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

[vcs]

Great post there by Bagapath, aesthetics definitely influences me when I'm comparing two players of similar accomplishment. I don't think that's a bad thing, because it is why we watch and enjoy the great game, to appreciate the beauty of certain players. Otherwise we might as well quit watching and become bean-counters on Statsguru.

It's also important to realize when subjectivity comes into one's personal judgement and allow other people to enjoy different styles.

 

[Athlai]

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

Haha how is Chanders boring? Ugly I understand but the guy has the most edge of the seat batting technique out there.

 

[Flem274*]

If it's purely on aesthetics, Martin Crowe is definitely an all time great and Stephen Fleming is a decent shout.

The thing that matters most to me is results. I don't care how you score runs as long as you score them.

 

[Ruckus]

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.

While all of that is undoubtedly true, it doesn't make it right. Just because history has a tendancy to promote aesthetically pleasing batsman as ATGs, doesn't mean it should be one of the important selection criteria.

IMO aesthetics should have absolutely nothing to do with whether a player is classified as an ATG or not. However, it definately adds to the enjoyment of watching someone play, and fortunately most great batsman use aesthetically pleasing technique.

 

[bagapath]

While all of that is undoubtedly true, it doesn't make it right. Just because history has a tendancy to promote aesthetically pleasing batsman as ATGs, doesn't mean it should be one of the important selection criteria.

IMO aesthetics should have absolutely nothing to do with whether a player is classified as an ATG or not. However, it definitely adds to the enjoyment of watching someone play, and fortunately most great batsman use aesthetically pleasing technique.

but we are not going to choose a david gower or a mark waugh over a ricky ponting or a steve waugh simply because the first two look a lot better at the crease. only between players of similar stats, aesthetics come in handy to separate them.

the step by step process of choosing an all time great is what we should define since everything listed in the poll is a factor to be considered in this regard.

let me try my hand at this. you guys can agree with it or tear it apart.

Step 1: Their test match stats should be among the very best of all time. To start with, a bowling average < 25 or a batting average > 50 is a must. all rounders are expected to average around 30 with the ball and average a little more with the bat. a healthy run aggregate (5000+), wickets aggregate (200+), and a good bowling SR (under 10 overs for fast bowlers and under 15 for spinners) are compulsory too. In addition to the averages and aggregates, number of centuries (15+) and five wicket hauls (10+) make a significant difference. all these factors come under the statistics.

Step 2: They should have performed well against most, if not all, major teams. for example, batting figures boosted by 100+ average against the minnows won't mean much if their performances against the big teams are piss poor.

Step 3: They should have had a career long enough to enable the opponents to have worked out their weaknesses. counter punching those strategies makes a good player great. this way, the mike husseys don't get to sit at the same table as the comptons and borders. a reasonable number would be 50 tests or more. lengthy career also means tackling different playing conditions, different opponents, dealing with injuries and different kinds of match situations. one's ability to keep delivering despite encountering different challenges is important for an ATG.

Step 4: They should have played some iconic knocks or bowled memorable spells; like taking 7 for 1 in one spell or scoring 149* while following on, or hitting 153* in a successful fourth innings chase. all these numbers mean something special to every cricket fan.

Step 5: They should have created unforgettable moments of magic that define their careers in a nutshell: bowling the ball of the century, reverse swinging the old ball in karachi, bowling out the opposition with one hand in plaster, or whacking warne for sixers when the ball is pitched on the rough all mean something special. These are the moments that make them legends.

Step 6: They should perform well against traditional rivals and world champions. English and Australian cricketers should have good Ashes records. Indian and Pakistani cricketers should have some numbers to boast off against each other. In the past 15 years, Indians and Australians are expected to give their best against each other, too. Good stats against the Windies in the 70s and 80s and against the Aussies in the 90s and 00s matter a lot.

Step 7: They should definitely rock in away games. For example, doing well against Australia in Australia or against the old Windies in Windies is no mean task. doing well in India against India is not easy either; just ask ponting.

Step 8: They should look good. It could be flair, exaggerated back lift, a high arm action, aggression, technical perfection or charm; a champion on the field should look like a champion, and not like a club cricketer playing to keep his job.

Step 9: They should have achieved most of the individual milestones expected of dominant players; a double century shows a batsman can out bat the opposition all by himself. and a ten wicket haul shows a bowler can run through a batting lineup on his own. an ATG should display this ability at the highest level as often as he could.

Step 10: They should contribute equally well in victories and draws and losses. and in first and second innings.

Step 11: They should, at some point in time, be the best of their ilk in the world during their careers. they should be the player their opponents lose sleep over.

 

[M0rphin3]

IMO aesthetics do matter, I hate watching chanders specially in tests. For me its hard to call someone who gives me an eyesore an ATG.

 

[Flem274*]

Why would you use aesthetics to separate players? I don't care how close it is, give me results every single time.

 

[bagapath]

Why would you use aesthetics to separate players? I don't care how close it is, give me results every single time.

because this is a game to be played, watched and enjoyed. if results mean everything we might as well sit down with scorecards, spread sheets and choose our players. 5 laras, 5 akrams and one gilchrist would be good enough to complete my dream team. 5 chanderpals, 5 mcgraths and one healy would force me to slash my wrists.

 

[Ruckus]

but we are not going to choose a david gower or a mark waugh over a ricky ponting or a steve waugh simply because the first two look a lot better at the crease. only between players of similar stats, aesthetics come in handy to separate them.


