Is Ravindra Jadeja an ATG test bowler?

[Coronis]

If Richards is an ATG based on that series, then so is Yashasvi Jaiswal. But we both know that people don't rate him based on only of those 4 games.

Fhey should only rate him based on those four games when we’re talking about test cricket. But some people have trouble seperating tesg performances from other performances.

Wonder if Sarfaraz will be a test ATG if he never plays another test and continues to average ~70 in domestic cricket

 

[capt_Luffy]

Fhey should only rate him based on those four games when we’re talking about test cricket. But some people have trouble seperating tesg performances from other performances.

Wonder if Sarfaraz will be a test ATG if he never plays another test and continues to average ~70 in domestic cricket

He played in a time FC cricket mattered; now it doesn't anymore. A clear difference there. Do you think William Gilbert Grace is not an ATG?

 

[Coronis]

He played in a time FC cricket mattered; now it doesn't anymore. A clear difference there. Do you think William Gilbert Grace is not an ATG?

Not a test ATG, no.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Not a test ATG, no.

Let's just say when I try to make a team; I try to take the best players; not those who necessarily have performed the best in Test matches solely. Hence, Barry Richards in South Africa team in place of Bruce Mitchell or Gary Kirsten.

 

[ataraxia]

I'm amazed that some people still don't grasp that county success (which is a decent feat for batters) translates into how a player would perform in hypothetical test cricket very well, while minnow-bashing worse opposition than strong county teams is apparently absolutely valid.

I thought the "if in doubt, we are discussing test cricket" rule was meant to exclude limited-over games, not establish that which matches happen to be tests are the only ones that matter. That interpretation makes even less sense in eras such as the '70s when all the best players weren't guaranteed to play tests – and thus tests weren't the contiguous highest form of cricket – thanks to the racist RSA establishment. This is not to preclude that obviously you can have differing opinions as to how Barry and Procter's games would translate to test level, but it's really really disingenuous IMO to suggest the body of work on which to judge isn't there.

Not a test ATG, no.

WG is fairly close IMO given the premise that only his test record matters (and ignoring the fact that most don't consider any 19th-century players ATGs). Excluding his career past 47/48 he had the highest average of any batter to play 10 tests up to that point. And one can extrapolate that given he debuted at 32 that was an underestimate of his capabilities in his pomp. However, that's an area where it gets really silly because many of the tests WG played weren't even treated as such, but merely regular FC games at the time; many mediocre players were lucky enough to get caps.

 

[Coronis]

I'm amazed that some people still don't grasp that county success (which is a decent feat for batters) translates into how a player would perform in hypothetical test cricket very well, while minnow-bashing worse opposition than strong county teams is apparently absolutely valid.

I thought the "if in doubt, we are discussing test cricket" rule was meant to exclude limited-over games, not establish that which matches happen to be tests are the only ones that matter. That interpretation makes even less sense in eras such as the '70s when all the best players weren't guaranteed to play tests – and thus tests weren't the contiguous highest form of cricket – thanks to the racist RSA establishment. This is not to preclude that obviously you can have differing opinions as to how Barry and Procter's games would translate to test level, but it's really really disingenuous IMO to suggest the body of work on which to judge isn't there.


WG is fairly close IMO given the premise that only his test record matters (and ignoring the fact that most don't consider any 19th-century players ATGs). Excluding his career past 47/48 he had the highest average of any batter to play 10 tests up to that point. And one can extrapolate that given he debuted at 32 that was an underestimate of his capabilities in his pomp. However, that's an area where it gets really silly because many of the tests WG played weren't even treated as such, but merely regular FC games at the time; many mediocre players were lucky enough to get caps.

I don’t deny any of them are ATG cricketers - far from it, hell Procter is my favourite player of all time, but when we strictly talk about test players, guys who have played 4 or 7 tests simply shouldn’t be in the discussion.

Another note on Grace, I do love him as much as the next person but even a lot of his FC matches could be called into question about their FC status iirc. I also in general find it quite hard to compare 19th century players with others.

