Is Ravichandran Ashwin an ATG test bowler?

[Xix2565]

If pitches are a big flaw in this debate, why do we just ignore the general conditions involved for past great spinners not named Warne or Murali? There's a reason a lot of what are pace bowling nations now had great spin bowlers in the past, yet this for some reason isn't held against them in any meaningful way, while for Ashwin his wickets are essentially dismissed in this manner. Can someone explain the general logic involved?

 

[subshakerz]

Subz, where would you rank Ashwin as a spinner, in the spinners list?

Not sure honestly. Don't think he moved much ahead of the CW list done in 2022 except I have Lyon ahead of him now.

 

[subshakerz]

Even the posts complaining about personal attacks have devolved into personal attacks ffs.

I'll leave it open for now on the condition that the attacks stop, as do the suggestions of ulterior motives (which are, to me, also personal attacks). Debate the topic in good faith or not at all.

If you were going to end it because of attacks it would have been done 20 pages ago, no? I wanted to end it because the conversation is mostly meaningless now.

 

[subshakerz]

So registering disapproval of a thread where insults are traded and arguments go round in repetitive circles makes one a wimp. You, like this thread, are tiresome.

Of course Overrated would say that since he isn't subjected to insults in the thread. If he were, he would want mass reporting and thread closing 5 pages in.

 

[capt_Luffy]

If you were going to end it because of attacks it would have been done 20 pages ago, no? I wanted to end it because the conversation is mostly meaningless now.

I don't think personal attack is the way to go while comparing whether a millionaire sportsman is among the very best or among the best after very best....

 

[Socerer 01]

TJB has so far the Ashwin fanclub in this thread to the equivalents of the CCP and French Revolution, im eager to see whats next on the list

 

[Socerer 01]

Of course Overrated would say that since he isn't subjected to insults in the thread. If he were, he would want mass reporting and thread closing 5 pages in.

dude the personal insults by your own admission are from Xix and only him while others have been respectful with you. they arent cool regardless and its unfair you kept copping them. you’ve also indulged in mudslinging and accusing the others of nationalism, bias and worse things, the nationalism bit alone got a couple of newbies bans around world cup time and conveniently some of the users are ignoring it

 

[Victor Ian]

I don't know if this 39 pages of meaningless back and forth is so pointless after all.

I think I'm starting to crack.

 

[kyear2]

Mods, please consider closing this thread. It's got out of hand.

Even the posts complaining about personal attacks have devolved into personal attacks ffs.

I'll leave it open for now on the condition that the attacks stop, as do the suggestions of ulterior motives (which are, to me, also personal attacks). Debate the topic in good faith or not at all.

Exactly this. It was getting ridiculous and causing the majority of the toxicity and rather disappointing tbh.

 

[TheJediBrah]

TJB has so far the Ashwin fanclub in this thread to the equivalents of the CCP and French Revolution, im eager to see whats next on the list

Very brave of you to be so negative about the CCP as to compare them to the Ashwin fanclub on the open internet

 

[kyear2]

I don't necessarily disagree on that. But there are some things to consider, namely almost every bowler in WSC was successful and the pitches were very in favour of high pace bowling. Even outside of other greats like Roberts, Holding, Imran, Garner even Croft; Australian pacers like Ray Bright, Max Walker and even to an extent Len Pascoe was also successful. It was a batsman's final ground, not a high pacers largely. But my main complain was with Subs scrutinizing every bit of Ashwin's record and saying he can't be an ATG, while being completely fine with rating Laker as one (despite similar issues of home dominance) and ignoring the fact that in Test matches, Lillee only delivered anything close to ATG worthy against England and no one else. He was simply good against WI, and decent against Pakistan. If you play 3 top countries regularly, 2 almost solely in your backyard made for your type of bowling (ex- 1976 WI tour); then that's an issue comparable to Ashwin in SENA. Honestly, I haven't dug up Lillee's record so much until recently and now I have to re-evaluate that whether it's enough to rank him in Top 10 bowlers of mine.

Understood, but honestly to me your arguments would more suggest that neither are rather than both should be.

If all of your success is predicated on helpful pitches and familiar conditions then that is a slight against you.

One of my main issues with peer and media reviews are that it sometimes is heavily influenced by who are the political, media and sprouting heavy weights of the time.

