The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[stephen]

Lol you guys in your echo chamber are hilarious.

Ignoring the fact that Garner and Viv both made and won plenty of world cup finals you're arguing that three batsmen belong in the world's best in history and have been in the same side for the last 8 years and yet that same side has not been dominant over the time and not have they even made the bloody final.

Forgetting the world cup, with 3 of the top 7 batsmen in history India's should have been the side to beat and dominant over the last 8 years. But while they've been in the mix they've been nothing like dominant, unlike the West Indies of the 80s out the Australia of the 00s.

Rohit and to a lesser extent Kohli and Dhoni are over rated in ODIs.

It's funny that you're all pulling out the stats for the modern Indian players but haven't tried to statistically justify the silly assertion that Dhoni is a better batsman than Bevan. Bevan averages more with virtually the same strike rate (era adjusted) and faced far superior bowlers.

 

[Spark]

Also I called out the "if he was so good then his team would have won more tournaments" when h_hurricane did it and it's equally unimpressive now.

 

[Logan]

India has the best win percentage in ODIs this decade.

India has three of the seven players who have played over 100 ODIs and average 50+ this decade - Kohli, Rohit and Dhoni.

 

[srbhkshk]

You stopped reading after the truth was pointed out?

Tendulkar
Rohit
Kohli
Dhoni

Are 4 of the top 7 in an all time ODI side if the last page of this thread is to be believed, with two more of the top 7 to be filled in by Viv and de Villiers.

With arguments for Kapil in the tail as well.

It's garbage posting is what it is.

Every single one of those 5 guys deserves a place in the side. It's not like we are trying to shoe-horn a random Symonds in the side.

 

[Spark]

India has the best win percentage this decade. India has three of the seven players who have played over 100 ODIs and average 50+ this decade - Kohli, Rohit and Dhoni.

This is also pretty meaningless tbh, especially this decade.

 

[Logan]

Rohit and to a lesser extent Kohli and Dhoni are over rated in ODIs.

.

Stupidest statement ever

 

[honestbharani]

Lol you guys in your echo chamber are hilarious.

Ignoring the fact that Garner and Viv both made and won plenty of world cups you're arguing that three batsmen belong in the world's best in history and have been in the same side for the last 8 years and yet that same side has not been dominant over the time and not have they even made the bloody final.

Forgetting the world cup, with 3 of the top 7 batsmen in history India's should have been the side to beat and dominant over the last 8 years. But while they've been in the mix they've been nothing like dominant, unlike the West Indies of the 80s out the Australia of the 00s.

Rohit and to a lesser extent Kohli and Dhoni are over rated in ODIs.

It's funny that you're all pulling out the stats for the modern Indian players but haven't tried to statistically justify the silly assertion that Dhoni is a better batsman than Bevan. Bevan averages more with virtually the same strike rate (era adjusted) and faced far superior bowlers.

The only assertions that have been silly in this thread have been yours. And what the hell is this era adjusted? Do you mean your Aussie bias adjusted as I am sure that is just a number you are picking off from nowhere. MSD > Bevan as an ODI batsman. Gilly does not make it to an ATG ODI XI and Bevan is very close to missing out because of the balance any opener + Dhoni can bring to the table. Also, are we to just forget that while Gilly was an excellent keeper, Dhoni has him beat as an ODI keeper, especially given there will be about 10-15 overs of spin from the ATG ODI XI bowling line up?

 

[Logan]

This is also pretty meaningless tbh, especially this decade.

How is this meaningless?

India are the best ODI team this decade. This is largely due to Kohli, Rohit and Dhoni.

 

[sunilz]

Lol you guys in your echo chamber are hilarious.

Ignoring the fact that Garner and Viv both made and won plenty of world cups you're arguing that three batsmen belong in the world's best in history and have been in the same side for the last 8 years and yet that same side has not been dominant over the time and not have they even made the bloody final.

Forgetting the world cup, with 3 of the top 7 batsmen in history India's should have been the side to beat and dominant over the last 8 years. But while they've been in the mix they've been nothing like dominant, unlike the West Indies of the 80s out the Australia of the 00s.

Rohit and to a lesser extent Kohli and Dhoni are over rated in ODIs.

It's funny that you're all pulling out the stats for the modern Indian players but haven't tried to statistically justify the silly assertion that Dhoni is a better batsman than Bevan. Bevan averages more with virtually the same strike rate (era adjusted) and faced far superior bowlers.

I feel the same about Warne ( weak batting bully ), Gilchrist ( avg of 33 in Asia ), Smith ( can't win even in Bangladesh ) and Mcgrath ( one 5 wkt haul in Asia ).

 

[OverratedSanity]

.

It's funny that you're all pulling out the stats for the modern Indian players but haven't tried to statistically justify the silly assertion that Dhoni is a better batsman than Bevan. Bevan averages more with virtually the same strike rate (era adjusted) and faced far superior bowlers.

