Pujara is an ATG batter (or) how long should a career last before it is judged?

[smash84]

Hussey was godly for the first 30 tests or so. Averaged something ridiculous like 70 or something

 

[popepouri]

Hussey was godly for the first 30 tests or so. Averaged something ridiculous like 70 or something

How about 86?

2nd Test: Australia v Sri Lanka at Hobart, Nov 16-20, 2007 | Cricket Career averages | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Black_Warrior]

I think the disagreement here lies in the definition of ATG.

Do you base it on who is the greatest talent wise - quality of stroke play, how good they looked, their capability to dominate...or do you base it on those who have proven records all over the world, who have scored the runs time and time again, who are proven performers at the highest level.

All the rhetoric about Barry Richards is centered around how brilliant he looked. The ease with which he hit the ball, his array of shots, the elegance of his strokeplay, the way he could dominate the best bowling of his day. And that is to be backed up with one good Test series, and a fantastic FC record.

But a lot of the same could be said for a player like Vinod Kambli. Incredible FC record, immensely talented batsman, some would say he was better than Sachin. But he didn't perform to that talent at the Test level. Had he been banned from playing cricket after the amazing start to his Test career, we could easily talk of him the same way we talk of Barry Richards. But we don't. Because he was given the opportunity to keep playing Tests, and we saw the mental frailties he possessed, and he eventually slipped out of the team and out of contention for All Time Greatness.

Who's to say that if Barry Richards was offered the same opportunities, that he wouldn't return the same results? What if he turned out to be another FC giant and Test Match muppet? What if he couldn't handle the pressure, didn't have the temperament? What if his talent abandoned him at the highest level?

A lot of players have incredible FC records. A LOT. But we don't classify them all as ATGs. Many of them have failed at Tests. And personally, while I respect the talent Barry Richard is claimed to have possessed, I won't consider him for ATG status. Because to me, being immensely talented is not enough to be considered an ATG. What you do with that talent matters just as much, if not more. And yes, Barry Richards was unlucky to not have more opportunities to display his abundant talent. He might have, for all we known, been the best batsman to have walked on Earth since Bradman. At the same time, he might have, for all we known, have just been an earlier version of Kambli.

Having said all this...Pujara, WAG.

For me, you only consider someone an ATG once they have ended their careers..As people have mentioned in this thread, Hussey was averaging higher than Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting, Kallis, Sanga, Sobers, Richards, Dravid etc...Today he won't be considered even in the same league as any of those fellows...so you have to realize that a career is not just about a purple patch..its about an entire lifetime almost..where you will have a purple patch, where you will struggle to put bat to ball, where you will get bad decisions, where you will get unplayable balls or unbelievable catches, where you will face personal turmoil..its those who can stand up despite all that and end with an excellent record..they are the ATGs for me.

Going into Kambli and Richards..I think this is a bit of a travesty.. Kambli got enough opportunities in Test cricket..he failed..
Richards did not get enough opportunties in Test cricket..What if he failed?? Well how about what if he ended up being better than the other Richards? "What if" goes both ways..

This comparison is not valid..

 

[cnerd123]

If the comparison of Kambli and Richards is not valid, then neither is the comparison of Richards with any of the other ATGs such as Tendulkar, Lara, Sobers, Hobbs, etc. Like you said, "What if" goes both ways.

Which is why I leave Richards out when talking about ATGs. He's almost like Vince van der Biji or Mike Proctor, or Archie Jackson.

 

[NUFAN]

Excellent thread.

 

[watson]

If a batsman averaged 70+ over 5-20 Tests, but then went on to average about 30 after 250 FC games for his Shield team, then I would say that his Test average was a statistical aberration, and that with the benefit of hindsight the Test selectors had probably made a reasonable decision.

However, if a batsman averaged 70+ over 5-20 Tests, AND then went on to average about 55 after 250 FC games for his Shield team, then I'd say that with the benefit of hindsight the Test selectors had made a complete howler .

The point being, a player can only be properly judged after they have completed a lengthy Test career, or lengthy FC career with some Test standard exposure.

 

[honestbharani]

It is an incredibly hard question, tbh.. And I hate to take the simplistic view on either side.. Yes, there are many batsmen since who have had equivalent or better FC careers with middling test careers after a great start... But that point goes neither here nor there as the amount of international cricketers playing FC cricket in Barry Richards' era was much more than what it is today.. And it was taken a lot more seriously by those players as well, than just being seen as practice or comeback vehicles... So to compare him to a Vinod Kambli or someone of that ilk is just not valid at all. At the same time, I do see the merit in people claiming that those who have actually done it at the test level for a longer period of time should be rated higher than Barry. But then again, peer respect is not easily attained in cricket and when it is done to almost universal levels, like in the case of Barry, it deserves to carry a lot of weight on its own in any argument of the said players' rating.


At the end of the day, I would just say with cricket being the incredibly complicated game that it is, I think this is the most classic case of a question that simply does not have a right or wrong answer. You can take either position with enough justifications.. Me, I do tend to respect the view of the peers and past players on a player, and I am ready to accept their word that this guy is one of the best ever openers...

 

[Jono]

Barry is pretty poor in the commentary box. Waiting for Chetaswar to get his turn to decide.

