Is jadeja atg?

[Migara]

He is ATG support cast, with bat or the ball. There are very few who could play second fiddle to other bowlers or batsman as Jadeja. If India brings in Kuldeep instead of Sundar's and Kotian's, Jadeja would form a lethal partnership at home, and allow Kuldeep to attack in non helpful conditions by bowling tight.

 

[kyear2]

Maybe, as both have home biased averages but even then Anderson fronted up plenty of times overseas - 38% of his wickets outside England v just 28% for Ashwin and 26% for Jadeja. (And I wouldn't claim Anderson is among the very best of all time).

There's no spin quota for ATGs. Warne and Murali are in that group, Ashwin and Jadeja at least a level, if not 2, below. Their batting may elevate them a little, I'll admit.

Yeah, Anderson isn't an ATG either, so the comparison doesn't help there wither. And as you said, Anderson still represented more abroad as well.

Ashwin is closer to ATG status than Jadeja, but you can't be the 2nd option over seas.

 

[kyear2]

He is ATG support cast, with bat or the ball. There are very few who could play second fiddle to other bowlers or batsman as Jadeja. If India brings in Kuldeep instead of Sundar's and Kotian's, Jadeja would form a lethal partnership at home, and allow Kuldeep to attack in non helpful conditions by bowling tight.

Pretty sure "ATG support" is an oxymoron.

Plus the use of 2nd fiddle makes me wonder if we understand what the term ATG means tbh.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Yeah but that's more been a case of the selectors being wrong.

I don't think either are ATG bowlers but I think "oh sometimes they get dropped for each other when the conditions make the selectors not want to select two spinners" is a weak argument for that case. It's a funny point scorer in a troll fight but it's not really a serious argument.

It's a bit less clear cut I think. "Haha Jadeja is so bad he got dropped for Ashwin" (and vice versa) isn't really much of a criticism given 1) as both are excellent players it's not really embarrassing for either to be slightly behind the other at times and 2) often the droppings were unmerited and better selectors would have played both together more.

However there is still an opportunity cost to those selections - both have pretty thin away records as a result of the "pick only one spinner" policy. Not having full away careers is definitely a negative for them when assessing their standings in the pantheon, even if the primary reason for said thinness wasn't "they were bad".

 

[Ali TT]

It's a bit less clear cut I think. "Haha Jadeja is so bad he got dropped for Ashwin" (and vice versa) isn't really much of a criticism given 1) as both are excellent players it's not really embarrassing for either to be slightly behind the other at times and 2) often the droppings were unmerited and better selectors would have played both together more.

However there is still an opportunity cost to those selections - both have pretty thin away records as a result of the "pick only one spinner" policy. Not having full away careers is definitely a negative for them when assessing their standings in the pantheon, even if the primary reason for said thinness wasn't "they were bad".

Agree, the away series selection policy is not a criticism of their absolute quality but it makes it much harder to assess their relative merit compared to others.

My suspicion is also that they've thrived in an era where the patience of batters to play on spinning tracks has disappeared plus India have tended to produce much spicier wickets to take advantage.

 

[kyear2]

Agree, the away series selection policy is not a criticism of their absolute quality but it makes it much harder to assess their relative merit compared to others.

My suspicion is also that they've thrived in an era where the patience of batters to play on spinning tracks has disappeared plus India have tended to produce much spicier wickets to take advantage.

...