The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Bolo.]

I only mentioned the bowlers as in extra ones they each had to face compared to the other. I disagree re: tons and conversion rates. Especially with both being openers and Turner being a batsman that was less aggressive than Richards I’d say his much higher rate of tons and conversions is quite an important factor.

Isn't fewer tons just a result of fewer conversions? Seems like they are the same stat in this case.

Even in timeless cricket, I don't think it's a meaningful measure except so far as it's reflected in your batting average. A hundred may, or may not, be better than 2 50s.

Even if you think there is a difference, the shorter the time limit you go to, the less meaningful these numbers will be. 3 days is short if you want a result, with a lot of innings becoming more like ODIs than tests. And if you want/can only get a draw there are a bunch of permutations on what constitutes a good innings outside of run scoring with things like pure survival or bonus points involved. Or innings just being meaningless.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Isn't fewer tons just a result of fewer conversions? Seems like they are the same stat in this case.

Even in timeless cricket, I don't think it's a meaningful measure except so far as it's reflected in your batting average. A hundred may, or may not, be better than 2 50s.

Even if you think there is a difference, the shorter the time limit you go to, the less meaningful these numbers will be. 3 days is short if you want a result, with a lot of innings becoming more like ODIs than tests. And if you want/can only get a draw there are a bunch of permutations on what constitutes a good innings outside of run scoring with things like pure survival or bonus points involved. Or innings just being meaningless.

I think in general, a 1st innings ton from a. Opener (given they were 3 day matches, 1st innings seems more probable) does set up the rest of the game. Not something very important, but definitely adds some value.

 

[Coronis]

Isn't fewer tons just a result of fewer conversions? Seems like they are the same stat in this case.

Even in timeless cricket, I don't think it's a meaningful measure except so far as it's reflected in your batting average. A hundred may, or may not, be better than 2 50s.

Even if you think there is a difference, the shorter the time limit you go to, the less meaningful these numbers will be. 3 days is short if you want a result, with a lot of innings becoming more like ODIs than tests. And if you want/can only get a draw there are a bunch of permutations on what constitutes a good innings outside of run scoring with things like pure survival or bonus points involved. Or innings just being meaningless.

I mean no, I don’t think so.

Root is probably a good example. He’s been very steady in terms of his career output, but for a long time he was rightly criticised for his inability to convert. There didn’t seem to be much of a doubt at all that Kohli was clearly seen as the better batsman, despite both having great home records and holes away, back before Smith’s ban when they had similar overall records but Kohli had scored a lot more tons, despite Root having more 50+ scores.

 

[Bolo.]

I think in general, a 1st innings ton from a. Opener (given they were 3 day matches, 1st innings seems more probable) does set up the rest of the game. Not something very important, but definitely adds some value.

Sure.

I'd imagine a lot of openers loaded up in the 3rd innings as well in games where only a draw was possible, and both bowlers and bats were mainly playing for personal stats.

There's also the issue of most games being draws, and it needing to be a low scorer for a result. Games that openers tonned up in would be heavily skewed to draws, and a 50 vs a 100 would often make no difference at all.

 

[Bolo.]

I mean no, I don’t think so.

Root is probably a good example. He’s been very steady in terms of his career output, but for a long time he was rightly criticised for his inability to convert. There didn’t seem to be much of a doubt at all that Kohli was clearly seen as the better batsman, despite both having great home records and holes away, back before Smith’s ban when they had similar overall records but Kohli had scored a lot more tons, despite Root having more 50+ scores.

I'm not disputing that some people do rate players higher on the basis of 100s even with equal total output. I'm disputing whether they should.

Roots failure to convert was reflected in his average never really rising. If he'd been even more consistent in scoring 50s (or scored a buunch of 90s) without converting, that would have been just as peachy as converting.

Kohli was mainly rated ahead on recent form and high profile series performances anyway. He'd been significantly better than Root for a while before people started to stick him ahead.

 

[Coronis]

I'm not disputing that some people do rate players higher on the basis of 100s even with equal total output. I'm disputing whether they should.

Roots failure to convert was reflected in his average never really rising. If he'd been even more consistent in scoring 50s (or scored a buunch of 90s) without converting, that would have been just as peachy as converting.

Kohli was mainly rated ahead on recent form and high profile series performances anyway. He'd been significantly better than Root for a while before people started to stick him ahead.

Well yeah I do think it should play a part in rating a player. How much? Well thats definitely up in the air and dependent on opposition and conditions etc.

The main reason I did bring it up was there’s not too much information on the conditions the two specific batsmen would face, whilst mostly against the same opposition in county.

I wanted to look at some other stats besides pure average and those are what I have.

 

[Bolo.]