I think Bevan was probably better but it's laughable to consider dhoni>Bevan a "silly assertion". It really really isn't. Dhoni hasn't done his reputation any good by being much less useful than the statistics indicate for the team in the last 4 years or so but he's still up there whether you admit it or not.

 

[Spark]

How is this meaningless?

India are the best ODI team this decade. This is largely due to Kohli, Rohit and Dhoni.

Have a look at the sort of "teams" regularly put out in modern ODIs outside of major tournaments/run-ins to major tournaments and you'll see what I mean

 

[honestbharani]

TBF, you can say the same about what India do too?

 

[srbhkshk]

I feel the same about Warne ( weak batting bully ), Gilchrist ( avg of 33 in Asia ), Smith ( can't win even in Bangladesh ) and Mcgrath ( one 5 wkt haul in Asia ).

If there's one thing I have learnt here it's that when the Aussies are better overall statistically then they are obviously better, when they are worse overall then they are better because cricket in X conditions doesn't matter. When even that doesn't work then they are better because you had to see them play to understand their greatness or they had a great throwing arm which saved 0.2 runs each game.

 

[Spark]

TBF, you can say the same about what India do too?

Sure, but in my view that renders the stat fundamentally meaningless. Not to say that India haven't been the consistently best team in said period, just that that particular measure is so laughably far from robust that it's easier just to ignore it and look at other things.

Personally I think a WC win and two SF runs and consistent performance outside of those (looking at you, post-2015 Australia) means that it's a perfectly supportable assertion. Just pushing back at the desire to quantify things in ways that shouldn't be quantified.

 

[sunilz]

I think Bevan was probably better but it's laughable to consider dhoni>Bevan a "silly assertion". It really really isn't. Dhoni hasn't done his reputation any good by being much less useful than the statistics indicate for the team in the last 4 years or so but he's still up there whether you admit it or not.

Even if you consider Bevan a better ODI batsman than Dhoni , then including his wicket keeping and captaincy he is a better ODI package than Bevan .

 

[Prince EWS]

TBF, you can say the same about what India do too?

Yeah of course but "our second XI is better than your second XI" has never felt like a compelling point to me.

I remember being astounded as a kid following a rugby league season when I realised the team running second last in first grade was running first in reserve grade. If every club in the comp had the sort of rotation and trial policies ODI teams have had this decade, then this team probably would've done really well, but it it obviously wouldn't suddenly mean their full strength team was good.

Don't get me wrong, India have absolutely been the best ODI team for the past eight years or so and I don't think them losing a semi-final they would've won four times out of five suddenly means their best players are no good, but win:loss ratio isn't really a great way of showing that IMO. Not only because of what Spark said but because of the different makeup of home/away games and different percentages of games against different opposition. It's a lazy stat to show something that happens to be true, and at the end of the day people arguing a good case poorly annoys me a lot more than people arguing a bad case.

 

[Logan]

West Indies had a 72% win percentage in ODIs in the 1980s. The next best was 50%.

Three of the Top 5 run getters that decade were from WI - Haynes, Greenidge and Richards.

Three of the Top 8 wicket takers that decade were from WI - Garner, Holding and Marshall.

Even if they didn’t win the two World Cups or the 1985 World Championships, they were clearly the best ODI team of the decade.

 

[Burgey]

WC wins guys. Oz having the superior teams makes the players in those teams individually better than players of the LOSER sides. Amirite?

Yes when it matters.

 

[h_hurricane]

Ignoring the fact that Garner and Viv both made and won plenty of world cup finals you're arguing that three batsmen belong in the world's best in history and have been in the same side for the last 8 years and yet that same side has not been dominant over the time and not have they even made the bloody final.

Forgetting the world cup, with 3 of the top 7 batsmen in history India's should have been the side to beat and dominant over the last 8 years.

Garner's and Viv's prime coincided and it was hardly surprising when WI won those WCs. You can't equate that to Kohli, Rohit and Dhoni. Kohli was a newbie in 2011 whereas Dhoni was a goner in 2019. India was one of the dominant sides in 2015 but then came across a huge target which is incredibly difficult to chase in a high pressure match.

But while they've been in the mix they've been nothing like dominant, unlike the West Indies of the 80s out the Australia of the 00s.

So who is saying India is at the level of those teams lol

Rohit and to a lesser extent Kohli and Dhoni are over rated in ODIs.

Every great player is over-rated by some. Like you do for Bevan

It's funny that you're all pulling out the stats for the modern Indian players but haven't tried to statistically justify the silly assertion that Dhoni is a better batsman than Bevan. Bevan averages more with virtually the same strike rate (era adjusted) and faced far superior bowlers.

This is the funniest part. If modern era is so crap to be a bowler,would you do this for Starc for instance and statistically justify he was better than Mcgrath? It is silly to think that every one should subscribe to the view that Bevan was convincingly a better batsman than Dhoni.

 

[Burgey]

Even if you consider Bevan a better ODI batsman than Dhoni , then including his wicket keeping and captaincy he is a better ODI package than Bevan .

Buttler > Dhoni as an ODi package now anyway. Dhoni is redundant to needs.