Is Venkatapathi Raju ATG?

[TheJediBrah]

Don’t hate the poster, hate the poll.

Ok Adolf

 

[Burgey]

Has a bigger claim to ATG status than Jadeja tbh

 

[Burgey]

You have the minority opinion, not everyone else - somehow Michael Holding isn;t an ATG. Humbug

He isn’t though

 

[Socerer 01]

Has a bigger claim to ATG status than Jadeja tbh

lmao sure buddy

 

[Burgey]

tbf Jadeja is an atg bowler if the criteria is "a current Indian finger spinning all rounder has to be picked as an atg bowler", so maybe I'm selling short.

 

[Bolo.]

Selling yourself short here, let's aim for 1000 pages of panfried bread versus toasted bread...or even drains or spoons...or even forks and chopsticks.

I don't think we could cover this in 1000 posts.

 

[ma1978]

You've said this or something like it about a dozen times in the last week as if it means something. It doesn't. A poll or discussion on a forum full of a non-representative sample of people with their own agendas is completely meaningless in the grand scheme. It's just what a small group of people think.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you but this thing you keep saying is not an argument

Im not even talking about this board where the polls are entertaining but meaningless.

but literally there is no one who professionally follows cricket who wouldn’t thing Holding or Garner or ATGs. There are people here who do, and that’s truly a minority opinion.

 

[Burgey]

but literally there is no one who professionally follows cricket who wouldn’t thing Holding or Garner or ATGs

this will be a fun thing for you to prove.

 

[ma1978]

this will be a fun thing for you to prove.

or others to disprove

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don't think that's how burden of proof works

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

You just have to find one professional cricket follower who disagrees (after you spend 3 hours defining what an ATG is).

 

[Burgey]

I don't think that's how burden of proof works

Well, quite.

 

[CricAddict]

Truth is, which OS just made me recently realize, none of the former players or professional cricket experts actually do ATG lists anywhere. Yes, they do their own XI like Bradman or Warne did but not an individual ATG list.

 

[CricAddict]

You've said this or something like it about a dozen times in the last week as if it means something. It doesn't. A poll or discussion on a forum full of a non-representative sample of people with their own agendas is completely meaningless in the grand scheme. It's just what a small group of people think.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you but this thing you keep saying is not an argument

Good post and I agree with the above. A poll here is not the universal truth since most of the voters vote with a conscious or unconscious bias.

 

[Starfighter]

Back to Venkatapathy Raju, with the predictable exception of a list of English offspinners, he put as few revs on the ball as any specialist spinner I've seen footage of. Needed the pitch to absolutely spitting to turn it back against the round the wicket angle.

 

[Socerer 01]

Truth is, which OS just made me recently realize, none of the former players or professional cricket experts actually do ATG lists anywhere. Yes, they do their own XI like Bradman or Warne did but not an individual ATG list.

because it opens up a can of worms and cuts down on future opportunities for them if they go around dissing on cricketers like half this forum does in their checklist analysis

 

[TheJediBrah]

Truth is, which OS just made me recently realize, none of the former players or professional cricket experts actually do ATG lists anywhere. Yes, they do their own XI like Bradman or Warne did but not an individual ATG list.

It's also usually meaningless as well. Some former player will get interviewed and agree player x is an "ATG" or a "great" or some random definition without actually thinking about it or meaning anything by it. They're just talking. And being friendly. Most people just don't care about these pointless definitions, so people who actually do care (see Ashwin thread) trying to use it as evidence to support an argument is weird

 

[CricAddict]

It's also usually meaningless as well. Some former player will get interviewed and agree player x is an "ATG" or a "great" or some random definition without actually thinking about it or meaning anything by it. They're just talking. And being friendly. Most people just don't care about these pointless definitions, so people who actually do care (see Ashwin thread) trying to use it as evidence to support an argument is weird

ha ha yes. If Viv is asked if Holding is a great player, he won't be saying "Nah, he is just rubbish. Not even close to ATG".

 

[Socerer 01]

It's also usually meaningless as well. Some former player will get interviewed and agree player x is an "ATG" or a "great" or some random definition without actually thinking about it or meaning anything by it. They're just talking. And being friendly. Most people just don't care about these pointless definitions, so people who actually do care (see Ashwin thread) trying to use it as evidence to support an argument is weird

as always i’ll point to the most recent best player award that fifa had going to Messi as evidence of this

 

[_00_deathscar]

tbf Jadeja is an atg bowler if the criteria is "a current Indian finger spinning all rounder has to be picked as an atg bowler", so maybe I'm selling short.

Does it hurt knowing he’s going to bitchslap your team again and again and again?