Is Ravichandran Ashwin an ATG test bowler?

[PlayerComparisons]

Ashwin is an ATG both as bowler and cricketer and theres no shame in that.

Wow even subs admits Ashwin is an ATG now

 

[Coronis]

Holding is comfortably beating Ash in a poll right now and he's very much a borderline, if at all ATG.

I wouldnt call Holding borderline at all.

Never thought I’d see you underrating a Windies player.

 

[subshakerz]

Wow even subs admits Ashwin is an ATG now

Sorry meant ATVG

 

[Coronis]

Sorry meant ATVG

No takebacks

 

[kyear2]

Sorry meant ATVG

Why can't we just use great.

Test standard
Very good / above rest standard
Great
All Time Great

Too vague?

 

[kyear2]

I wouldnt call Holding borderline at all.

Never thought I’d see you underrating a Windies player.

I think I try to be fair, with guys like Weekes / Walcott, I don't rate them as ATG's, A bit too home track bullyish, similar to Ashwin.

Actually don't think I rate any west Indian player higher than most in their primary disciples. In terms of as cricketers, the only one that's an outlier is probably Maco, and I have no issue in having the top 3 players being the best batsman, bowler and all rounder.

But to the topic, I didn't want to bias my option and went looking for my last ATG list of 35 and Holding is the 2nd last bowler listed ahead of Lindwall and no Garner. So yeah, borderline.

Looking back at the list, there are some at the periphery that I wouldn't call locks as I did then, but for reference.

It's the absolute elite, the greatest ever.

But yeah, it's who I consider to be bullet proof ATGs

Bradman | Tendulkar | Sobers | Richards | Hobbs | Lara | Smith | Hutton | (Richards*)

Gavaskar | Chappell | Kallis | Hammond | Ponting

Border | Sangakkara | Headley | Pollock | Dravid


Marshall | McGrath | Hadlee

Steyn | Warne | Muralitharan | Ambrose

Imran | Lillee | Donald | Akram | O'Reilly

Holding | Lindwall


Gilchrist | Knott

And yes, even before the last silly argument re keepers, I had Knott in there.

 

[subshakerz]

Why can't we just use great.

Test standard
Very good / above rest standard
Great
All Time Great

Too vague?

Yes I prefer great as well. Like a regular great.

 

[subshakerz]

I think I try to be fair, with guys like Weekes / Walcott, I don't rate them as ATG's, A bit too home track bullyish, similar to Ashwin.

Actually don't think I rate any west Indian player higher than most in their primary disciples. In terms of as cricketers, the only one that's an outlier is probably Maco, and I have no issue in having the top 3 players being the best batsman, bowler and all rounder.

But to the topic, I didn't want to bias my option and went looking for my last ATG list of 35 and Holding is the 2nd last bowler listed ahead of Lindwall and no Garner. So yeah, borderline.

Looking back at the list, there are some at the periphery that I wouldn't call locks as I did then, but for reference.



And yes, even before the last silly argument re keepers, I had Knott in there.

Holding is borderline but I wouldn't call him ATG

 

[kyear2]

Holding is borderline but I wouldn't call him ATG

My only reason for not having him a definite one is that he couldn't stay healthy, otherwise he was right there with Lillee and Imran for me, I'm aware you see it differently.

My reason for not having Garner is that as good as his numbers were, he was never the guy, the no. 1 for the team. Now that I think about it, that kinda applies to Dravid as well?

And Miller is probably the only true all rounder who deserves that last spot?

 

[subshakerz]

My only reason for not having him a definite one is that he couldn't stay healthy, otherwise he was right there with Lillee and Imran for me, I'm aware you see it differently.

My reason for not having Garner is that as good as his numbers were, he was never the guy, the no. 1 for the team. Now that I think about it, that kinda applies to Dravid as well?

And Miller is probably the only true all rounder who deserves that last spot?

I am pretty strict on the 300 wicket threshold for modern players to qualify as ATG. It keeps that group small by design and necessitates a longer career length. Garner and Holding miss out.

 

[ma1978]

My only reason for not having him a definite one is that he couldn't stay healthy, otherwise he was right there with Lillee and Imran for me, I'm aware you see it differently.

My reason for not having Garner is that as good as his numbers were, he was never the guy, the no. 1 for the team. Now that I think about it, that kinda applies to Dravid as well?

And Miller is probably the only true all rounder who deserves that last spot?

all of this only shows how little you know about cricket. For a good seven years, Dravid was the no 1 bat on his team.

equally ridiculous on Garner. For about four years was the best bowler in the most talented group of bowlers Evers.

 

[kyear2]

all of this only shows how little you know about cricket. For a good seven years, Dravid was the no 1 bat on his team.

equally ridiculous on Garner. For about four years was the best bowler in the most talented group of bowlers Evers.

Well for one I'm trying to remember when Dravid was the undisputed best and lead batsman for India. Not talking ICC ratings.

And really resting to recall when Garner was the best for the WI. Holding was the no. 1 guy till Marshall took over in '83. Again not looking at averages, from my recollection, Roberts was the group leader, but Holding was the alpha.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Well for one I'm trying to remember when Dravid was the undisputed best and lead batsman for India. Not talking ICC ratings.

And really resting to recall when Garner was the best for the WI. Holding was the no. 1 guy till Marshall took over in '83. Again not looking at averages, from my recollection, Roberts was the group leader, but Holding was the alpha.

In the early-mid 2000s, Tendulkar was in his slump and Dravid was unquestionably our best batsman. By ICC ratings, by stats, by impact, by the number of match winning innings he played, everything. He was arguably only marginally behind Ponting in that period as the best in the world.

 

[ankitj]

In the early-mid 2000s, Tendulkar was in his slump and Dravid was unquestionably our best batsman. By ICC ratings, by stats, by impact, by the number of match winning innings he played, everything. He was arguably only marginally behind Ponting in that period as the best in the world.

Hayden was also a run machine in that period.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Let's get this thread to 100 pages. @honestbharani ? Don't think we've seen your thoughts on the matter

 

[ma1978]

Well for one I'm trying to remember when Dravid was the undisputed best and lead batsman for India. Not talking ICC ratings.

And really resting to recall when Garner was the best for the WI. Holding was the no. 1 guy till Marshall took over in '83. Again not looking at averages, from my recollection, Roberts was the group leader, but Holding was the alpha.

wrong and wrong

 

[Coronis]

Probably 03-06 Dravid was ahead of Tendulkar for sure. From mid 2011 til his career end (early 2012) as well. Though that 11/12 season I don’t think India had a clear number one bat, Dravid would’ve been seen ahead going in there after the Windies and England series.

 

[Coronis]

I’d say Garner was definitely better up until Marshall took over. But due to him never opening the bowling til 84 he may not have been seen that way. The gap wasn’t as big as say, the gap between Cummins and his teammates.

 

[subshakerz]

Probably 03-06 Dravid was ahead of Tendulkar for sure. From mid 2011 til his career end (early 2012) as well. Though that 11/12 season I don’t think India had a clear number one bat, Dravid would’ve been seen ahead going in there after the Windies and England series.

I would have even Sehwag and Laxman over Tendulkar between 2003 to 2006.

 

[Coronis]

I would have even Sehwag and Laxman over Tendulkar between 2003 to 2006.

Not relevant at all but cool.