Part of Lillee's lore could be because he was possibly the first fiery fast bowler in a while and best since Trueman, part of it could have been he was a exuberant Aussie (which I believe is @Coronis beef with his rating) More bravado (mustache)than substance and as someone pointed out, his career heavily overlapped with Hadlee's who was objectively better in everyway.

But to be fair, and as @subshakerz has pointed out, his overseas record is somewhat incomplete rather than a complete failure and that can be a factor as well. That and how he over ame his devastating back injury which did occur at his peak.

But your points are well taken, and really Lillee is a controversial and difficult player to rate, because similarly to Wasim, his perception and rating seems to exceed his numbers and the reality.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Understood, but honestly to me your arguments would more suggest that neither are rather than both should be.

If all of your success is predicated on helpful pitches and familiar conditions then that is a slight against you.

One of my main issues with peer and media reviews are that it sometimes is heavily influenced by who are the political, media and sprouting heavy weights of the time.

Part of Lillee's lore could be because he was possibly the first fiery fast bowler in a while and best since Trueman, part of it could have been he was a exuberant Aussie (which I believe is @Coronis beef with his rating) More bravado (mustache)than substance and as someone pointed out, his career heavily overlapped with Hadlee's who was objectively better in everyway.

But to be fair, and as @subshakerz has pointed out, his overseas record is somewhat incomplete rather than a complete failure and that can be a factor as well. That and how he over ame his devastating back injury which did occur at his peak.

But your points are well taken, and really Lillee is a controversial and difficult player to rate, because similarly to Wasim, his perception and rating seems to exceed his numbers and the reality.

Pretty much this. My point was if Lillee only performed ATG level against a single strong team and his good to above average performance against WI and Pakistan are well taken, despite pretty favourable home conditions; why only Ashwin should be penalized for having suitable home conditions and doing average in Australia and England.

 

[honestbharani]

There are 12 test nations. Ash has not had the opportunity to play in 4 of them.

Of the 8 he has had the opportunity to play in (as in, his team toured/played there when he was available), he is ATG in Ind, SL, BD,Windies. That is 4.

He has outbowled the opposition spinner in Aus, and has had very good returns in England. He has poor records only in NZ and RSA and even there, he has had very good performances in RSA. I think he only played 1 or 2 tests in NZ. So I dont see how anyone can refute his being an ATG esp. as a spinner where there are so few options to that tier.

 

[kyear2]

Well roundedness of record mostly. The ones with nearly spotless for their time are in tier 1, the mine with some hick ups are in 2nd tier (which you really can divide into 2 sub tiers, the first containing Steyn, Ambrose, Wasim and Imran; and the rest of Holding, Garner, Lindwall, Trueman, Donald, Davidson and Lillee in the 2nd. Might move Donald up in the upper sub tier). And in 3rd tier are bowlers with some major hickups, but who have done still good enough to be an ATG.

I don't know, me personally even the term major hickups would suggest that they aren't quite up to tier, and the term ATG should be like Hall of Famer, should only be the best of the very best.
And for the record and for me personally, behind ATG isn't ATVG, that in itself is insulting, that's where the greats of their time reside. Border for me doesn't quite hit the marks of an ATG, but he sure as hell was better than very good, he was unquestionably great, just not in the pantheon of the immortals.

For mine, if a player is being intentionally omitted outside of favorable conditions, and in said conditions isn't the first choice spinner for what ever reasons, he can't be an ATG. It's not racist, envious or based on malice. Marshall, Steyn, McGrath weren't dropped when they toured the SC, that factors very heavily in this for me and should for others if you're objective.

 

[kyear2]

Not sure honestly. Don't think he moved much ahead of the CW list done in 2022 except I have Lyon ahead of him now.

And this is where people perceive bias and have an issue. Just for the record.

 

[Xix2565]

Marshall, Steyn, McGrath weren't dropped when they toured the SC, that factors very heavily in this for me and should for others if you're objective.

None of them had better alternatives to taking wickets though. Who's the better player suited to SC conditions that they played with?

 

[capt_Luffy]

I don't know, me personally even the term major hickups would suggest that they aren't quite up to tier, and the term ATG should be like Hall of Famer, should only be the best of the very best.
And for the record and for me personally, behind ATG isn't ATVG, that in itself is insulting, that's where the greats of their time reside. Border for me doesn't quite hit the marks of an ATG, but he sure as hell was better than very good, he was unquestionably great, just not in the pantheon of the immortals.

