Is Ravindra Jadeja an ATG test bowler?

[subshakerz]

Depends. To an extent they were comparable. With Laker, Lock, Wardle, Bedser, Statham, Tyson, Appleyard, Farnes, Bailey, etc.; England kinda had a surplus of bowlers. He played only around 60% of all the Tests England played between his debut and retirement. It also had to do with that the selectors didn't liked him much as he was a little pricky.
Also, you used to consider Laker an ATG. He was dropped even more often, and he wasn't even a prick.

I have revised my opinion on Laker.

 

[honestbharani]

It's kinda sad that a bunch of ATGs ATGness is being questioned coz one idiot cud not handle the fact that India produced three ATG test cricketers in the last decade and a bit

 

[subshakerz]

It's kinda sad that a bunch of ATGs ATGness is being questioned coz one idiot cud not handle the fact that India produced three ATG test cricketers in the last decade and a bit

Stop being such a buzzkill.

 

[Coronis]

It's kinda sad that a bunch of ATGs ATGness is being questioned coz one idiot cud not handle the fact that India produced three ATG test cricketers in the last decade and a bit

Who?

 

[honestbharani]

Ashwin, Jadeja, Virat

 

[ma1978]

That's not the scenario India is faced with, you're taking about 3 top 12 pacers of all time..

This is totally irrelevant

their collective performance over the past few years has bettered the Windies

 

[Xix2565]

I'm sure I said the other day, don't think it was in this thread, any "all time great" spinner would be in the side permanent fixture, no question of them not playing even if touring the roads.....

wouldn't see a Sri Lankan side less Murali, Dharmasena or even Jayasuriya (a la Root route) picked because they decided the pitch wasn't a raging burner, and likewise aussie side without Warne.

Ashwin and Jadeja are too often either-or, doesn't mean they aren't both very good spinners simply that they aren't "first name on the sheet" material

do "ATG"s average near 33 with ball away from home? (Jadeja) India may well play more home games, but he also has only played 28 Tests away (2012 to present) Injuries can be a factor BUT also so can not being considered best spin option....

I mean things are different now, from competition to pitches. If you don't care that's fine but then none of the past spinners are ATGs apart from Warne/Murali. They don't have the body of work comparable to them.

 

[Xix2565]

Like it's ****ing ridiculous the amount of scrutiny those past spinners get a pass for because they did well when standards were lower. Sorry, but you need some actual reasoning next time to not consider some modern players as ATGs.

 

[subshakerz]

Like it's ****ing ridiculous the amount of scrutiny those past spinners get a pass for because they did well when standards were lower. Sorry, but you need some actual reasoning next time to not consider some modern players as ATGs.

Actually your argument should be more how those past ones shouldn't be considered ATGs along with Ashwin and Jadeja.

 

[Xix2565]

Actually your argument should be more how those past ones shouldn't be considered ATGs along with Ashwin and Jadeja.

I do consider them ATGs tbh. Just pointing out that if the standards are so high only 2 would be considered as such, when this wouldn't be the case for any other discipline.

 

[subshakerz]

I do consider them ATGs tbh. Just pointing out that if the standards are so high only 2 would be considered as such, when this wouldn't be the case for any other discipline.

Well, I consider 3 spinners as ATGs and a dozen or less pacers, which is roughly the overall ratio of pacers to spinners in cricket anyways.

ATG should be as exclusive as possible. Otherwise there is no difference between great and ATG.

 

[Xix2565]

I think that's a ridiculous standard to rate people based on Team XI proportions.

 

[subshakerz]

I think that's a ridiculous standard to rate people based on Team XI proportions.

Not really. It's just commonsense based on supply of cricketers so it ends up that way. There are going to be the most ATG bats, then pacers, then spinners, then keepers.

Do your own list and I argue you would find the same results.

 

[Xix2565]

Not really. It's just commonsense based on supply of cricketers so it ends up that way. There are going to be the most ATG bats, then pacers, then spinners, then keepers.

Do your own list and I argue you would find the same results.

It's not common sense at all. Who would say that only certain types of players should have more ATGs? Even if they're less impactful in general because bowlers matter more in this form of cricket? Just nonsense.

 

[subshakerz]

It's not common sense at all. Who would say that only certain types of players should have more ATGs? Even if they're less impactful in general because bowlers matter more in this form of cricket? Just nonsense.

What's your ATG list look like?

 

[Burgey]

But if hypothetically 1 in 100 players is deserving of being considered an all timer, and each side is usually made up of at least five but often six batsmen compared with four bowlers often only one of whom is a spinner (especially in real conditions obviously), won't there be more ATG level batsmen than bowlers generally, and spinners in particular? Just as an exercise in statistical likelihood?

 

[subshakerz]

But if hypothetically 1 in 100 players is deserving of being considered an all timer, and each side is usually made up of at least five but often six batsmen compared with four bowlers often only one of whom is a spinner (especially in real conditions obviously), won't there be more ATG level batsmen than bowlers generally, and spinners in particular? Just as an exercise in statistical likelihood?

That's my point too.

 

[Xix2565]

But if hypothetically 1 in 100 players is deserving of being considered an all timer, and each side is usually made up of at least five but often six batsmen compared with four bowlers often only one of whom is a spinner (especially in real conditions obviously), won't there be more ATG level batsmen than bowlers generally, and spinners in particular? Just as an exercise in statistical likelihood?

Not really? Why should a number 5-6 batter be considered to be a better matchwinner than a 3-4th bowler? Makes no sense to underrate bowlers because there's less of them involved in a game, if anything you should be overrating them.

 

[Xix2565]

What's your ATG list look like?

Bradman, bowlers/ARs, batters. Some overlap in the latter two categories.

 

[Burgey]

Not really? Why should a number 5-6 batter be considered to be a better matchwinner than a 3-4th bowler? Makes no sense to underrate bowlers because there's less of them involved in a game, if anything you should be overrating them.

It's not under rating them, it's just that there's less of them to choose from