The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[honestbharani]

haha....your reasons were literally "I watched him and he wasn't the best keeper or opener".

So my reasons are "I watched him and he was the best keeper and opener".

Cool?


Anyway, here are some articles for you to read:

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/21245902/the-cricket-monthly- the-greatest-odi-cricketer

The best over 50 overs | The Cricket Monthly | ESPN Cricinfo

I also literally said I can give you the statistical side of it when I had time, thought since you did not respond it was not needed. If you insist though will do it later today.


And if you think he is the best keeper batsman you have seen in ODIs fair enough. But that is not what you said in the post I quoted. I think your hatred towards the Indian posters here has started affecting your actual posting quality. And for every two articles you can link me on Gilly, you know I will have 10 on Dhoni.

 

[CricAddict]

Lol that you came up with that response to my post simply asking him to explain why he asserts Gilly wasnt great at ODIs.

At least your ban will help with general coherence in the thread.

While he might have been OTT sometimes in defence of Indian players, I don't think he has done anything ban worthy. Everyone here was culpable in that case.

 

[Prince EWS]

You couldn't pay me to select Gilchrist in my all-time ODI XI but he was definitely an all-time great ODI cricketer. I'm not sure if honestbharani rates him a lot lower than I do in one or both disciplines or just has a much smaller list of "ODI greats" than I do (I suspect the latter), but it really stood out to me as an odd comment.

So hb, how many ODI ATGs do you think there are? Just the eleven you pick in the ATG ODI team? Maybe fifteen for a squad? Because if it's more than that I'd definitely be picking Gilchrist in it. If you looked at how much he'd improve every ODI team fielded on average he might be in my top ten despite not making my actual team XI due to Dhoni.

 

[Spark]

While he might have been OTT sometimes in defence of Indian players, I don't think he has done anything ban worthy. Everyone here was culpable in that case.

He got banned because he did a specific thing that we have repeatedly asked him not to do, not because he was the worst poster in this very bad thread.

 

[h_hurricane]

Is there anyone here who was actually genuinely offended by sunilz's posting? Personally I find him very entertaining.

I am sure he will be back with a bang hurling truth bombs as ever. Pretty sure he is preparing that stuff during this hibernation period.

 

[jimmy101]

Likewise, I have an entire dossier prepared for sunilz which categorically proves that Jamie Cox > Sachin Tendulkar... which I plan on unleashing on him upon his return.

Poor bloke is in for a rough ride.

 

[vcs]

I understand Stephen's argument, but assuming your dream ATG team is facing an opponent of comparable quality, having a guy who can bat through is a very valuable quality. It's still a 50 over match, not a T20. Rohit batting through usually spells bad news for the opposition team, because he won't be far behind Gilchrist, if at all, in terms of SR when he crosses 60-70.

 

[Bolo.]

I understand Stephen's argument, but assuming your dream ATG team is facing an opponent of comparable quality, having a guy who can bat through is a very valuable quality. It's still a 50 over match, not a T20. Rohit batting through usually spells bad news for the opposition team, because he won't be far behind Gilchrist, if at all, in terms of SR when he crosses 60-70.

He wasnt really making the point that there isnt value in this case, but rather that the value is a whole lot less in an atg team.

As brutal as Rohit us when he gets in, I would still rather back someone like AB to butcher an atg lineup in the death, and AB is only going to face a couple of overs in a match in which Rohit gets going, because there are better bats in the top order, some of whom are likely going to fire if Rohit does.

Anyway, I want to reiterate on Stephens point about Rohit being overrated as an opener because he has performed as one. Stephen framed it well for Rohits particular case, but I want to generalise, and when people assess a player based on performance in a particular batting position, they are often ignoring the fact that performances in that position tend to coincide with a players peak. Teams dont normally mess with success.

 

[honestbharani]

You couldn't pay me to select Gilchrist in my all-time ODI XI but he was definitely an all-time great ODI cricketer. I'm not sure if honestbharani rates him a lot lower than I do in one or both disciplines or just has a much smaller list of "ODI greats" than I do (I suspect the latter), but it really stood out to me as an odd comment.

So hb, how many ODI ATGs do you think there are? Just the eleven you pick in the ATG ODI team? Maybe fifteen for a squad? Because if it's more than that I'd definitely be picking Gilchrist in it. If you looked at how much he'd improve every ODI team fielded on average he might be in my top ten despite not making my actual team XI due to Dhoni.

Dunno, since ODIs have been around for far shorter a duration than tests, I would restrict my ATG definition to the top 20 maybe? Or the top 2 ODI XIs. And I think Dhoni and Buttler have him beat. Even otherwise, there are number of keeper/batsmen I will pick ahead of him. Sanga, for example. So yeah, his keeping to spinners and seamers while spotless was not something that created dismissals out of nowhere like Dhoni did. I can see why his relatively risk free keeping will be a clincher for a test side but for ODIs, over 50 overs and with a white ball that wont swing,seam or spin as much as a red one, the definition of a "safe" keeper really broadens and brings folks like Sanga and AB to the discussion. And as an opener, he really was just about above average. The only reason I think of him as a great is because he did what he did as an opener while also being the first choice keeper. Unlike say in tests, where I think his batting record merits consideration by itself for ATGness.