For mine, if a player is being intentionally omitted outside of favorable conditions, and in said conditions isn't the first choice spinner for what ever reasons, he can't be an ATG. It's not racist, envious or based on malice. Marshall, Steyn, McGrath weren't dropped when they toured the SC, that factors very heavily in this for me and should for others if you're objective.

I respect your opinion. But I also think of the ATG list as sort of a hall of fame and feel bad to leave out servants like Border and Anderson of that tier. Yes, Border is no Viv or Anderson is no Steyn; but doesn't mean, to me, that they can't be ATG in thier own right. I think we can differ here freely. As for Ashwin's ATG status, I think on having a substitute like Jadeja, a significantly superior bat, field and technically more effective against right arm heavy sides; I can see why they would make that decision. You need 3 pacers atleast almost everywhere and will go with less only you lack much skilled ones or have much superior spinners; the same doesn't apply to spinners. If Warne, Murali and Jadeja played together, I can see times when one might be dropped; and some rare ones where it might even be one of those two.

 

[kyear2]

If pitches are a big flaw in this debate, why do we just ignore the general conditions involved for past great spinners not named Warne or Murali? There's a reason a lot of what are pace bowling nations now had great spin bowlers in the past, yet this for some reason isn't held against them in any meaningful way, while for Ashwin his wickets are essentially dismissed in this manner. Can someone explain the general logic involved?

A couple points in this. There are only 3 consensus great spinners, and there's a reason for that. All the others have caveats, major ones. Why some rate Gibbs higher than his numbers suggest is because of the lack of assistance he received from the pitches of his time. O'Reilly also played on the flattest pitches imaginable, especially at home, they were roads and he still succeeded.

I mentioned the 3 Ws previously, they all (well Weekes and Walcott) flourished at home on the flatter wickets, while (and for other various reasons, riming / injury / small sample sizes) failed to deliver overseas. They still have amazing averages but no one sees them as top 10 batsmen or consensus or even standard ATGs.

If you're playing on pitches which necessitates even the touring teams to play 3 spinners, then yeah there will be questions, like there are for Laker and others.

But yeah, for me Warne, Murali, a bit of space, then O'Reilly then pure daylight. So the issue if others being included doesn't apply to me, it's a really short list. But yes he's definitely great and a great bowler and the primary reason India is a juggernaut at home, but to be among the immortals for me it has to extend beyond that.

 

[Xix2565]

A couple points in this. There are only 3 consensus great spinners, and there's a reason for that. All the others have caveats, major ones. Why some rate Gibbs higher than his numbers suggest is because of the lack of assistance he received from the pitches of his time. O'Reilly also played on the flattest pitches imaginable, especially at home, they were roads and he still succeeded.

I mentioned the 3 Ws previously, they all (well Weekes and Walcott) flourished at home on the flatter wickets, while (and for other various reasons, riming / injury / small sample sizes) failed to deliver overseas. They still have amazing averages but no one sees them as top 10 batsmen or consensus or even standard ATGs.

If you're playing on pitches which necessitates even the touring teams to play 3 spinners, then yeah there will be questions, like there are for Laker and others.

But yeah, for me Warne, Murali, a bit of space, then O'Reilly then pure daylight. So the issue if others being included doesn't apply to me, it's a really short list. But yes he's definitely great and a great bowler and the primary reason India is a juggernaut at home, but to be among the immortals for me it has to extend beyond that.

Did O'Reilly really play on such flat wickets? England was worse for spinners during his era, and Australia was middle of the pack overall in terms of the bowling average there across all available countries then. Feels like it needs a little more scrutiny.

Do we have the same questions about places where you need 3 pacers or more to do well? If not, then why? Pacers also use the pitch like spinners do.

I've never found it compelling to be very exclusionary to ATG players as the overall talent that has played this game grows over time, but fair on you then. I feel for Ashwin, his case is solid enough to be an immortal, given that he's a vital part of the strongest ever Indian side.

 

[kyear2]

Pretty much this. My point was if Lillee only performed ATG level against a single strong team and his good to above average performance against WI and Pakistan are well taken, despite pretty favourable home conditions; why only Ashwin should be penalized for having suitable home conditions and doing average in Australia and England.

And I agreed with you, it's possible neither are. My views aren't inflexible.

But you can't use this argument to suggest that both are while highlighting a huge obvious flaw.