The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[TheJediBrah]

Again, I don’t have an Australian bias, you’re just trying to find some justification to call me out when you post “unbeatable XIs” that are clearly suboptimal and beatable.

Lol bro why are you taking this seriously he's posted like every country and said they are "unbeatable"

 

[Coronis]

Lol bro why are you taking this seriously he's posted like every country and said they are "unbeatable"

I didn’t have much else to do tbh. Idk why it frustrates me so much. Also eh being accused of having some sort of bias I don’t have somewhat irks me.

 

[CricketFan90s]

Again, I don’t have an Australian bias, you’re just trying to find some justification to call me out when you post “unbeatable XIs” that are clearly suboptimal and beatable.

But I have observed you just have some blind beliefs about players and don’t explore much other possibilities and a bunch of dumb guys who put a like to your comments.

 

[Coronis]

But I have observed you just have some blind beliefs about players and don’t explore much other possibilities and a bunch of dumb guys who put a like to your comments.

Mate, I don’t have blind beliefs, I love hearing new info and learning new things that may change my opinion on historical players. If you actually did bring something new like that I’d love it. But… thats not really what you do. You pick an XI and aggressively defend your choices against any and all questions. And when faced with logical arguments you either ignore them or lash out personally at other posters.

 

[ataraxia]

1975 surely makes much more sense as a cutoff than 1970.

 

[Victor Ian]

Is Anderson hated so much by some because of his character or more because of the relentless English media fawning?

He's not the most endearing personality, but I'm surprised people get so wound up by him. Especially supporters of the country he traditionally struggles against. Think his fanbase being a bit insufferable must play a part.

Personally, I quite like Anderson. Too much media hype and credit for going longevity.

 

[CricketFan90s]

Mate, I don’t have blind beliefs, I love hearing new info and learning new things that may change my opinion on historical players. If you actually did bring something new like that I’d love it. But… thats not really what you do. You pick an XI and aggressively defend your choices against any and all questions. And when faced with logical arguments you either ignore them or lash out personally at other posters.

You are not giving any logical arguments show me a comment you said is logical ?

 

[CricketFan90s]

When Courtney Walsh retired people used to wonder how come he was able to bowl well for 17 Years. James Anderson is definitely a Legend, he went on to bowl for 21 years representing English Team is no joke.

 

[bagapath]

oh ok you want Australia XI, you look like an emotional guy more than a critical thinker.

Freud!!!!

 

[CricketFan90s]

James Anderson (Greatest Bowler in England ) - He deserves Knighthood more than any English player.

England

2003-2023

105

200

3794.2

1008

10634

434

7/42

11/71

24.50

2.80

52.4

24

3

 

[bagapath]

unfortunately he had to bowl outside of England too where his record for eternity is:

82

148

2851.5

712

7935

266

6/40

8/161

29.83

2.78

64.3

8

0

this is not going to make him an ATG

 

[kyear2]

Two points:

• it requires a very precise methodology of rating bowlers so as to balance consideration of peak (a criterion by which Imran is easily superior to Steyn) and consideration of longevity (a criterion by which Imran is easily superior to Steyn) in such a manner that Steyn is better than Imran. I don't mean to say it's impossible or illogical to think so, by any means, but I don't believe that the ~80% of CW who rate Steyn above Imran are so homogenous in their rating of players (though I acknowledge alleged ball-tampering / favourable home umpiring – both of which, I must say, didn't exactly seem to help any of Imran's colleagues – weighting of strike rate v. economy, and one's opinion of a well-balanced attack are complicating factors).
• if you do think Steyn > Imran as a bowler, you must think that the difference between them is sizeable because at the absolute minimum the batting advantage Imran has over Steyn is 8 runs an innings and 16 runs a match, which is coincidentally precisely what Simpson's slipping advantage was calculated to be. While individual batters are less important than individual bowlers and therefore secondary disciplines are less important for bowlers, on the other hand that Simpson calculation did have at its head the unlikely (and proven wrong) assumption that Simpson was a perfect catcher.

Well done and I want to respond, not counter mind you... But it's 1 am and I want to to think through it properly.