So yeah, put it this way, he won't make my first or second AT ODI XIs and I believe those are the ones I would term ATGs in this format.

 

[honestbharani]

He wasnt really making the point that there isnt value in this case, but rather that the value is a whole lot less in an atg team.

As brutal as Rohit us when he gets in, I would still rather back someone like AB to butcher an atg lineup in the death, and AB is only going to face a couple of overs in a match in which Rohit gets going, because there are better bats in the top order, some of whom are likely going to fire if Rohit does.

Anyway, I want to reiterate on Stephens point about Rohit being overrated as an opener because he has performed as one. Stephen framed it well for Rohits particular case, but I want to generalise, and when people assess a player based on performance in a particular batting position, they are often ignoring the fact that performances in that position tend to coincide with a players peak. Teams dont normally mess with success.

I actually agree with these thoughts on Rohit as the opener in the ATG XI. My point has been that there are MUCH better options than Gilchrist, like the one I chose, a certain BC Lara.

 

[Prince EWS]

Dunno, since ODIs have been around for far shorter a duration than tests, I would restrict my ATG definition to the top 20 maybe? Or the top 2 ODI XIs. And I think Dhoni and Buttler have him beat. Even otherwise, there are number of keeper/batsmen I will pick ahead of him. Sanga, for example. So yeah, his keeping to spinners and seamers while spotless was not something that created dismissals out of nowhere like Dhoni did. I can see why his relatively risk free keeping will be a clincher for a test side but for ODIs, over 50 overs and with a white ball that wont swing,seam or spin as much as a red one, the definition of a "safe" keeper really broadens and brings folks like Sanga and AB to the discussion. And as an opener, he really was just about above average. The only reason I think of him as a great is because he did what he did as an opener while also being the first choice keeper. Unlike say in tests, where I think his batting record merits consideration by itself for ATGness.


So yeah, put it this way, he won't make my first or second AT ODI XIs and I believe those are the ones I would term ATGs in this format.

Yeah fair enough, I don't entirely agree but this is a good clarification that should at least let people know what position they're arguing against.

 

[_00_deathscar]

I understand the argument and it’s something I was pointing out during the World Cup, and one reason that India partially struggled. But the bigger problem was that in that Indian team, when Rohit was slow to take off (and got off for a relatively low score) or made a moderate but slow score (eg 50 off 75), it put too much pressure on Kohli.

The difference is that an ATG team will be backed by Sachin, Viv, Kohli, ABD, peak Dhoni. So having Rohit in there is beneficial because he will either go huge and the team will go 350+, or he’ll clog up a few balls for a low/moderate score but there are enough players to pick up the slack there.

I do understand his argument better now though.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Here’s something weird - for some reason I always thought Lillee averaged 27/28. I have no idea why.
Having looked up the stats, I have to re-evaluate my top bowlers.

 

[jimmy101]

Here’s something weird - for some reason I always thought Lillee averaged 27/28. I have no idea why.
Having looked up the stats, I have to re-evaluate my top bowlers.

Stats shouldn't determine your evaluation of cricketers like that.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Stats shouldn't determine your evaluation of cricketers like that.

Never saw him play though. Yea there’s YouTube but highlights can make anyone look great.

It’s not that I thought he was bad or anything obviously I was just confused how such a fearsome bowler who had an insanely high WPM and pretty good strike rate had a relatively low average. It didn’t compute
Of course that’s when I actually checked
I have no idea why I thought he had a 27/28 average.

 

[jimmy101]

Never saw him play though. Yea there’s YouTube but highlights can make anyone look great.

That's true to an extent but clearly a big difference would exist between a 5 minute video of Steyn & a 5 min video of, say, Andy Bichel. Tbf my opinion of cricketers before my time is mostly shaped by the written word, which, of course, can be exaggerated. When it comes to 70's players in particular I have complete trust in Tony Greig's Cricket which goes into great detail about the players he played with & against.

 

[Logan]

I would rather believe in a detailed analysis of stats of the olden players and written articles rather than just blindly listen to cricket historians and yesteryear cricketers.

Growing up I read countless articles in the early 90s on Lillee being the perfect fast bowler and the GOAT. I don’t necessarily agree to it right now.

 

[Spark]

I would rather believe in a detailed analysis of stats of the olden players and written articles rather than just blindly listen to cricket historians and yesteryear cricketers.

"This bloke averaged <30 in these countries" is not detailed analysis and most definitely should not be treated as valuable as the testimony of people who actually watched the person play IMO.

 

[Logan]

At least that is better than just some biased cricket historians and writers getting an orgasm writing about his favourite cricketer.

I am not saying statistics are everything but it is better than blindly listening to cricket historians.

Stats are stats. You need not like them. But they provide a decent idea. With a decent sample size, they would give you an idea how good a cricketer.

 

[Spark]

At least that is better than just some biased cricket historians and writers getting an orgasm writing about his favourite cricketer.

I am not saying statistics are everything but it is better than blindly listening to cricket historians.

Stats are stats. You need not like them. But they provide a decent idea.

Why even bother watching cricket then, since apparently there's no point "blindly listening" to those who may have actually watched someone play