What is the most important criterion for someone to be classified as an ATG?

[Teja.]

Stats when analyzed properly tend to tell you how long the player played at an awesome level for, how well he performed against the best teams of his time, away from home and under pressure..

 

[Ruckus]

Stats when analyzed properly tend to tell you how long the player played at an awesome level for, how well he performed against the best teams of his time, away from home and under pressure..

But with something like pressure, while its theoretically possible to go through every innings and analyse whether or not a player has come in when the side has been down, there is no collective stat (that I know of) which could tell you this. I think 'stats' means the standard collection of common figures (average, matches, home/away etc.) for a player, and not every manipulation of numbers possible.

 

[GIMH]

How well they did in the Ashes, IMO

 

[weldone]

How well they did in the Ashes, IMO

How well they did in 2005 Ashes, to be precise

 

[Jono]

^ How to take a joke too seriously 101

 

[Altaican]

I cannot choose just one criterion for someone to be classified as an all time great. The very definition of an all time great is very subjective, and I imagine no two people on this forum could create the exact same list of ATG players.

Everyone gripes that certain players are underrated, certain players are overrated, certain players are ATG, and certain players don't deserve ATG status. How big is the list of ATG players? 5 names only? 100? Only Don Bradman? Everyone has a personal preference.

I consider Barry Richards as an ATG. I have decided that based not on some predetermined criteria. My decision is through consideration of all the details I know about Richards, and also because the style of cricketer he was appeals to my interests as a cricket fan. I don't expect anyone else to consider Richards the same.

You said pretty much everything that I wanted to say. I think a little bit of all the options given above are important. The question is, who gives more weightage on which option, and that becomes subjective. Public/media hype helps a lot too I have posted this before, but here is a video of a few former cricketers (Ian Chappell, John Wright etc.) discussing this exact subject in great length. Interestingly the options given to them are virtually the same as given in this poll.

 

[ankitj]

Longevity: No. Can play consistently poor for a long period of time.
Stats: Yes. The main thing stats don't take into consideration is the conditions in which a player has scored and whether a not a player has performed under pressure etc., however for most intents and purposes it is the best indicator of someones ability.
Aesthetics: No. One can look good while playing but not be outstanding.
Performance against best teams: No. Although this is a good indicator of a players ability, if they have scored poorly against lower quality teams, then they cannot be classified an ATG. An ATG should be able to score effectively against the majority of teams. Just because a team is of lower quality doesn't mean there aren't circumstances when a player is under pressure to help his team succeed.
Performance away from home: It is simply just a matter of opinion whether or not playing well at home or away is better. In any case, it is preferable to be good at both.
Performance under pressure: Yes and No. If a player can consistently score under pressure, then IMO they should be classified an ATG. Under pressure implies the team is requiring a knock to save the game (either avoiding a lose, or by winning). However, whilst the skill to score under pressure is undoubtedly important, it is also important to be able to score when your team is not under pressure. E.g. when your team gets of to a good start, it is unfavourable to hole out and put your team back into a pressured situation.

So overall to be classified an ATG, I think a player should not only have outstanding all-round stats, but should also have scored in pressured situations and won/saved many matches for his team.

Excellent post. Agree with all of it.

 

[lachlan43]

An all-time great batsman should at least average 100 in test cricket IMO.

Andy Ganteaume. Legend of the game.

 

[Spikey]

How well he can juggle cricket bats.

 

[TumTum]

Other: Seal of Approval from aussie

 

[Matt79]

How good they were compared to their peers.

This - accidentally voted for the wrong this on the poll.

 

[Migara]

National bias

 

[gwo]

Skin Colour

 

[Migara]

Subjective descriptions written by cricket "pundits"

 

[kingkallis]

Other.

1) - Super strike rate [ 60+ in tests and 85+ in ODIs ]
2) - Ability to please the spectators / fans / viewers

Thats it, you do it and you are an ATG.

 

[bagapath]

voted for the "performance against the best teams" option. but, usually i rely on aesthetics as the tie-breaker when it comes to choosing between cricketers.

well.... how can aesthetics not be a criteria in calling someone an all time great, anyways?

for example, both miandad and g.chappell had similar career stats as batsmen. their careers overlapped for 8 years; which means they played pretty much in the same era against similar opposition and in similar playing conditions. they both were big match players. they had long careers; and scored tons of runs from the beginning to end. they were the best batters in their own teams by a good margin; this despite them both having very highly skilled and successful team mates. they both performed well against all sorts of opponents; definitely against their traditional rivals (india for miandad, england for chappell) and against the best teams in the world (west indies). they both batted in the middle order, which means they more or less came to the wicket with their teams in similar positions most of the time - 2 wickets down for something - and dealt with similar sort of pressure from the team perspective. also, they were possibly the best batsmen in the whole world at various times in their careers. they both retired with nothing much left to achieve in batting.