I do believe there was the home ball tampering / umpiring, I also accept the point that it didn't help his teammates to the extent. But two points, how good would have he have been without them and his team mates, and quite frankly very few ever, were as good as him.

The reason I look so hard at his away record is because I'm not sure how much of his home record can be trusted.

As you also referenced, over 70% of the forum, including one of Imran's most fervent defenders, do believe Steyn was the better bowler. In such a contest or for such a prestigious honor, should't the better bowler get the benefit of the doubt? Especially in a team with literally the best batsmen, and best keepers batsman ever.

Yes the batting matters, nor even disputing that, but if you're facing the best of the best, shouldn't you go with your best bowlers if there's a clear distinction?

Of the three candidates for the spot.

If we're rating them by batting
Imran
Hadlee
Steyn

By bowling though
Hadlee
Steyn
Imran

No disrespect, no hate. Don't think the take is that behind the pale either.

_______________

I wanted to reply properly, while quoting my previous response.

I take it that you believe that Imran was the better bowler, a sentiment that is shared by @Victor Ian and I believe @subshakerz.

A large premise of the argument was longevity, but while he started his career quite early, it's not generally factored in when discussing his career, with emphasis primarily placed on the '80's when he emerged. So don't think that can be a contributing factor to rating him above Steyn. But that's subjective.

Peak, with the massive home / away disparity being mirrored even during his peak, it raises questions that I haven't been able to answer. Subz likes to reference that he was disadvantaged by having to bowl in such home conditions, but he was never as good, far less better in more helpful ones. So that basically takes that argument off the table.
I looked at the possibility that as he was so dependent on bowled and lbw dismissals, that in more bounce friendly conditions that the ball would carry over, but that would only apply for Australia and not even all of the pitches there, and that still leaves India and the WI. Not to mention the inability to adjust? He literally didn't average under 25 in any country besides England for which he also gets a pass for his first tour.

The ball tampering allegations were circulating even during the era, and the home umpiring ones (which even impacts on Miandad's legacy) were seen as contributing factors to his greatness there. I don't come up with it. I do conceded that as someone mentioned earlier, that his colleagues didn't benefit in the same way, and I acknowledge that it would have taken skill to take advantage of the ball, but it would appear that it did factor heavily as evidence by the disparity even during said peak.

Speaking of the WI, @subshakerz and others reference the '88 tour. It excludes that Richards and Marshall both missed the first match, and that Richards (who was well past his best) and Marshall won the subsequent man of the match awards and that quite frankly, Richards apart the batting lineup was not the ATG juggernaut that it's being brought up to be. It's not what it was even in '83 / '84 and definely not from the last 70's to early '80's and not close to what Australia would shortly build. Viv was, as stated above, well past his best, Greenidge had dropped off the cliff and was the recipient of blind jokes, Haynes was good at best and the new alpha was Richardson, who at his best was a very good test batsman. The others were Hooper and Logie, so the first match it was basically Richardson (not an ATG by any means and co) Just because it was the WI, doesn't mean it was what they previously were. Yes it was a great performance, but in context it wasn't what some make it out to be. The overall record of 25 isn't quite comparable to other away records like Ambrose in Australia for example.

Now the initial purpose was for you and @Victor Ian to tell me where I'm wrong and why he's better than Steyn.

The batting part of it doesn't feature for me if the bowling difference exists as it is, but yeah. I want to construct what for me is the perfect team, and squad and that's literally the only place in question. Well possibly Hammond v Lara for the reserve spot (extra bowling and perfect option for 1st), but think Lara was the better bat and his left handedness may prove beneficial in a top order of all righties. But I digress.

I want to be intellectually honest and say that I selected the best team possible, so yeah. Why am I wrong and Imran the better bowler over Steyn?

 

[subshakerz]

You quoted me so you wanted a response I assume. So much wrong with your post.

Peak, with the massive home / away disparity being mirrored even during his peak, it raises questions that I haven't been able to answer. Subz likes to reference that he was disadvantaged by having to bowl in such home conditions, but he was never as good, far less better in more helpful ones. So that basically takes that argument off the table.

No, it doesn't. We addressed this in that specific thread on SC pacers at home where your bias became clear.