I rate him 9th all time as a bat, the back end of the pantheon of the game, just behind Hutton.

Bradman, Tendulkar, Sobers, Richards, Hobbs, Lara, Smith, Hutton

Richards

Gavaskar, Hammond, Chappell, Kallis, Ponting

The rest

That's hiiigh for a bat who didn't play tests. I don't doubt that he could have ended at that level. But he also might not have cracked the test top 50.

Flash is flashy. In Barry's case I mainly just mean SR. But there's also visibility through personality, the teams you play for and the media coverage they get. The personality thing doesn't really apply to him, but by playing in AUS and Eng a bunch he got the exposure. In RSA he's not evwn considered the equal.of Pollock.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Sure.

I'd imagine a lot of openers loaded up in the 3rd innings as well in games where only a draw was possible, and both bowlers and bats were mainly playing for personal stats.

There's also the issue of most games being draws, and it needing to be a low scorer for a result. Games that openers tonned up in would be heavily skewed to draws, and a 50 vs a 100 would often make no difference at all.

I mean, I get that, but doesn't getting First innings lead in a draw gives you more points? All in all, my point being a ton in the 1st innings by an opener really gives you an early upper hand. It's definitely not everything, but something.

 

[Bolo.]

I mean, I get that, but doesn't getting First innings lead in a draw gives you more points? All in all, my point being a ton in the 1st innings by an opener really gives you an early upper hand. It's definitely not everything, but something.

I don't think the county system worked off leads for points. Think it had something to do with runs and wickets, but I'm the wrong person to be answering this.

Well yeah I do think it should play a part in rating a player. How much? Well thats definitely up in the air and dependent on opposition and conditions etc.

The main reason I did bring it up was there’s not too much information on the conditions the two specific batsmen would face, whilst mostly against the same opposition in county.

I wanted to look at some other stats besides pure average and those are what I have.

In a time limited game I would assume the opposite given two bats who score equally and are dismissed an equal amount. I'd say the one who makes bigger scores is more inclined to stat padding and is less likely to be sacrificing their wicket in favour of a quick chase/declaration.

 

[Coronis]

I don't think the county system worked off leads for points. Think it had something to do with runs and wickets, but I'm the wrong person to be answering this.

In a time limited game I would assume the opposite given two bats who score equally and are dismissed an equal amount. I'd say the one who makes bigger scores is more inclined to stat padding and is less likely to be sacrificing their wicket in favour of a quick chase/declaration.

I mean I do see what you’re saying, but yeah I’m just not sure I’m onboard with it fully.

But yeah point should be that Richards/Turner were equal at best in county. And even then, Turner struggled in the 73 series despite 3 great years of county immediately prior. So yeah we don’t really know.

Besides, even in an ideal world Barry was completely finished after 78. Would’ve had an 8 year international career.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Gavaskar | Sehwag | Sangakkara | Tendulkar | Dravid | Miandad | Imran | Jadeja

Is just as good as

Richards | Greenidge | Richards | Lara | Kallis | Sobers | Watling | Hadlee

My top two tiers of ATG batsmen highlighted.

To compare to the Ashes team

Hobbs | Hutton | Bradman | Smith | Hammond | Chappell | Gilchrist | Davidson

Think there's quite a bit of difference

Sorry but why are the likes of kallis in bold but sanga and dravid and miandad not. Even if you think kallis is better surely the difference is utterly insignificant especially for you since you rate defensive batsmen lower.

I also think Chappell and Hammond are massively overrated but that's an opinion I know most don't share with me tbf so I'll let it be.

 

[Coronis]

I’ll also say this argument about him outperforming Greenidge is a bit eh. Richards was in his prime in the early 70’s and Greenidge wasn’t really a world class batsman until 75-76. He was after all, 5 years his junior.

 

[OverratedSanity]

This Barry Richards propaganda from blokes who've never watched him bat is so laughable. There's basically no statistical evidence and precious little good footage available to get a full picture of how good he really was.

If we're ready to make a judgement on how good he was from his small sample of tests, it's equally fair to say judge him by the footage we have of him batting. Quite a bit of it looks great but some like the below looks club level. Dude played an Andy Roberts bouncer about as well as Mohammad siraj would. I'm not even meme-ing, it's a genuinely embarrassing dismissal.

This is the guy were saying is better than guys like sanga dravid gavaskar etc?. give me a break. If you watched his career fair enough. If not, you have zero basis for the claim
.

 

[h_hurricane]

On a side note, apart from Barry Richards' amateur like batting there, high quality cricket around. Great bouncer from Roberts and one of the best slip catches of all time from Lloyd.

 

[Coronis]

On a side note, apart from Barry Richards' amateur like batting there, high quality cricket around. Great bouncer from Roberts and one of the best slip catches of all time from Lloyd.