 

[ataraxia]

Another note on Grace, I do love him as much as the next person but even a lot of his FC matches could be called into question about their FC status iirc. I also in general find it quite hard to compare 19th century players with others.

Grace was so much better than his contemporaries it isn't even funny. And that's just with ball.

 

[Coronis]

Grace was so much better than his contemporaries it isn't even funny. And that's just with ball.

Oh I know.

 

[centurymaker]

aka Samplesizelol

Absolutely but sample sizes less than 15 tests (for instance) can be quite misleading.

Even if a player tours Australia 3 times and plays 9 tests there, their overall numbers in the country could be deceptive- due to a single series like that where they fluked bags of wickets. For instance Rabada-

1st tour Avg 22
2nd tour Avg 32
3rd tour Avg 32 (let's assume)
Net Australian Avg = 28

But it should have been
1st tour Avg 22
2nd tour Avg 54
3rd tour Avg 32
Net Australian Avg = 37

In the example above, just one fluke series like that has drastically changed his overall figures in Australia from potentially averaging 37 to now averaging 28. With avg of 37, he would have seen as a failure in Aus. With avg of 28, he is then in contention for borderline ATG status.

1-2 fluke away series or unlucky away series could decide the whole fate of certain bowlers. YET we don't learn and continue to treat sample sizes less than 15 tests as very representative, when actually they are far from that!

 

[_00_deathscar]

I'm amazed that some people still don't grasp that county success (which is a decent feat for batters) translates into how a player would perform in hypothetical test cricket very well, while minnow-bashing worse opposition than strong county teams is apparently absolutely valid.

Surely there’s enough examples to show that it isn’t necessarily the case.
On top of which isn’t there this whole joke now about batsmen not doing too well against Bangladesh, in Bangladesh?

Test cricket is miles above county, even the very best county, because it comes against such a broad range of players, typically in a completely new environment/culture/country etc with alien conditions to adapt to during your month to longer stay there, both on and off the pitch.

County simply cannot replicate that “test”.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Surely there’s enough examples to show that it isn’t necessarily the case.
On top of which isn’t there this whole joke now about batsmen not doing too well against Bangladesh, in Bangladesh?

Test cricket is miles above county, even the very best county, because it comes against such a broad range of players, typically in a completely new environment/culture/country etc with alien conditions to adapt to during your month to longer stay there, both on and off the pitch.

County simply cannot replicate that “test”.

Bangladesh v Zimbabwe mid 00s wasn't as good as a lot of county cricket IMO

 

[OverratedSanity]

Hence, Barry Richards in South Africa team in place of Bruce Mitchell.

That's gross

 

[trundler]

Periodic reminder that Mark Waugh would be considered an S tier talent if he played less than 10 tests based on the facts that he looked like a million bucks and played in an even stronger FC competition.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Periodic reminder that Mark Waugh would be considered an S tier talent if he played less than 10 tests based on the facts that he looked like a million bucks and played in an even stronger FC competition.

Michael Bevan
Darren Lehman
Brad Hodge
Martin Love
These are the only guys on top my head. All of them have excellent record in Sheffield Shield but hardly got any Test matches.

 

[trundler]

Michael Bevan
Darren Lehman
Brad Hodge
Martin Love
These are the only guys on top my head. All of them have excellent record in Sheffield Shield but hardly got any Test matches.

None of them started their test career like Waugh and Richards or were as pleasing to the eye. You might have a point about the floor for Barry Richards's test career being Lehmann or Bevan instead of M Waugh though which makes putting him in an all time XI ahead of much more proven players even dumber.

 

[capt_Luffy]

None of them started their test career like Waugh and Richards or were as pleasing to the eye. You might have a point about the floor for Barry Richards's test career being Lehmann or Bevan instead of M Waugh though which makes putting him in an all time XI ahead of much more proven players even dumber.

Lehman, Bevan and Hodge didn't played many Tests because they weren't good enough to be in the Australian team. I highly doubt that can be said about the player with highest average in the WSC....

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Zak Crawley > Barry Richards in test matches

 

[Coronis]

Zak Crawley > Barry Richards in test matches

This, but unironically. Bloke has as many tons as WG Grace and Barry Richards combined!