 

[bagapath]

However, if a batsman averaged 70+ over 5-20 Tests, AND then went on to average about 55 after 250 FC games for his Shield team, then I'd say that with the benefit of hindsight the Test selectors had made a complete howler .

Since Barry Richards played only 4 tests, you are saying we should not even consider him in the discussion, right? That is exactly what I have been saying too.

 

[akilana]

What did Lillee think of Pujara?

 

[akilana]

Since Barry Richards played only 4 tests, you are saying we should not even consider him in the discussion, right? That is exactly what I have been saying too.

You may not consider but there are lot of people that do. The reason why they consider him as one of the best is not because he averaged 70 something in 4tests.

 

[bagapath]

Dialogue from The Departed

Ellerby: Cui Bono, who benefits?
Colin Sullivan: Cui gives a ****

What did Lillee think of Pujara?

Cui gives a ****

 

[bagapath]

You may not consider but there are lot of people that do. The reason why they consider him as one of the best is not because he averaged 70 something in 4tests.

No problems with him being considered a great. Problem only with his selection in all time TEST XIs.

 

[watson]

Since Barry Richards played only 4 tests, you are saying we should not even consider him in the discussion, right? That is exactly what I have been saying too.

WSC Supertests are a very way good way of estimating a players ability because they were just as hard fought as 'legal' Test matches, and the standard was just as high or higher. So Barry Richards really played at least 9 Tests in reality.

 

[watson]

No problems with him being considered a great. Problem only with his selection in all time TEST XIs.

We prefer a player to have played a lot of Test matches so we can more readily estimate their talent and capabilities, not as some magical ticket to being selected into an ATG XI.

Indeed, there would be nothing stopping me opening for an ATG XI. I wouldn't last much past the opening delivery because I have no talent or capability what-so-ever, so my selection would be completely illogical. But there is no law against it.

Incidently, the same principle applies to ODIs. Garry Sobers, Barry Richards, and Graeme Pollock played precious few ODIs. However, I wouldn't consider it illogical if someone selected them for an ATG ODI XI because they are both attacking and brilliant. On-the other-hand the selection of Ken Barrington would raise an eye-brow because he was essentially a 'stone-waller' and therefore fails an important criteria. Garry, Barry, and Graeme would probably go OK in an ODI, Ken probably would not. But again, there is no law against someone picking Ken Barrington.

Note: We all need to remember that we are merely attempting to maximise our probabilities when we select an ATG XI. It is possible that Ken Barrington could score a hypothetical century off only 62 balls in an ATG ODI scenario, or Phil Tufnell clean bowl Bradman before taking 8/43 in an ATG Test match scenario - but that is less probable than Garry Sobers and Hedley Verity doing the same. In-other-words, it is logical to assume that Garry Sobers or Hedley Verity would probably do better than Ken Barrington or Phil Tufnel in any singular ATG match-up.

 

[G.I.Joe]

We prefer a player to have played a lot of Test matches so we can more readily estimate their talent and capabilities.

You could have ended your post right there.

 

[watson]

You could have ended your post right there.

Yes, but the word 'prefer' was an important qualification and very deliberate. The rest of the post was required to explain the use of that word, and why we cannot start the sentence with - 'It is a mandatory requirement.........'

 

[Flem274*]

Pretty sure someone like Top Cat or Rob has debunked the idea players actually cared about WSC and treated it like the IPL.

cbf going to find the posts though.

 

[watson]

Pretty sure someone like Top Cat or Rob has debunked the idea players actually cared about WSC and treated it like the IPL.

cbf going to find the posts though.

Even if WSC = IPL then the original point still stands;

'We prefer a player to have played a lot of Test matches so we can more readily estimate their talent and capabilities, not as some magical ticket to being selected into an ATG XI.

Indeed, there would be nothing stopping me opening for an ATG XI. I wouldn't last much past the opening delivery because I have no talent or capability what-so-ever, so my selection would be completely illogical. But there is no law against it.

Incidently, the same principle applies to ODIs. Garry Sobers, Barry Richards, and Graeme Pollock played precious few ODIs. However, I wouldn't consider it illogical if someone selected them for an ATG ODI XI because they are both attacking and brilliant. On-the other-hand the selection of Ken Barrington would raise an eye-brow because he was essentially a 'stone-waller' and therefore fails an important criteria. Garry, Barry, and Graeme would probably go OK in an ODI, Ken probably would not. But again, there is no law against someone picking Ken Barrington.

Note: We all need to remember that we are merely attempting to maximise our probabilities when we select an ATG XI. It is possible that Ken Barrington could score a hypothetical century off only 62 balls in an ATG ODI scenario, or Phil Tufnell clean bowl Bradman before taking 8/43 in an ATG Test match scenario - but that is less probable than Garry Sobers and Hedley Verity doing the same. In-other-words, it is logical to assume that Garry Sobers or Hedley Verity would probably do better than Ken Barrington or Phil Tufnel in any singular ATG match-up.'

 

[watson]

I'll cut down the argument further;

Barry Richards sceptic: "Barry Richards would probably fail during an ATG Test match because.............."

Barry Richards optimist: "Barry Richards would probably succeed during An ATG Test match because......."


So, what we are arguing about is the level of probability of success - with the operatative word being probability. Nothing more, nothing less.