The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Johan]

What about Viv's output of 46.9 vs Lara's output of 51.5 though?

Coronis already has Viv lower than Lara so I don't think he'd disagree

 

[kyear2]

Gavaskar got 12 votes in the ESPN Five cricketers of the century, Hutton got 11.

I respe3ct you as a poster, but that's a horrible take.

India had 10 votes, Sunny 12.

At that point many would have seen it as too early to anoint Sachin and Gavaskar was by some distance their best test player and 2nd best from the subcontinent.

He also had no real competition for this bites, unlike Hutton, who had to compete with Hammond, Hobbs, Trueman, Barnes, Compton, Botham etc etc.

The entire process was flawed and anything past the top 5, and could be argued past the top 2 was a crap shoot.

6th place and lower got less than 20 votes out of 100. Not to add than Frank Worrell was tied 6th.

The was the Wisden 5 and they left it at 5 for a reason.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Some people loves expert consensus lists, but only those they love......

 

[kyear2]

That's just me being me, I don't like to be serious all the time.

Nothing wrong with that at all.

This is after all a forum where we primarily discuss cricketers who's been retired or dead, for not insignificant periods of time.

 

[kyear2]

Hammond clearly

Clearly?

Why?

I have them and Sunny squarely in the same category and tier along with Punter.

 

[Johan]

Coronis already has Viv lower than Lara so I don't think he'd disagree

tho Lara's output is indeed greater than most BAB contestants, without minnows –

Lara – 51.14

Viv – 46.92
Gavaskar – 46.90
Hammond – 46.48 (removed New Zealand and 38-39 South Africa)
Sachin – 46.34

 

[OverratedSanity]

I respe3ct you as a poster, but that's a horrible take.

India had 10 votes, Sunny 12.

At that point many would have seen it as too early to anoint Sachin and Gavaskar was by some distance their best test player and 2nd best from the subcontinent.

He also had no real competition for this bites, unlike Hutton, who had to compete with Hammond, Hobbs, Trueman, Barnes, Compton, Botham etc etc.

The entire process was flawed and anything past the top 5, and could be argued past the top 2 was a crap shoot.

6th place and lower got less than 20 votes out of 100. Not to add than Frank Worrell was tied 6th.

The was the Wisden 5 and they left it at 5 for a reason.

I don't consider Gavaskar a serious contender for the best after bradman title but you really are such a laughable poster. Any list that agrees with your opinion instantly becomes credible. And any list that doesn't is somehow a conspiracy to pump up Indian cricketers. Do **** off lmao what a joke.

 

[kyear2]

What about Viv's output of 46.9 vs Lara's output of 51.5 though?

Lara and Sachin (plus Sachin's minnow record) benefitted greatly from the dead days of the 2000's. When was Viv's flat period?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Lara and Sachin (plus Sachin's minnow record) benefitted greatly from the dead days of the 2000's. When was Viv's flat period?

Majority of 80s bowling were pretty meh for anyone not WI. It basically was them and 2 Top 5 ATGs pulling their teams.

 

[Johan]

Hm I remember the great bowling resources of 90s England/Sri Lanka/New Zealand.

 

[capt_Luffy]

And I do of the 70s India and Pakistan and NZ

 

[OverratedSanity]

Hm I remember the great bowling resources of 90s England/Sri Lanka/New Zealand.

England and nz bowling was perfectly OK in the 90s. Their batting sucked much more than their bowling.

 

[Johan]

And I do of the 70s India and Pakistan and NZ

Gavaskar fan self sniping in 4k

 

[Johan]

England and nz bowling was perfectly OK in the 90s. Their batting sucked much more than their bowling.

I won't put a lot of the English attacks of 90s above what was being thrown out in late 80s really

 

[kyear2]

Some people loves expert consensus lists, but only those they love......

Nothing about consensus lists.

The premise of the exercise was flawed.

You give people 5 votes for all the players in history it's goes to hell.

It's not accurate and everyone had theirs own perspectives and allegiances.

And you believe the same, unless you too believe that Sir Frank Worrell is the 6th greatest cricketer of all time.

You really are making the worst arguments of late, but in allegiance to your guy, so do your thing.

 

[kyear2]

I don't consider Gavaskar a serious contender for the best after bradman title.

Thanks

Cheers

 

[kyear2]

I don't consider Gavaskar a serious contender for the best after bradman title but you really are such a laughable poster. Any list that agrees with your opinion instantly becomes credible. And any list that doesn't is somehow a conspiracy to pump up Indian cricketers. Do **** off lmao what a joke.

Oh, and btw, if you read that and see conspiracy, you're the ****ing joke.

And feel free to **** off as well.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Nothing about consensus lists.

The premise of the exercise was flawed.

You give people 5 votes for all the players in history it's goes to hell.

It's not accurate and everyone had theirs own perspectives and allegiances.

And you believe the same, unless you too believe that Sir Frank Worrell is the 6th greatest cricketer of all time.

You really are making the worst arguments of late, but in allegiance to your guy, so do your thing.

No premise in the history of all premises to rank all those to play over a century is ever fully accurate. You blabber about Barry's rankings in Woodcock and CMJ and Cricinfo and such lists but fumes over the placement of Marshall.

 

[Thala_0710]

Lara and Sachin (plus Sachin's minnow record) benefitted greatly from the dead days of the 2000's. When was Viv's flat period?

Lara and Sachin's output (RPI) barring Bangladesh and Zimbabwe in the 90s only:
Lara: 49.76
Sachin: 52.6
So that point really doesn't make sense. Also, Viv didn't even face his attack, which was by far the best attack of his period. Faced no spinner even close to Warne and Murali, nor any great pace unit as a whole. The only great/very good pacers for the majority of the late 70s and 80s was Imran ava Hadlee, while Akram arrived late. That's it pretty much in terms of top level

 

[Johan]

Lara and Sachin's output (RPI) barring Bangladesh and Zimbabwe in the 90s only:
Lara: 49.76
Sachin: 52.6
So that point really doesn't make sense. Also, Viv didn't even face his attack, which was by far the best attack of his period. Faced no spinner even close to Warne and Murali, nor any great pace unit as a whole. The only great/very good pacers for the majority of the late 70s and 80s was Imran ava Hadlee, while Akram arrived late. That's it pretty much in terms of top level

Lara was worse than Atherton against the great pace units he faced, hardly a plus in his library, just exposed himself as weak to great pace and bounce