Step 8: They should look good. It could be flair, exaggerated back lift, a high arm action, aggression, technical perfection or charm; a champion on the field should look like a champion, and not like a club cricketer playing to keep his job.

I would say even if two batsman are identical statistically and otherwise, but one had more pleasing technique, it shouldn't matter when labelling them an ATG. It definately matters in terms of watching them and entertainment value, but to me the label ATG signifies how well they performed, and only that.

I agree with all your the other points, but not no. 8, and the reasoning is essentially the same as the above.

 

[Ruckus]

because this is a game to be played, watched and enjoyed. if results mean everything we might as well sit down with scorecards, spread sheets and choose our players. 5 laras, 5 akrams and one gilchrist would be good enough to complete my dream team. 5 chanderpals, 5 mcgraths and one healy would force me to slash my wrists.

If stats could literally cover every functional aspect of the game, then that would be the most objective and fair way to classify someone as an ATG imo. However, some things like performance under pressure are not perfectly represented by stats.

I think it should be noted though, that some functional aspects of the game overlap with aesthetics aswell. Therefore, it is not likely even using only functional criteria, an ATG will be bad to watch. For example, an ATG should have a satisfactory strike rate, a full repertoire of shots to deal with all types of deliveries, an ability to hit boundaries at will etc. All of these functional aspects of the game will make it much more likely the player is entertaining to watch.

 

[bagapath]

If stats could literally cover every functional aspect of the game, then that would be the most objective and fair way to classify someone as an ATG imo. However, some things like performance under pressure are not perfectly represented by stats.

I think it should be noted though, that some functional aspects of the game overlap with aesthetics aswell. Therefore, it is not likely even using only functional criteria, an ATG will be bad to watch. For example, an ATG should have a satisfactory strike rate, a full repertoire of shots to deal with all types of deliveries, an ability to hit boundaries at will etc. All of these functional aspects of the game will make it much more likely the player is entertaining to watch.

my thoughts more or less. would have struggled to express them as succinctly, though.

 

[Flem274*]

because this is a game to be played, watched and enjoyed. if results mean everything we might as well sit down with scorecards, spread sheets and choose our players. 5 laras, 5 akrams and one gilchrist would be good enough to complete my dream team. 5 chanderpals, 5 mcgraths and one healy would force me to slash my wrists.

Enjoyment is subjective though. I loved watching McGrath bowl. Subjectivity has no place in judging all time greats. I bet you West Indians love Chanderpaul atm too, because he's one of the few who actually gives them something to cheer about.

If it was an Eleven on the best players who were good to watch, then aesthetics should come into it, but if Mars plodded up with some gun Martian cricketers and challenged us to a game of cricket, I'd want the best of the best in, regardless of how good they were to watch.

Besides, another bit of subjectivity from me, I think Chander's batting has a certain charm to it. I guess I just love eccentricity (Chanderpaul) and simplicity (McGrath) in my cricket. And a batsman who can block out a session for 12* (292424) is a gun in my book. It's how Tim McIntosh converted me. On the other hand I love watching Sehwag. In fact, Sehwag and Tim McIntosh would open in my "Favourites to watch" World XI.

 

[bagapath]

Enjoyment is subjective though. I think Chander's batting has a certain charm to it. I guess I just love eccentricity (Chanderpaul) and simplicity (McGrath) in my cricket.

So you do value "charm" and "watchability". just what constitutes style is where we are going to differ. if you found chanders boring and still considered him an ATG then we have something to argue about. if not, then it is fine, mate. to each his own. a woman found me good enough to marry her. i wont argue with individual taste.

 

[Flem274*]

So you do value "charm" and "watchability". just what constitutes style is where we are going to differ. if you found chanders boring and still considered him an ATG then we have something to argue about. if not, then it is fine, mate. to each his own. a woman found me good enough to marry her. i wont argue with individual taste.

I'm sure she saw some charm in you bud, somewhere.

What I was arguing though was separating players on watchability. If it came down to say, McGrath or Waqar, for the final spot in the World Team, I'd pick the player who I thought would get me the best results, even if I liked the other guy better.

 

[Prince EWS]

There's definitely a place for commenting on the aesthetics of players but it should always be separated from discussions based on the quality of those players. It's completely irrelevant to how effective they are.

 

[smash84]

There's definitely a place for commenting on the aesthetics of players but it should always be separated from discussions based on the quality of those players. It's completely irrelevant to how effective they are.

Agree with you here. I also don't quite understand the relationship between aesthtics and effectiveness.

 

[Jono]

Exactly.

 

[Prince EWS]

Imagine if I considered aesthetics when naming teams. I'd come up with the weirdest All Time XIs of all time. Well except for maybe AaronK.

 

[Flem274*]

Imagine if I considered aesthetics when naming teams. I'd come up with the weirdest All Time XIs of all time. Well except for maybe AaronK.

Sibanda to open.

Name it Cribbeh, I'm interested. Symonds a lock for the middle order surely?

 

[smash84]

Sibanda to open.

Name it Cribbeh, I'm interested. Symonds a lock for the middle order surely?

Symonds?? in aesthtically pleasing All TIme XI???? I don't remember his batting being that aesthetically pleasing.

I think Mark Waugh and Damien Martyn should be a shoo-in for my aesthetically pleasing XI.