Kyear2 / Prince EWS ATG draft

[ankitj]

Are we now supposed to vote?

 

[Himannv]

I vote for whichever team it is that doesn't have Kallis.

 

[kyear2]

And the reputation thing is where I have a problem. Based on reputation Compton is a far greater batsman than Barrington for example.

Lets take Richards and Boycott for example. If you look at a one series sample for Boycott or look at his performances in ROW matches he comes out looking as good or better as Richards - he also happened to have a longer FC career and a higher average than Richards, despite them playing in the same FC competition for the majority of their careers. And yet despite all that and Boycott actually having a test career I see Richards more often mentioned in ATG test discussions than Boycott - its frankly ridiculous.

I have no doubt if Richards had a full test career he’d likely be amongst the top 5 openers of all time but he didn’t and to constantly bring him up in ATG Test XI discussions is stupid.

Because even you, I would hope, can see the advantage that Barry would give a team at the top of an innings over Boycott. I know you are a huge fan of pre modern era players and think strike rate doesn't matter, but how many people given an option of prime Barry vs prime Boycott to open their innings, be it for test or first class cricket would go for Boycott.
Strike rate foes matter, it puts the bowlers off their lines, causes changes to the field, and alters the game plan of opposing captains.
It's no coincidence that the two greatest teams of all time had Greenidge and Hayden setting the tone at the top of the innings. The longer they stayed at the crease, nthe quicker the game slipped away from the opposition.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Because even you, I would hope, can see the advantage that Barry would give a team at the top of an innings over Boycott. I know you are a huge fan of pre modern era players and think strike rate doesn't matter, but how many people given an option of prime Barry vs prime Boycott to open their innings, be it for test or first class cricket would go for Boycott.
Strike rate foes matter, it puts the bowlers off their lines, causes changes to the field, and alters the game plan of opposing captains.
It's no coincidence that the two greatest teams of all time had Greenidge and Hayden setting the tone at the top of the innings. The longer they stayed at the crease, nthe quicker the game slipped away from the opposition.

Two home bullies.

 

[Coronis]

Because even you, I would hope, can see the advantage that Barry would give a team at the top of an innings over Boycott. I know you are a huge fan of pre modern era players and think strike rate doesn't matter, but how many people given an option of prime Barry vs prime Boycott to open their innings, be it for test or first class cricket would go for Boycott.
Strike rate foes matter, it puts the bowlers off their lines, causes changes to the field, and alters the game plan of opposing captains.
It's no coincidence that the two greatest teams of all time had Greenidge and Hayden setting the tone at the top of the innings. The longer they stayed at the crease, nthe quicker the game slipped away from the opposition.

I think both defensive batsmen and aggressive batsmen have their places and advantages in a team, and I don’t inherently value one over the other. Occupying the crease is an underrated skill. Ideally you’ll have a mix of both in an ATG XI imo.

So this is my qualm. If you think Barry with a full test career would probably be a top-5 opener, then rate him as such. All-time discussions are all about hypotheticals already, and it really gets on my nerves when people restrict themselves to test performances. Because for me, I'm rating on how players would fare in a hypothetical test tournament and not anything else.

So I do something akin to taking the 40th percentile of where I think Barry would end up after a full test career, and rate him on that.

I would 100% put Richards in an ATG SA XI if its considering both FC and Test, but if a person specifies Test ATG XI, he simply should not be considered, he was not an ATG Test player. Same as if Sarfaraz Khan doesn’t get selected til he’s late 30’s for a single series and similarly dominates it I won’t be considering him for an ATG Indian Test XI.

 

[shortpitched713]

I hate how we have to choose top orders of the two on reputation between players hardly anyone living has ever seen, based on our "historical knowledge".

Like, I rate Hutton based on what footage I've seen, I can see how he was effective, and visualize it translating into the cricket that I know. That's why I rate him over almost any other pre wars players. But Hammond and Sutcliffe, I have so little footage of value, and Hobbs none. Even the Don, I'm mostly just going on the record and weight of runs, although the small viewable batting sample is damn impressive to look at.

 

[Coronis]

I hate how we have to choose top orders of the two on reputation between players hardly anyone living has ever seen, based on our "historical knowledge".

