• 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.

Kapil Dev vs Courtney Walsh

Kapil Dev vs Courtney Walsh

  • Total voters
    27
subshakerz

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
capt_Luffy said:
I ****ing don't even get how he thought Subz called him a racist??? WTF!!
Click to expand...
The thing is, I have repeatedly called him non-racist before and in this very thread.

subshakerz said:
Nobody's calling you racist. You're probably the most non-bigoted poster here and yes I am serious.
Click to expand...
Like, if I honestly thought he was racist I wouldn't hesitate to say that lol. He is just too sensitive frankly. It's kinda funny since I have been accused for years of being an anti-India bigot by HB and I never let that bother me.
 
Last edited:
Sliferxxxx

Sliferxxxx

U19 Captain
Coronis said:
And like I said you’re still avoiding the hypothetical. In a future where Tendulkar and Lara look out of place in an ATG World XI would you be comfortable calling them not ATG players.

Like say, players like Harvey and Compton would’ve not looked out of place in an ATG XI in days past but do now, I’m sure you don’t consider them ATGs. Would this also be the case with Tendulkar and Lara?
Click to expand...
Ok i have to admit I was sleepy responding to your query earlier. But I get it now. For Lara and Sachin to to even remotely look out of place as atgs, you'd have to have like a handful of batsmen, imo, doing something significantly better than they did: average 60+, score a century every 5 innings or so, average 55 away, have one or two 300 + scores etc. And do so over a reasonable number of tests (100+) vs a mix of great and mediocre bowling. Steve Smith was close for a while when he was going at 64+ after what 80 tests. But we see where he is now. And even then, you'd need like a half dozen or more Steve Smith g-modes over a decent length test career.

Also, for me to consider someone as an atg from a stats pov you have to meet certain thresholds (with few exceptions):

Batting: average 50+, average 45 + away, score a hundred every 5 or so tests, have a monster series or two and,/or have a great series vs a challenging attack etc. Have a good/great record vs the best of your time etc

Bowling: average 25 or less overall (spinners under 30), average 25 or under away (under 30 spinners), at least 1 ten for, take at least 4 wpm (or close to it), SR around 55 or less, great series vs great/challenging batting. Good/great record vs the best. Peer/pundits opinions etc Had Compton and Harvey met those standards, I'd rank them unequivocally atg. The likes of Hobbs, Hutton still do.

Now I know you might say, what about someone like Weekes. He averaged 58 overall and 49 away , yet I don't consider him atg. It's because he sucked vs the best of his time. What about if Viv never got his average back over 50? No doubt it'd take a bit of shine off his greatness imo.

Again, in order for Sachin as an example, to not be considered atg imo, standards would have to go through the roof, which imo is very unlikely to happen.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

International Coach
Sliferxxxx said:
Ok i have to admit I was sleepy responding to your query earlier. But I get it now. For Lara and Sachin to to even remotely look out of place as atgs, you'd have to have like a handful of batsmen, imo, doing something significantly better than they did: average 60+, score a century every 5 innings or so, average 55 away, have one or two 300 + scores etc. And do so over a reasonable number of tests (100+) vs a mix of great and mediocre bowling. Steve Smith was close for a while when he was going at 64+ after what 80 tests. But we see where he is now. And even then, you'd need like a half dozen or more Steve Smith g-modes over a decent length test career.

Also, for me to consider someone as an atg from a stats pov you have to meet certain thresholds (with few exceptions):

Batting: average 50+, average 45 + away, score a hundred every 5 or so tests, have a monster series or two and,/or have a great series vs a challenging attack etc. Have a good/great record vs the best of your time etc

Bowling: average 25 or less overall (spinners under 30), average 25 or under away (under 30 spinners), at least 1 ten for, take at least 4 wpm (or close to it), SR around 55 or less, great series vs great/challenging batting. Good/great record vs the best. Peer/pundits opinions etc Had Compton and Harvey met those standards, I'd rank them unequivocally atg. The likes of Hobbs, Hutton still do.

Now I know you might say, what about someone like Weekes. He averaged 58 overall and 49 away , yet I don't consider him atg. It's because he sucked vs the best of his time. What about if Viv never got his average back over 50? No doubt it'd take a bit of shine off his greatness imo.

Again, in order for Sachin as an example, to not be considered atg imo, standards would have to go through the roof, which imo is very unlikely to happen.
Click to expand...
I don't like so many criterias/restrictions really. Viv's average dropped sub 50 in his last series momentarily. Had he retired back then, would you not consider him an ATG???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top