Imran and other SC pacers succeeding at less receptive home pitches is itself a magnificent achievement independent of how they did abroad (where Imran also excelled in his peak).

You don't neutralise one impressive record by using another, any more than Kapil's achievements against WI are to his credit regardless of how he did against easier opposition.

I looked at the possibility that as he was so dependent on bowled and lbw dismissals, that in more bounce friendly conditions that the ball would carry over, but that would only apply for Australia and not even all of the pitches there, and that still leaves India and the WI. Not to mention the inability to adjust? He literally didn't average under 25 in any country besides England for which he also gets a pass for his first tour.

Disingenuous framing. He averages above 25 in the WI but most evenhanded posters recognize that as an ATG achievement whereas you right it off. Plus his record is affected by years he spent as a bit pure bat and PT bowler.

The ball tampering allegations were circulating even during the era, and the home umpiring ones (which even impacts on Miandad's legacy) were seen as contributing factors to his greatness there. I don't come up with it. I do conceded that as someone mentioned earlier, that his colleagues didn't benefit in the same way, and I acknowledge that it would have taken skill to take advantage of the ball, but it would appear that it did factor heavily as evidence by the disparity even during said peak.

Again just be consistent. If you are going to dock Imran for ball tampering, dock all pacers of the era, including Hadlee and Holding who have all but admitted to it, and basically only rate 90s onwards bowlers. Singling out Imran is just petty when all you have to go on is your gut that he did it more somehow. Willing to bet you every major pacers of that era was tampering with the seam every game.

Speaking of the WI, @subshakerz and others reference the '88 tour. It excludes that Richards and Marshall both missed the first match, and that Richards (who was well past his best) and Marshall won the subsequent man of the match awards and that quite frankly, Richards apart the batting lineup was not the ATG juggernaut that it's being brought up to be. It's not what it was even in '83 / '84 and definely not from the last 70's to early '80's and not close to what Australia would shortly build. Viv was, as stated above, well past his best, Greenidge had dropped off the cliff and was the recipient of blind jokes, Haynes was good at best and the new alpha was Richardson, who at his best was a very good test batsman. The others were Hooper and Logie, so the first match it was basically Richardson (not an ATG by any means and co) Just because it was the WI, doesn't mean it was what they previously were. Yes it was a great performance, but in context it wasn't what some make it out to be. The overall record of 25 isn't quite comparable to other away records like Ambrose in Australia for example.

Again, you are just wrong and petty here. That was literally Viv's last great series of his career. Viv/Haynes/Greenidge/Richardson is a very strong lineup. You can filter out all great performances if you go through such finetooth comb. Just give Imran his due, that was an ATG series. Look how Hadlee did in WI in 84 who was so shaken in the WI he got mental scars.

Now the initial purpose was for you and @Victor Ian to tell me where I'm wrong and why he's better than Steyn.

Very simple..apply the same scrutiny for Steyn who has virtually the same away average as Imran. Stop searching for excuses to demerit one and then just accept bland 'like, he succeeded in a flat era' excuses for Steyn who spent majority of his games on greentops.

Truth is the difference between Steyn/Imran/Ambrose is very very close and they can easily be swapped around.

 

[CricketFan90s]

Imran Khan vs Dale Steyn

In Australia Imran

1976-1990

13

20

3038

1283

45

6/63

12/165

28.51

2.53

67.5

3

1

In Australia Steyn

2008-2016

7

12

253.3

47

892

31

5/67

10/154

28.77

3.51

49.0

2

1

In England Imran

1971-1987

12

19

2919

1158

47

7/40

10/77

24.63

2.38

62.1

4

1

In England Steyn

2008-2012

5

9

212.3

47

728

23

5/56

7/155

31.65

3.42

55.4

1

0

In West Indies Imran

1977-1988

8

16

2196

1206

48

7/80

11/121

25.12

3.29

45.7

3

1

In India Steyn

2008-2015

6

9

160.5

22

556

26

7/51

10/108

21.38

3.45

37.1

2

1

Imran Khan

Home	1976-1992	38	59	7673	3131	163	8/58	14/116	19.20	2.44	47.0	10	3
Away	1971-1990	50	83	11785	5127	199	7/40	12/165	25.76	2.61	59.2	13	3

Dale Steyn

Home	2004-2019	52	99	1749.2	376	5643	261	6/8	11/60	21.62	3.22	40.2	16	3
Away	2006-2018	37	64	1199.4	246	3975	164	7/51	10/108	24.23	3.31	43.8	10	2
Neutral	2010-2013	4	8	152.2	38	459	14	4/98	4/86	32.78	3.01	65.2	0	0

Imran's 45% of Wickets came at home and Steyn's 59% of Wickets came at Home.

