Is Ravichandran Ashwin an ATG test bowler?

[ma1978]

I agree that Worrell is the closest to being ATG, a great captain and decent all rounder. But think you're conflating the person and the cricketer.

“what do they know of cricket who only cricket know” - CLR James

 

[kyear2]

They generally ignore your inadequacies, true. Which you still haven't really made up for.

Why do you continue to prove my point. You don't have to insult people constantly.

 

[Xix2565]

Why do you continue to prove my point. You don't have to insult people constantly.

I don't have to tolerate his posting either when it's generally off topic. He never establishes a baseline, consistently changes his points based on the player being discussed and is never willing to recognise that. Sorry if you enjoy that but I don't see why I should.

 

[kyear2]

This is just ridiculous and arbitrary. There’s no need to get specific and once you get into this, how do you have Garner and not Holding, Lillee and not Trueman, have only one wicketkeeper, exclude a pace bowler with 700 witkcets, etc. This is just arbitrary statsmongerjng

None of the players mentioned weren't considered.

Garner and Holding were close and was going to include him in brackets next to Garner stating depending on preference. But went with Garner considering he makes my WI team and Holding doesn't.... Marginal.

Lillee was universally renowned as the best ever before Marshall, as much as I suspiciously view peer ratings, that one was by almost all and sundry and hard to ignore.

Knott should have been included and I'll make that adjustment. Sadly though wicketkeeping has long not been seen as good enough on it's own to gain merit, so they are ranked in conjunction with their skill with the bat.

 

[kyear2]

I don't have to tolerate his posting either when it's generally off topic. He never establishes a baseline, consistently changes his points based on the player being discussed and is never willing to recognise that. Sorry if you enjoy that but I don't see why I should.

It called being an adult, he's frustrated me more than he has you. I've never called him an idiot.

 

[Xix2565]

It called being an adult, he's frustrated me more than he has you. I've never called him an idiot.

Good for you then.

 

[kyear2]

This is just ridiculous and arbitrary. There’s no need to get specific and once you get into this, how do you have Garner and not Holding, Lillee and not Trueman, have only one wicketkeeper, exclude a pace bowler with 700 witkcets, etc. This is just arbitrary statsmongerjng

Including a bowler with 700 wickets is closer to stat mongering that excluding one, context matters.

How many ATGs do you have? If the clubs that big, then honestly that label means less.

 

[subshakerz]

@capt_Luffy had a good idea, so let's tier the ATGs

Bradman / Sobers / Marshall / Tendulkar / Hobbs / McGrath/ Hadlee

In no order and by country

Warne / Gilchrist / Smith / Hutton / Hammond / Gavaskar / Imran / Kallis / Steyn / Muralitharan / Richards / Lara / Ambrose

Final / borderline

O'Reilly / Lillee / Ponting / Chappell / Sutcliffe / Knott / Wasim / Donald / G. Pollock / Sangakkara / Headley / Garner

Of the top of my head, sure I'm missing someone(s)

After that are the truly great and great players. No disrespect but they are challenging for a spot in an ATG team. Well Smith for me, but that's probably my issue.

Yeah so I disagree with borderline.

Lillee, Headley, Wasim, Knott, O Reilly, Pollock, Chappell aren't borderline at all. They are confirmed ATGs based on rep and not including them is just flying in the face of cricket consensus.

Sutcliffe, Ponting, Border, Donald to me squeak in as they had not quite as super high rep in their times but enough to justify.

Sanga, Waugh, Garner, Holding, Laker, Grimmett are the borderline ones. In fact, I rather dont count them.

None of the players mentioned weren't considered.



Garner and Holding were close and was going to include him in brackets next to Garner stating depending on preference. But went with Garner considering he makes my WI team and Holding doesn't.... Marginal.



Lillee was universally renowned as the best ever before Marshall, as much as I suspiciously view peer ratings, that one was by almost all and sundry and hard to ignore.



Knott should have been included and I'll make that adjustment. Sadly though wicketkeeping has long not been seen as good enough on it's own to gain merit, so they are ranked in conjunction with their skill with the bat.

The problem is that you need at least some foundational knowledge of cricket history to understand who has the ATG reputations to base this analysis. Otherwise arguing with them is very difficult.

They are looking at the Economist or the New York Times to see how is an ATG today.

 

[subshakerz]

The problem is you are so analytically inconsistent it’s impossible to establish basic premises. And because you find basic concepts difficult that aren’t really factually disputable (that India is and has been for the the best test team in the world), you leave yourself open to criticisms of bias.

Wow so India and Indian players status not even debatable. Glad you can frame these as your basic principles, now we know who we are dealing with.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't have to tolerate his posting either when it's generally off topic. He never establishes a baseline, consistently changes his points based on the player being discussed and is never willing to recognise that. Sorry if you enjoy that but I don't see why I should.

Most if they can't tolerate someone would just ignore that poster rather than pollute a thread with their negativity.

 

[Socerer 01]

“my atg is better than your atg”

- this thread, 2024

 

[ma1978]

Wow so India and Indian players status not even debatable. Glad you can frame these as your basic principles, now we know who we are dealing with.