See, slip catching is important!

 

[reyrey]

This Barry Richards propaganda from blokes who've never watched him bat is so laughable. There's basically no statistical evidence and precious little good footage available to get a full picture of how good he really was.

If we're ready to make a judgement on how good he was from his small sample of tests, it's equally fair to say judge him by the footage we have of him batting. Quite a bit of it looks great but some like the below looks club level. Dude played an Andy Roberts bouncer about as well as Mohammad siraj would. I'm not even meme-ing, it's a genuinely embarrassing dismissal.

This is the guy were saying is better than guys like sanga dravid gavaskar etc?. give me a break. If you watched his career fair enough. If not, you have zero basis for the claim
.

Those games where the World XI faced the West Indies were notoriously low scoring. They played 8 games. No one from either team got a 100, but there were 3 scores in the 90s. Barry Richards got 2 of them..

 

[Bolo.]

I mean I do see what you’re saying, but yeah I’m just not sure I’m onboard with it fully.

But yeah point should be that Richards/Turner were equal at best in county. And even then, Turner struggled in the 73 series despite 3 great years of county immediately prior. So yeah we don’t really know.

Besides, even in an ideal world Barry was completely finished after 78. Would’ve had an 8 year international career.

IDK who was the best in county. Boycott had a similar record to Turner, and if we are running it that way, he'd also get a shout.

Anyway, Barry had the highest Currie Cup, Shield, and WSC averages, and a 70 test average. County is his weak point.

Barry would have debutted in 67 and ended in about 80 if RSA had a proper schedule. Not as long as I would like, and a big part of why I rate Pollock ahead, but not as bad as you are suggesting.

 

[capt_Luffy]

IDK who was the best in county. Boycott had a similar record to Turner, and if we are running it that way, he'd also get a shout.

Anyway, Barry had the highest Currie Cup, Shield, and WSC averages, and a 70 test average. County is his weak point.

Barry would have debutted in 67 and ended in about 80 if RSA had a proper schedule. Not as long as I would like, and a big part of why I rate Pollock ahead, but not as bad as you are suggesting.

Turner and Abbas were kinda players suitable to bat in English conditions, but generally struggled elsewhere. I rate Barry quite highly, in no small part to his record at home FC matches as they were very low scoring, but given his best record is even there equal to Pollock; I find rating him higher than him kinda wild. Also, it's true that his career was quite small for a Top tier Batsman, unlike Pollock.

 

[peterhrt]

Ten of the best bowlers of this time were: Lillee, Thomson, Roberts, Holding, Snow, Underwood, Bedi, Chandra, Procter, van der Bijl. Two each from Australia, West Indies, England, India and South Africa. Hadlee and Imran were still developing.

Batting figures below taken from innings when one or more of these ten was bowling for the opposition. Non-Test first-class matches plus WSC Supertests. Bowler who dismissed each batsman most often in brackets.

Barry Richards 6613 runs @ 57.50. 18 hundreds. (Snow)
Boycott 3921 @ 55.22. 14 hundreds. (Procter)
Zaheer 3198 @ 54.20. 12 hundreds. (Lillee)
Greg Chappell 4656 @ 52.90. 14 hundreds. (Lillee)
Turner 3811 @ 47.04. 11 hundreds. (Procter)
Pollock 3614 @ 46.33. 8 hundreds. (van der Bijl)
Gavaskar 2315 @ 42.09. 5 hundreds. (Chandrasekhar)

 

[kyear2]

By playing 4 Test matches and not a single one in Sub continent..... In the 50s you mentioned Compton and May, but not the one who actually was the best of the lot, Hutton. And he often was underrated. Why? Not flashy enough. Among all the batsmen you have named, tell me one who wasn't flashy. You will find the answer. Tell me, without using peer ratings, why Barry should be rated ahead of Vijay Merchant? And with using peer ratings, why ahead of Victor Trumper?

Swore I had Hutton there, obviously he was the best post war batsman before Sobers. Simple omission.

You know damn well it just wasn't based in 4 test matches.
Also was the SC a rest in the early 70's? Really? Come on Luffy.

Wasn't all about being Flashy, Hutton was there, but it was about who was the best. Who had the ability to dominate. Hutton made his way by force of numbers and really being the first real travelling great.

But to correct my earlier mistake

Barnes - O'Reilly - Lindwall - Lillee - Marshall - Ambrose - Wasim - McGrath - Steyn - Bumrah

Hobbs - Hammond - Bradman - Hutton - Sobers - Richards - Richards - Tendulkar / Lara - Smith

You call it being flashy, but it was the ability to dominate, turn matches, impose your will. I know you and the rest of the gang of 4 push against it, but it matters in cricket.