So calling Imran had a Home Advantage is a wrong argument. He can also do good batting and better leadership skills means he has to be in an All Time XI over Dale Steyn.

 

[subshakerz]

Imran's 45% of Wickets came at home and Steyn's 59% of Wickets came at Home.

So calling Imran had a Home Advantage is a wrong argument. He can also do good batting and better leadership skills means he has to be in an All Time XI over Dale Steyn.

Yup. Saying Steyn should get extra credit for being a flat era bowler when he suffered far less flat pitches in his career than SC pacers doesnt make sense.

 

[CricketFan90s]

Yup. Saying Steyn should get extra credit for being a flat era bowler when he suffered far less flat pitches in his career than SC pacers doesn't make sense.

South African pitches were absolutely favoring Steyn and he had good support from other bowlers. With all the good numbers Imran had he was capable of mentoring bowlers like Wasim and Waqar.

 

[kyear2]

You quoted me so you wanted a response I assume. So much wrong with your post.


No, it doesn't. We addressed this in that specific thread on SC pacers at home where your bias became clear.

Imran and other SC pacers succeeding at less receptive home pitches is itself a magnificent achievement independent of how they did abroad (where Imran also excelled in his peak).

You don't neutralise one impressive record by using another, any more than Kapil's achievements against WI are to his credit regardless of how he did against easier opposition.


Disingenuous framing. He averages above 25 in the WI but most evenhanded posters recognize that as an ATG achievement whereas you right it off. Plus his record is affected by years he spent as a bit pure bat and PT bowler.


Again just be consistent. If you are going to dock Imran for ball tampering, dock all pacers of the era, including Hadlee and Holding who have all but admitted to it, and basically only rate 90s onwards bowlers. Singling out Imran is just petty when all you have to go on is your gut that he did it more somehow. Willing to bet you every major pacers of that era was tampering with the seam every game.



Again, you are just wrong and petty here. That was literally Viv's last great series of his career. You can filter out all great performances if you go through such finetooth comb. Just give Imran his due, that was an ATG series. Look how Hadlee did in WI in 84 who was so shaken in the WI he got mental scars.


Very simple..apply the same scrutiny for Steyn who has virtually the same away average as Imran. Stop searching for excuses to demerit one and then just accept bland 'like, he succeeded in a flat era' excuses for Steyn who spent majority of his games on greentops.

Truth is the difference between Steyn/Imran/Ambrose is very very close and they can easily be swapped around.

The rest are excuses that's we've discussed ad nauseum, so no need to regurgitate.

But to be clear.

Your argument was that he would have benefitted from more helpful home conditions, that clearly wasn't the case, otherwise he would have done better in more helpful conditions. That was the argument, nothing else.

The whole everyone did it argument is fine when you see they performed just as well home and away in the same era. He didn't, again, not a petty argument.

Again, you miss the entire point. The best game was absent Viv and the rest of the lineup wasn't great, it was notably average at best. The first match Viv returned, Viv was the man of the match. It was a great performance, it wasn't against the ATG batting lineup that you constantly speak of. Finally there was a massive difference between the '84 team and the '88 team and you know this.

Now to the part about Steyn.

I'm not using the flat pitch era to elevate Steyn, but I know how he would have performed in said era.

I also know why Steyn performed better at home than away, the home pitches were helpful, the away ones were concrete. With Imran the away pitches were the helpful ones and he actually did worse. That's the difference.

Other reasons were his strike rate, he never stopped pushing, attacking. Imran's strike rate was the same as Ambrose's which you have repeatedly said wasn't good enough. His record in India is also insane.

