The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Chrish]

Walsh is definitely kind of underrated on here. I've seen people lump him in with Gillespie and anderson and just going by the records, it isn't particularly close.

Didn’t people think he chucked??

 

[Red]

You’re kidding yourself if you think he’s on the same level as Border.

You're kidding yourself if you think he wasn't on the same level as Border.

See how easy it is to write a dismissive post with no substance?

 

[stephen]

I had a read on you long ago Stephen. If you are including a player (or excluding) them because of ethnicity or nationality that's nonsense Stephen. Something really weird about that post putting Walsh in there. I'm not going to say it bluntly, but it's blindingly obvious what it's about. Walsh is an ATG great bowler whether you like it or not. I frankly don't give a **** if Ambrose was better, that's irrelevant.



Yeah and it's obvious why. He's on another level to Gillespie and Anderson.

That's the second time you've accused me of racism in as many threads. Cut it out.

I'm happy to talk **** about cricket all day long but I'm not happy for someone to besmirch my character.

 

[stephen]

Pretty much nobody on this site disagrees that they are atgs. They do tend to get lumped in the lowest tier of atgs though, which is where they belong. Where they get underestimated is the distance between them and the other atgs- there really isn't that much separating pollock from the statistically identical Akram for example.

Depends how you define ATG to be honest. It's sort of a nebulous term. In my list I acknowledged that he was kinda borderline. I tend to regard players as ATG if they're in the discussion for at least their own nation's all time side. Walsh is behind a lot of other West Indian bowlers - Marshall, Ambrose, Garner, Holding, Croft, Roberts and Bishop (and I might be forgetting someone).

Zaheer is right on the other end of my list. Mostly included because he's almost certainly in an AT Indian side, is the second highest wicket taker for India and generally played on a lot of roads so his average doesn't truly reflect his skill.

 

[Starfighter]

Depends how you define ATG to be honest. It's sort of a nebulous term. In my list I acknowledged that he was kinda borderline. I tend to regard players as ATG if they're in the discussion for at least their own nation's all time side. Walsh is behind a lot of other West Indian bowlers - Marshall, Ambrose, Garner, Holding, Croft, Roberts and Bishop (and I might be forgetting someone).

Zaheer is right on the other end of my list. Mostly included because he's almost certainly in an AT Indian side, is the second highest wicket taker for India and generally played on a lot of roads so his average doesn't truly reflect his skill.

So wait, you define ATG as being relative to the goodness / crapness of their teammates, rather than their overall ability? That's what I'm getting from that.

 

[Coronis]

You're kidding yourself if you think he wasn't on the same level as Border.

See how easy it is to write a dismissive post with no substance?

Its honestly very sad how you’re reacting as though its completely blasphemous to say Keith Miller isn’t an ATG batsman and that I’m somehow personally insulting you.

 

[stephen]

So wait, you define ATG as being relative to the goodness / crapness of their teammates, rather than their overall ability? That's what I'm getting from that.

It's a part of it.

Players play under certain conditions. Indian players play mostly in Indian conditions, Australians in Australian conditions. It makes sense then that the people it's best to compare players to is players who play in similar conditions. So while Zaheer had an average of 32, it's fair to say that he may have averaged a bit less if he regularly played in more pace friendly conditions. Similarly, Walsh played in virtually the same conditions as Ambrose and yet was quite noticeably not as good as Ambrose. And when Bishop was fit, Walsh was only the third best seamer playing for the West Indies. Maybe that means he's not quite as good as his average might have suggested.

Rating players is a rubbery thing. Some people rate G Smith as being better than Hayden based on the conditions he more frequently played in. Some people rate Warne and Murali evenly despite different averages.

It's about looking beyond raw statistics and into the circumstances around those statistics.

It's why I rate McDermott ahead of Gillespie, but not quite as much as his average suggests. Gillespie didn't do well when he lead the attack while McDermott did. But McDermott played in a relatively bowler friendly era.

 

[Red]

I had a read on you long ago Stephen. If you are including a player (or excluding) them because of ethnicity or nationality that's nonsense Stephen. Something really weird about that post putting Walsh in there. I'm not going to say it bluntly, but it's blindingly obvious what it's about. Walsh is an ATG great bowler whether you like it or not. I frankly don't give a **** if Ambrose was better, that's irrelevant.