Like, I rate Hutton based on what footage I've seen, I can see how he was effective, and visualize it translating into the cricket that I know. That's why I rate him over almost any other pre wars players. But Hammond and Sutcliffe, I have so little footage of value, and Hobbs none. Even the Don, I'm mostly just going on the record and weight of runs, although the small viewable batting sample is damn impressive to look at.

I am working on a time machine to fix this problem in my spare time but until I make that breakthrough its just something you have to deal with in lots of these discussions about sporting greats - across multiple sports.

If it does bother you so, you can always just make your XI’s based on players you’ve seen extensive footage of or viewed live.

 

[shortpitched713]

I'd just rather talk about Border vs Williamson, or not have to assume G Smith is basically irrelevant in discussion on openers. Instead of the millionth conversation about whether Hutton, or even God forbid, Hobbs is better than Gavaskar.

 

[The Sean]

I vote for whichever team it is that doesn't have Kallis.

What if the team that doesn't have Kallis does have Sangakkara?

 

[Prince EWS]

I'd just rather talk about Border vs Williamson, or not have to assume G Smith is basically irrelevant in discussion on openers. Instead of the millionth conversation about whether Hutton, or even God forbid, Hobbs is better than Gavaskar.

Then do that. Open a thread or bump one that exists.

When you open a thread with all-time in the title, sometimes we will be talking about players who played a long time ago. That's the concept.

 

[ataraxia]

I would 100% put Richards in an ATG SA XI if its considering both FC and Test, but if a person specifies Test ATG XI, he simply should not be considered, he was not an ATG Test player. Same as if Sarfaraz Khan doesn’t get selected til he’s late 30’s for a single series and similarly dominates it I won’t be considering him for an ATG Indian Test XI.

You could have just said 'I disagree'. My interpretation of "Test ATG XI" selection is, as I said, rating how players would fare in a hypothetical test tournament and not anything else.

 

[Himannv]

What if the team that doesn't have Kallis does have Sangakkara?

He isn't even good enough to be in the discussion.

 

[shortpitched713]

Then do that. Open a thread or bump one that exists.

When you open a thread with all-time in the title, sometimes we will be talking about players who played a long time ago. That's the concept.

Yeah, but then when I start mentioning Lohmann, and Johnny Briggs in all time bowling discussions, suddenly I'm the bad guy. They're no less relevant than the canonical Hobbs. The "all time discussion", as the CW concensus dictates it be carried out, is an inconsistent mess.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah, but then when I start mentioning Lohmann, and Johnny Briggs in all time bowling discussions, suddenly I'm the bad guy. They're no less relevant than the canonical Hobbs. The "all time discussion", as the CW concensus dictates it be carried out, is an inconsistent mess.

Consistently, back until the 1910’s the batting averages for great players have been 50+ and for great bowlers low 20’s. Prior to this you had many bowlers averaging in the teens and the best batsmen in the world not breaking 40. The game was clearly different then - especially pre-1900 - which is why its almost impossible to judge a Spofforth or a Turner against Lillee or McGrath etc.

 

[shortpitched713]

I get your point Coronis. But I don't think it's quite as clear cut. There is not reason, in my mind, to only celebrate the great batsmen of the earlier half of the 20th century, and have little to no bowler representation in that (Bradman is a worthwhile exception), other than an occasional aside on O'Reilly and Grimmett.

The solution I'd posit (simply exclude them all), might be a bit extreme, but it seems by far the most logically consistent.

 

[trundler]

There was one great pacer in the 2000s and 0 in the 1930s. I don't see why only one era should be excluded.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

People still include The Master Bowler himself, Sydney Francis Barnes. At least most do. I would have no problem with Barnes and ofc O’Reilly in my 1st Xi at all. Grimmett, Verity, Tate, Larwood all make my 3-7 Xi. I would rather exclude everyone that I didn’t see rather than just select some eras and call it The Best Xi I saw rather than All Time Best Xi.

 

[shortpitched713]

People still include The Master Bowler himself, Sydney Francis Barnes. At least most do. I would have no problem with Barnes and ofc O’Reilly in my 1st Xi at all. Grimmett, Verity, Tate, Larwood all make my 3-7 Xi. I would rather exclude everyone that I didn’t see rather than just select some eras and call it The Best Xi I saw rather than All Time Best Xi.

How about a "You can view them in the archives XI"?