Steyn also was comparable abroad to his contemporaries, if not outright better. Imran wasn't, so within that context he also goes ahead.

I also said in the previous post, there is a stop off after the big 3. I think Steyn leads the pack, then Ambrose, then Imran. Every poll here also mirrors than and they are not remotely close.
Way less important and more stylistically, Steyn also had prodigious outswing, which travels better than the in variety and as you use in your batting arguments, he was the clear best in his era, while Imran was the clear 3rd in his. Again, not critical, but factors.

The reason I asked the other two is that you're emotionally invested in this argument, and I've heard your arguments. Wanted to hear a fresh perspective.

 

[subshakerz]

Your argument was that he would have benefitted from more helpful home conditions, that clearly wasn't the case, otherwise he would have done better in more helpful conditions. That was the argument, nothing else.

Not my argument at all. My argument is evaluate each performance in each country on its own merits. If he was awesome in unhelpful conditions, he gets points, and if he failed in helpful, cut points. Your argument is that doing merely good/great away means we should ignore/downplay doing awesome at home. It's like saying because Kallis struggled in England, I shouldnt give him extra credit for his home record.

The whole everyone did it argument is fine when you see they performed just as well home and away in the same era. He didn't, again, not a petty argument.

What makes you think Hadlee et al. weren't tampering with the seam away from home also?

Again, you miss the entire point. The best game was absent Viv and the rest of the lineup wasn't great, it was notably average at best. The first match Viv returned, Viv was the man of the match. It was a great performance, it wasn't against the ATG batting lineup that you constantly speak of. Finally there was a massive difference between the '84 team and the '88 team and you know this.

Imran took nine wickets in the game Viv came back also. It wasn't a one off performance in that series.

I never argued the 88 batting was as good as 84 which had Lloyd. But it was still very, very good and the best in the world.

I'm not using the flat pitch era to elevate Steyn, but I know how he would have performed in said era.

You do though.

I also know why Steyn performed better at home than away, the home pitches were helpful, the away ones were concrete. With Imran the away pitches were the helpful ones and he actually did worse. That's the difference.

He did as well or better than Steyn away overall.

Other reasons were his strike rate, he never stopped pushing, attacking. Imran's strike rate was the same as Ambrose's which you have repeatedly said wasn't good enough. His record in India is also insane.

Those are all fine reasons that don't resort to tearing down Imran.

Steyn also was comparable abroad to his contemporaries, if not outright better. Imran wasn't, so within that context he also goes ahead.

Kinda easier if your contemporaries are Johnson and Anderson rather than Marshall and Hadlee.

I also said in the previous post, there is a stop off after the big 3. I think Steyn leads the pack, then Ambrose, then Imran. Every poll here also mirrors than and they are not remotely close.

Polls here on CW are flawed as you are aware, I would never use this for an argument. But even then you can be very close while still having most vote one way.

The reason I asked the other two is that you're emotionally invested in this argument, and I've heard your arguments. Wanted to hear a fresh perspective.

Well you pinned me. And I am only like this with you, in the other Imran vs Marshall thread I don't care if folks side with peak Marshall.

 

[CricketFan90s]

It is also wise to include a Reverse Swing Bowler as 3rd Bowler in an All Time XI team and Imran fits in that extremely well. Take 2 Greatest Bowlers of all time who are magnificent with the New Ball and have a fast bowler who is good with the old ball and a World Class Spinner like Murali or Warne.

Reverse Swing of Imran and Leg Spin of Warne or Doosra of Murali will cause lot of damage in the middle overs for the opposition.

Ashes 2005 Simon Jones Reverse Swing bowling with the old ball gave England an edge to win Ashes.

 

[Coronis]

Yawn. Can ya’ll just agree to disagree? Neither one of you is gonna change the other’s mind.

What makes you think Hadlee et al. weren't tampering with the seam away from home also?

Lets assume they were all tampering home and away. I think his point is Imran was still less successful away than others of his time such as Hadlee et al.

Anyway who wants some fun flashbacks for a topic change?!

When @kyear2 first joined he ranked Garner as the worst of the quartet and below Miller! He also ranked Hadlee below Imran and Akram, outside of his pace top 10!