Of course it’s technically debatable, but the face that you debate points that are blatantly obvious (who is the best test team in 2024) tells you everything you need to know

 

[ma1978]

None of the players mentioned weren't considered.

Garner and Holding were close and was going to include him in brackets next to Garner stating depending on preference. But went with Garner considering he makes my WI team and Holding doesn't.... Marginal.

Lillee was universally renowned as the best ever before Marshall, as much as I suspiciously view peer ratings, that one was by almost all and sundry and hard to ignore.

Knott should have been included and I'll make that adjustment. Sadly though wicketkeeping has long not been seen as good enough on it's own to gain merit, so they are ranked in conjunction with their skill with the bat.

It’s not a fixed number of people. You don’t have to be so pedantic.

 

[honestbharani]

Being great across 5 dimensions means you are ATG.

 

[capt_Luffy]

@capt_Luffy had a good idea, so let's tier the ATGs

Bradman / Sobers / Marshall / Tendulkar / Hobbs / McGrath/ Hadlee

In no order and by country

Warne / Gilchrist / Smith / Hutton / Hammond / Gavaskar / Imran / Kallis / Steyn / Muralitharan / Richards / Lara / Ambrose

Final / borderline

O'Reilly / Lillee / Ponting / Chappell / Sutcliffe / Knott / Wasim / Donald / G. Pollock / Sangakkara / Headley / Garner

Of the top of my head, sure I'm missing someone(s)

After that are the truly great and great players. No disrespect but they are challenging for a spot in an ATG team. Well Smith for me, but that's probably my issue.

I actually totally agree with the first two tiers (that's surprising). Though, even excluding Grace and Barnes; I can't see why you haven't included Keith Miller and Fred Trueman. And I believe you rate Graeme Smith very highly, so much so to consider him for an ATG team ahead of others here like Gavaskar and Sutcliffe. I can understand the basis of left-arm combination, captaincy, slip fielding, etc.; but if he is competing for a spot in your ATG team, he should atleast be a lower tier ATG in your rankings imo.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah so I disagree with borderline.

Lillee, Headley, Wasim, Knott, O Reilly, Pollock, Chappell aren't borderline at all. They are confirmed ATGs based on rep and not including them is just flying in the face of cricket consensus.

Sutcliffe, Ponting, Border, Donald to me squeak in as they had not quite as super high rep in their times but enough to justify.

Sanga, Waugh, Garner, Holding, Laker, Grimmett are the borderline ones. In fact, I rather dont count them.



The problem is that you need at least some foundational knowledge of cricket history to understand who has the ATG reputations to base this analysis. Otherwise arguing with them is very difficult.

They are looking at the Economist or the New York Times to see how is an ATG today.

I don't disagree, it was final and borderline. But actually am happy with all 32 names. Wouldn't demote any.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't disagree, it was final and borderline. But actually am happy with all 32 names. Wouldn't demote any.

I thought you are open to rating Holding above Garner. And why not Steve Waugh and Border?

 

[OverratedSanity]

As expected this thread has devolved into people arguing because they have different criteria for ATG, a term with no universal meaning.

 

[kyear2]

I actually totally agree with the first two tiers (that's surprising). Though, even excluding Grace and Barnes; I can't see why you haven't included Keith Miller and Fred Trueman. And I believe you rate Graeme Smith very highly, so much so to consider him for an ATG team ahead of others here like Gavaskar and Sutcliffe. I can understand the basis of left-arm combination, captaincy, slip fielding, etc.; but if he is competing for a spot in your ATG team, he should atleast be a lower tier ATG in your rankings imo.

I rate players primarily by their primary skills. You have to be an ATG there before even moving to the secondary one. Why I rate Hadlee over Imran, better bowler by enough that the secondary skills can't overcome it. Miller wasn't good enough in primary or secondary in my opinion to get into the conversation. But I know that differs from the consensus.
Trueman is really borderline, but was the hardest omission, and could probably make it in ahead of Garner. But the down was that he was totally useless outside of England. But he was great and right on the cusp.

Greame Smith is in contention for me and at most a few others, but hardly by the consensus and try not to debate too far. He would have also been quite the controversial selection and taken away from the discourse. For an actual team though, his play style, LH advantage, captaincy and slip fielding makes him highly valuable as a cricketer. And that's before the home pitches and the fact that he's probably the 2nd best 'modern" opener and probably the best of this century.

Don't believe there are lower tiers ATG, you are or you aren't, for me he's borderline and probably deserves a shout. But that wouldn't be a popular decision and if it's an argument (as that would be) he's in the same boat as the others mentioned. He's almost like the reverse Ashwin though.

 

[kyear2]

I don't disagree, it was final and borderline. But actually am happy with all 32 names. Wouldn't demote any.

Was going to edit, but enough people have probably already read it.

Not the biggest fan of Sanga, but know others rate him highly, so... And know that you @subshakerz , don't rate Garner and he took would fall short on consensus. Ponting may also fall into that category and I am not 100% sold in Wasim, but again most are.

So those 4 would be the borderline of that category.