Pull your head in.

 

[Victor Ian]

Graham Dilley. Why is he not mentioned in more ATVG teams?

 

[NUFAN]

Graham Dilley. Why is he not mentioned in more ATVG teams?

I tend to think back to his 89 Ashes when he looked quite ineffective. I can understand calling him good, but im interested to hear how he is very good? Certainly didnt win games for England, terrible record of 2 wins from 41 tests.

 

[_00_deathscar]

What the utter senseless **** is going on here? Zaheer in the same category as Walsh?

Kapil wasn’t half as good as Walsh and he’s the best pace bowler we’ve had. India would have creamed themselves if we had someone like Walsh (see now with Bumrah).

 

[Victor Ian]

I tend to think back to his 89 Ashes when he looked quite ineffective. I can understand calling him good, but im interested to hear how he is very good? Certainly didnt win games for England, terrible record of 2 wins from 41 tests.

Yep. Whenever i watched him he was OK level. But he had something more. He brought his best OK to the game with brittish moviestar looks. That kind of jumps him some levels in my books.

 

[Malcolm]

Anderson is an ATG in my book. He is as good as any at home. His away performance has improved drastically over the last five or so years.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Depends how you define ATG to be honest. It's sort of a nebulous term. In my list I acknowledged that he was kinda borderline. I tend to regard players as ATG if they're in the discussion for at least their own nation's all time side. Walsh is behind a lot of other West Indian bowlers - Marshall, Ambrose, Garner, Holding, Croft, Roberts and Bishop (and I might be forgetting someone).

Zaheer is right on the other end of my list. Mostly included because he's almost certainly in an AT Indian side, is the second highest wicket taker for India and generally played on a lot of roads so his average doesn't truly reflect his skill.

I don't know if this is accurate

 

[h_hurricane]

Zaheer was good for like 3-4 years. Not even close to ATVG. That badge has to be earned.

 

[h_hurricane]

Anderson is an ATG in my book. He is as good as any at home. His away performance has improved drastically over the last five or so years.

Ashwin and Jadeja would qualify too if that would the case. Neither has a great away record but have improved a lot in recent years. Also zillion times better batsmen than Anderson.

 

[Malcolm]

Ashwin and Jadeja would qualify too if that would the case. Neither has a great away record but have improved a lot in recent years. Also zillion times better batsmen than Anderson.

Neither of them has been playing for 17 years.

Ashwin is a very good bowler though. He is arguably the best Indian bowler of all time IMO. Jadeja is good, but nowhere near as good as his stats suggest.

Anderson's career is unusually long for a fast bowler. He is definitely an ATG for me, and I'd even rank him above some of the "bonafide" ATGs of the past.

 

[h_hurricane]

Neither of them has been playing for 17 years.

Ashwin is a very good bowler though. He is arguably the best Indian bowler of all time IMO. Jadeja is good, but nowhere near as good as his stats suggest.

Anderson's career is unusually long for a fast bowler. He is definitely an ATG for me, and I'd even rank him above some of the "bonafide" ATGs of the past.

Neither Ashwin nor Jadeja are going to play anywhere close to 17 years. If you expect them to play another 4-5 years, they just need to be decent/average to end up with Anderson like figures.

Yes, Jadeja is nowhere close to what his figures suggest, so is Anderson. Averaging 35 in Aus, 33 in Ind, 33 in NZ,46 in SL, 40 in SA. In fact has more holes than Jadeja.

 

[h_hurricane]

On a side note, I don't know what else Jadeja needs to do to earn more respect. Averaging 19 something in India, 28 in Aus,25 in SA,28 in SL and 25 in WI. Only places he has a poor record is NZ (averaging 85) and Eng (42). That 2 test NZ tour happened right at the beginning of his test career.

Clearly a better travelling bowler than Anderson.

 

[Malcolm]

I seriously don't know what to deduce from these vague averages over small sample size.

Anderson did extremely well in India in '13, played his part in 11' Ashes victory and was the only English bowler who looked ominous in '17 Ashes. He has always delivered in Windies and did well in flat UAE pitches albeit in losing cause. I haven't checked, but I think SA is the only country he does not have a single good series.

Arguing Jadeja is a better traveling bowler than Anderson is laughable to say the least.