Defining the acronym- ATG

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Monk

Sachin is just a beautiful batsman. All poise and balance, and all class. He has everything in order when he bats. Lara is similar, but more explosive, and maybe not as consistent.


I reckon a decent definition of an ATG is whether that player would be considered by selectors in their own nation's all time XI. Steve Waugh most certainly would by some people, but most would have him marginally behind Harvey, G. Chappell, Ponting, Border and Ponting for a middle order spot.

Trent Johnston: all time great.

[Jager]

Originally Posted by Monk

Close indeed. I am biased toward Harvey. I reckon he is one of the most underrated batsmen in cricket history. He belongs right up there, and personally I would select him before Ponting (just), Waugh and Border.

Agreed. Equal best Australian batsman in a crisis, only Trumper is with him. Waugh is the best of the moderns, but he had it easy without stickies to compete with

[BackFootPunch]

The issue I always struggle with, particularly when picking an ATG XI, is whether to select based on the performances a player had at Test level or with the understanding that the ATG team would actually be playing at some imaginary higher level and therefore need to be capable of playing at said level.

Put more simply, do I want to pick the best players to have graced the game? Or the most successful? Obviously a large proportion of the great players fit into both categories but some are more in one camp than the other.

I'd suggest Lara is definitely one of the 'best' players ever. Likewise someone like Miller. Their performances at Test level put them right up there with everyone else anyway but they're two guys who I think would have been obviously a class above if there had been another level to go to. Generally I consider players like that to be the true greats of the game.

[fredfertang]

Charisma is essential, which is why the vast majority would put Garry Sobers in that category long before they'd put Jacques Kallis in it

[thierry henry]

(1) Pick someone who is definitely an ATG (apart from Bradman)
(2) If I can't definitively say a player is worse than that guy, he's an ATG

All the other bull**** ways of distinguishing between 2 blokes with near identical records are just based on various innate biases we have which have nothing to do with the players' value as cricketers. Some biases are more popular than others and hence some equally valuable cricketers are more popular ATG selections.

[Arachnodouche]

Tendulkar should be the benchmark for years to come as far as batting goes. It's now gone beyond mere statistics, he's showing the endurance and appetite of the long distance runner. And the basic skillset hasn't deteriorated too much either like in Ponting's case. He changed his game long before the advent of his advanced years so he's been at hom in his new skin for some time now (unlike Ponting, who will find the transition much harder, probably impossible). I find him terribly boring otherwise, but he's fairly unimpeachable on the cricket ground.

[Flem274*]

Originally Posted by thierry henry

(1) Pick someone who is definitely an ATG (apart from Bradman)
(2) If I can't definitively say a player is worse than that guy, he's an ATG

All the other bull**** ways of distinguishing between 2 blokes with near identical records are just based on various innate biases we have which have nothing to do with the players' value as cricketers. Some biases are more popular than others and hence some equally valuable cricketers are more popular ATG selections.

TH takes the words right out of my mouth.

[benchmark00]

Discuss.

[Flem274*]

Rhymes with

[Dan]

Carpe diem for idiots.

[Mike5181]

Originally Posted by thierry henry

(1) Pick someone who is definitely an ATG (apart from Bradman)
(2) If I can't definitively say a player is worse than that guy, he's an ATG

All the other bull**** ways of distinguishing between 2 blokes with near identical records are just based on various innate biases we have which have nothing to do with the players' value as cricketers. Some biases are more popular than others and hence some equally valuable cricketers are more popular ATG selections.

Yeah, well said.

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by thierry henry

(1) Pick someone who is definitely an ATG (apart from Bradman)
(2) If I can't definitively say a player is worse than that guy, he's an ATG

All the other bull**** ways of distinguishing between 2 blokes with near identical records are just based on various innate biases we have which have nothing to do with the players' value as cricketers. Some biases are more popular than others and hence some equally valuable cricketers are more popular ATG selections.

Pointless rant, the whole reason for the thread is to ask people what they think, not to objectively define the term. By definition, it's going to be subjective all up in here. May as well go into the science thread and have a bitch at all the science.

Not to mention that the term 'all-time great' is, well, pretty subjective anyway......

[Flem274*]

ATG isn't an acronym.

I couldn't take it anymore.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Flem274*

ATG isn't an acronym.

I couldn't take it anymore.

Maybe it is. Maybe Monk goes around saying "at-ghh" all the time.

[Monk]

Originally Posted by Flem274*

ATG isn't an acronym.

I couldn't take it anymore.

Sorry to upset you.

It's an abbreviation.

I feel bad that you couldn't take it any more.