yet, when it comes to choosing the best middle order batsmen of the era, and while selecting dream XIs, viv richards is, correctly, the top choice. after him, at no.4, g.chappell is the one usually preferred over all other greats, including miandad. chappell's legendary status, and miandad's relatively lesser position, cannot be attributed to anything else other than their respective playing styles. chappell was a graceful free flowing batsman and a joy to watch. miandad was a nudger, pusher, and an innovative hitter. you could count on javed to bat for your life but he would rarely please your eyes. his street fighter's instinct turned out to be, in the eyes of history, no match for chappell's upright, technically correct, majestic batsmanship. no wonder we remember chappell as a legend and at the same time we have almost forgotten miandad. whether we like it or not, we have been preferring aesthetically better cricketers over equally successful but less attractive competition all the time. most people preferring warne over murali, and akram over mcgrath, has no cricketing logic going for it other than our instinctive preference for aesthetically satisfying, eye pleasing play.

 

[Altaican]

voted for the "performance against the best teams" option. but, usually i rely on aesthetics as the tie-breaker when it comes to choosing between cricketers.

well.... how can aesthetics not be a criteria in calling someone an all time great, anyways?

for example, both miandad and g.chappell had similar career stats as batsmen. their careers overlapped for 8 years; which means they played pretty much in the same era against similar opposition and in similar playing conditions. they both were big match players. they had long careers; and scored tons of runs from the beginning to end. they were the best batters in their own teams by a good margin; this despite them both having very highly skilled and successful team mates. they both performed well against all sorts of opponents; definitely against their traditional rivals (india for miandad, england for chappell) and against the best teams in the world (west indies). they both batted in the middle order, which means they more or less came to the wicket with their teams in similar positions most of the time - 2 wickets down for something - and dealt with similar sort of pressure from the team perspective. also, they were possibly the best batsmen in the whole world at various times in their careers. they both retired with nothing much left to achieve in batting.

yet, when it comes to choosing the best middle order batsmen of the era, and while selecting dream XIs, viv richards is, correctly, the top choice. after him, at no.4, g.chappell is the one usually preferred over all other greats, including miandad. chappell's legendary status, and miandad's relatively lesser position, cannot be attributed to anything else other than their respective playing styles. chappell was a graceful free flowing batsman and a joy to watch. miandad was a nudger, pusher, and an innovative hitter. you could count on javed to bat for your life but he would rarely please your eyes. his street fighter's instinct turned out to be, in the eyes of history, no match for chappell's upright, technically correct, majestic batsmanship. no wonder we remember chappell as a legend and at the same time we have almost forgotten miandad. whether we like it or not, we have been preferring aesthetically better cricketers over equally successful but less attractive competition all the time. most people preferring warne over murali, and akram over mcgrath, has no cricketing logic going for it other than our instinctive preference for aesthetically satisfying, eye pleasing play.

Miandad's stats are even better than Richard's (more runs, better average, more 100s). But I doubt if anyone would choose him over Richards in their ATG XI. The same could be said of Border, Steve Waugh and Dravid. All of them have stats superior to Richards.

In the end it comes down to one's subjective opinion and taste. Reasons are then built around the opinions to make it look objective.

 

[gvenkat]

I think an ATG

Longevity - Yes, The ability to withstand the rigors of the game. A prime example would be Tendulkar who started of at 16 played 21 years of Tests ODI's and T20's and still continues to play.

Stats - Not really. Stats always do not reveal the real picture, an average of 70+ against a sub-standard team over a period of time does not really cut it. However to be classified an ATG, the player should average atleast 50. If he plays long enough and consistent enough this should take care of itself.

Aesthetics - Over-rated. A player need not be pleasing to the eye as long as he can get the results. Chanderpaul is a good example. Gets the runs and does not look exactly pleasing to the eyes.

Performance against best teams - Yes.

Performance away from home - This should be more like performance all around the world not just away from home.

Performance under pressure - Yes.

Other -

 

[bagapath]

Aesthetics - Over-rated. A player need not be pleasing to the eye as long as he can get the results. Chanderpaul is a good example. Gets the runs and does not look exactly pleasing to the eyes.

but he is no all time great! precisely because he is so boring to and ugly to watch.

 

[gvenkat]

but he is no all time great! precisely because he is so boring to and ugly to watch.

I would wait till he retires to come to that conclusion.