• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Is Ravichandran Ashwin an ATG test bowler?

Is Ravichandran Ashwin an ATG test bowler?

  • Total voters
    75
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
subshakerz said:
Yeah but Sobers, Hadlee and Imran should be considered ATG allrounders, no? Otherwise why is Kallis second tier, do you really rate his batting that much alone?

And putting the top four of a discipline in one tier is arbitrary unless there is a reason for that number. And the division between the next tiers also doesn't make much sense.

Anyways to each their own. I think you add more problems with this approach.
Click to expand...
Sobers and Hadlee are in the top tier due to their bowling, Hadlee is ahead of McGrath within the tier due to his batting, he isn't jumping tiers because of it. That's how it goes all the way through. Imran already jumped Ambrose and Murali due to his batting, I'm not jumping him tiers because of it.
You have to remember you rate Imran higher as a bowler than almost anyone else on the forum. Pretty sure he's a consensus 6th among fast bowlers and then behind Warne and Murali as well. So again, 8th.

There's no reason for the number, those 4 separate themselves a bit from the rest. Richards, Smith and Lara and just a smidgen behind Tendulkar, Sobers and Hobbs who's a smidgen behind Bradman.

Marshall, McGrath and Hadlee are just a bit ahead of Steyn, Warne, Murali and Ambrose who's just a bit ahead of Imran, Donald, Lillee etc.

So no, no problems.
 
R

RossTaylorsBox

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
ma1978 said:
this is only looking at him as a bowler, math may change if you factor the batting

but in baseball parlance, I view Ashwin in totality as a borderline first ballot HOF, someone who sneaks in with 76% of the vote not 90%+ and someone who could easily wait a couple years
Click to expand...
Hard to know this until well after retirement but I think your guess would be pretty close.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
ma1978 said:
this is only looking at him as a bowler, math may change if you factor the batting

but in baseball parlance, I view Ashwin in totality as a borderline first ballot HOF, someone who sneaks in with 76% of the vote not 90%+ and someone who could easily wait a couple years
Click to expand...
In the NFL it's 80%, so yeah, much more exclusive club. So in this case not a first ballot, but gets in eventually.

The guys I've named are 1st ballot guys
 
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
I hate to agree with subs at all but re: hall of fameds =/= ATG I heartily do.

Not that familiar with MLB/NFL, but using an NBA example, guys like Grant Hill and Chris Mullin are not “ATG”.

Also in essence ATG is a completely different concept, iirc cricket already has a hall of fame anyway.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
kyear2 said:
Sobers and Hadlee are in the top tier due to their bowling, Hadlee is ahead of McGrath within the tier due to his batting, he isn't jumping tiers because of it. That's how it goes all the way through. Imran already jumped Ambrose and Murali due to his batting, I'm not jumping him tiers because of it.
Click to expand...
Is Kallis second tier based on batting alone?

Sorry given that you are doing rankings within tiers, this all seems unnecessarily complicating.
 
Last edited:
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
subshakerz said:
Is Kallis second tier based on batting alone?

Sorry given that you are doing rankings within tiers, this all seems unnecessarily complicating.
Click to expand...
No, the same way Imran isn't in the second tier based on bowling alone. Imran is my 8th ranked bowler and Kallis is my 13th ranked batsman.
Imran jumped Murali and Ambrose for his position, Kallis jumped Chappell, Hammond slightly jumped Hutton and Gavaskar.

But to make the absolute top tier, you have to be top tier in your primary field, Imran isn't even in the 2nd tier. He jumps there because of his batting.

He's ahead of Kallis, so what's the issue. And he's ahead based on me rating Imran's bowling ahead of Kallis's batting. Because I rate their secondary skills basically on par and Kallis's catching takes him ahead.

It's not complicated, you just don't like where I have Imran, sure everyone else would have him higher.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
kyear2 said:
No, the same way Imran isn't in the second tier based on bowling alone. Imran is my 8th ranked bowler and Kallis is my 13th ranked batsman.
Imran jumped Murali and Ambrose for his position, Kallis jumped Chappell, Hammond slightly jumped Hutton and Gavaskar.

But to make the absolute top tier, you have to be top tier in your primary field, Imran isn't even in the 2nd tier. He jumps there because of his batting.

He's ahead of Kallis, so what's the issue. And he's ahead based on me rating Imran's bowling ahead of Kallis's batting. Because I rate their secondary skills basically on par and Kallis's catching takes him ahead.

It's not complicated, you just don't like where I have Imran, sure everyone else would have him higher.
Click to expand...
Using your existing list numbers, Imran would still make it to tier two based on bowling alone behind Ambrose.

Just seems odd that you would create a set of rules for one tier that don't apply for the next tiers.

Seems far more reasonable to just make a simple master ranking of cricketers, and just identify the top five or ten as top tier rather than this hybrid approach.

But hey, let's agree to disagree.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
subshakerz said:
Using your existing list numbers, Imran would still make it to tier two based on bowling alone behind Ambrose.

Just seems odd that you would create a set of rules for one tier that don't apply for the next tiers.

Seems far more reasonable to just make a simple master ranking of cricketers, and just identify the top five or ten as top tier rather than this hybrid approach.

But hey, let's agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
The top one is the smallest and for the absolute guys that exist only in the tops tiers of their field, it's not complicated.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
Line and Length said:
Therein lies the crux of the whole debate.
Personally (I repeat, personally) believe the ATG term is bandied about too freely.
Perhaps we should have a poll to answer @ataraxia 's question so we can reach some sort of consensus on how many ATGs there should be.
Click to expand...
I agree, it really should be somewhat of an exclusive club. I have mine at 34 and it feels a bit bloated.

It's supposed to the be ultimate accolade, that's the peak.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Line and Length said:
Therein lies the crux of the whole debate.
Personally (I repeat, personally) believe the ATG term is bandied about too freely.
Perhaps we should have a poll to answer @ataraxia 's question so we can reach some sort of consensus on how many ATGs there should be.
Click to expand...
I remember an interview of Imran Khan in NZ post retirement in the mid 90s. He was asked about Wasim and Waqar. He said he thought Wasim would end up with the 'all time greats' like Lillee and Marshall. But he refrained to say that about Waqar because he was worried how long Waqar could last. I first became aware of this distinction then.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
subshakerz said:
I remember an interview of Imran Khan in NZ post retirement in the mid 90s. He was asked about Wasim and Waqar. He said he thought Wasim would end up with the 'all time greats' like Lillee and Marshall. But he refrained to say that about Waqar because he was worried how long Waqar could last. I first became aware of this distinction then.
Click to expand...
Probably open with this next time.

subshakerz said:
Mines 35. I think it's fine, basically around 3 ATG XIs.
Click to expand...
From this perspective, yes does make sense
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top