having Wilt as the GOAT

 

[kyear2]

Many people rate Wilt over Magic and even Kareem.

Show me the lists

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Many people rate Wilt over Magic and even Kareem.

Even as late as 1997 most of the people viewed Wilt as the Goat.Only small fraction of would have Kareem or Magic over Wilt. This has mainly changed especially since the death of Wilt.

When Wilt and Jordan were arguing in NBA 50th anniversary on who the greatest was Wilt shut down Micheal by stating “Always remember when you played they changed all the rules to make it easier for you to dominate and when I played they changed all the rules to make it harder for me to dominate”.Micheal had no reply at all.

 

[Qlder]

Such a great topic now reduced to no-one of pre-1950 counts in cricket and start an NBA Goat discussion to try and prove it. Well done Kyear2

 

[Slifer]

Oh we're doing basketball now? Fun fact I'm an expert there as well. Afaic, the goat is too subjective to be definitive but for me it comes down to 3 players: MJ , Wilt and Kareem. All three were atg on both ends of the floor ie on offense and defense.

Lebron is a phenomenal player but he is great on offense but merely good defensively. And basketball is one of those sports where you really can't just compare players statistically without understanding the five basic positions (SG, PG, C, PF and SF) and their roles. No shooting guard is ever going to have as many blocks as a center and no power forward will have as many assists as a point guard and so on. Anyway, I'm not trying to get banned so I'll say no more.

 

[kyear2]

Such a great topic now reduced to no-one of pre-1950 counts in cricket and start an NBA Goat discussion to try and prove it. Well done Kyear2

1. On multiple posts I specifically said didn't want this to devolve into an NBA discussion

2. Never said the 50's, definitely not before let's say the '30's. Don't know how hard it is to acknowledge the game has progressed, that's it's so much harder to rate players where we have no video footage or even definitive stance on what they bowled.

 

[Qlder]

Never said the 50's, definitely not before let's say the '30's. Don't know how hard it is to acknowledge the game has progressed, that's it's so much harder to rate players where we have no video footage or even definitive stance on what they bowled.

I remember some great logic that a player so far above their peers in one era will be so far above their peers if born in any other era...

 

[kyear2]

Hey kyear do you downrate Bradman significantly for the same reason? Or is there a hypothetical cutoff that happens to coincide with the beginning of the career of a totally dominating sportsman?

Bradman was the absolute best, the greatest batsman of all time and there is a gap. Do I believe he was twice as good as everyone else from subsequent eras, no, but that's another bon fire for another time.

Mid 30's was when the game started to approach the game we play today, definitely after the war for sure. The pitches were mostly fixed, there was much better competition, bowlers and more competing teams. So yes it was much better and closer to what we see today.

 

[trundler]

Bradman was the absolute best, the greatest batsman of all time and there is a gap. Do I believe he was twice as good as everyone else from subsequent eras, no, but that's another bon fire for another time.

Mid 30's was when the game started to approach the game we play today, definitely after the war for sure. The pitches were mostly fixed, there was much better competition, bowlers and more competing teams. So yes it was much better and closer to what we see today.

Nothing changed drastically between the 20s and the mid 30s. Pitch quality improved rapidly after WW1 but I don't think there were massive improvements in the inter war period.

 

[Coronis]

1. On multiple posts I specifically said didn't want this to devolve into an NBA discussion

I mean what did you expect when you brought up the NBA GOAT discussion, people are more (or just as) passionate about it in general, and there are huge disagreements wrt era adjustment etc, far more so than cricket.

Anyway at this point for me Fangio (to give yet another sport example) is a top 3 F1 driver (Max could be going ahead tho) and I don’t give a **** that he raced in the 50’s.

I could also talk about the NRL and how up until roughly 2010 almost all of the greatest players were considered to be 1980’s or older (Lockyer/Johns excepted).

I won’t even get into MLB or NFL or Soccer either - though I’m not as much into these sports as the others.

 

[kyear2]

I mean what did you expect when you brought up the NBA GOAT discussion, people are more (or just as) passionate about it in general, and there are huge disagreements wrt era adjustment etc, far more so than cricket.

Anyway at this point for me Fangio (to give yet another sport example) is a top 3 F1 driver (Max could be going ahead tho) and I don’t give a **** that he raced in the 50’s.

I could also talk about the NRL and how up until roughly 2010 almost all of the greatest players were considered to be 1980’s or older (Lockyer/Johns excepted).

I won’t even get into MLB or NFL or Soccer either - though I’m not as much into these sports as the others.

F-1 is really hard to rate as it's so very car reliant, but think it's one sport that while the car technology has improved the basics really haven't.

But interested in who else is in your top 3

 

[Coronis]

F-1 is really hard to rate as it's so very car reliant, but think it's one sport that while the car technology has improved the basics really haven't.

But interested in who else is in your top 3

Schumacher and Hamilton.

At the moment probably Prost and Senna complete my top 5 but Verstappen will almost definitely eclipse them.

Agreed it is tough to judge because of car differences - but we’re still able to make sound judgements I believe. For example, I think Alonso is just as fast and talented as Hamilton (and far higher race IQ than any current driver on the grid imo) but sadly he hasn’t been in great cars his entire career, so he obviously doesn’t rate as highly.

 

[_00_deathscar]

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.

Isn’t that kind of the point in a longwinded way though? His 60 average after 100-something tests isn’t that unique in and of itself. Also showing how difficult it is to really hold that average the longer it goes on. Smith himself was on around 65 after 80 tests or so. There’s of course Kohli’s story too.
That said I don’t think anyone is seriously comparing Sanga are they?
It’s Sobers, Viv, Lara, Sachin.

Also he feasted plenty when wickets were batting friendly. It’s actually only on these spicier pitches last few years that he has (relatively) struggled. How much of that is down decline, if any, versus
— so that’s not correct that he averages 60 in a bowler friendly era.

He’s clearly in the conversation for best after Bradman. But he isn’t clear in the running if he either retires now or keeps up the current path (dependent on how long).
Only a precipitous Kohli/Ponting like decline could prevent this so it seems unlikely. One of his key pluses seems to be that even when he isn’t playing all that great he can come up with the 40-70 here and there and the odd 100.

 

[_00_deathscar]

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.

Why do you keep repeating this and whom is it in reference to? Because if its Kohli and Root and Williamson it doesn’t matter.
He doesn’t average any more spectacularly away than the guys he’s competing with for that “best after Bradman” slot — highly indicating it’s his dominating home performance (aided by pitches partly), that’s contributing to his higher average (Labu averages 70 at home, Khawaja also has a mad home average, as does Head — and so on).

Otherwise why are people even arguing a 60 average Smith vs a 50 average Lara?