Defining the acronym- ATG

[Monk]

ATG, or All Time Great. The acronym gets used a lot on cricket forums as cricket is a sport that lends itself to robust discussion about who is the greatest ever, who was greater than who, whether one era was 'tougher' on batsmen or bowlers stats than another, and so and so forth....

My questions are as follows:

--- How do you decide whether a player is an ATG, or just a very, very good player?

--- And who is in YOUR definitive list as an ATG of cricket?



Interested to hear your thoughts.

[Spikey]

Do I like the guy? plays a pretty important role.

[Jager]

A few things an ATG needs:
Excellent figures
Heroic performances
Admiration from us as a collective
Influence

[Top_Cat]

At that level, it's the intangibles. I look at it like an opposing captain would; who's going to give me nightmares with their ability to affect or dictate the course of the match? It's why I put Lara (just) ahead of Tendulkar a lot of the time and a player like Steve Waugh right up there with them, for example or someone like Sankgakkara's less likely to hurt me than, say, Inzi. Players like that don't just do the business in terms of their personal contribution, they make it easier for their team-mates to do well.

[doesitmatter]

1) Somebody who is consistent for a long period of time
2) Plays great in all conditons
3) Plays well against all types of bowling
4) Plays well in all countries
5) And that x factor to make people to come to the ground

above reason why i put SRT ahead of Lara only just and same reason why Steve Waugh > Ponting

[Viscount Tom]

1) Large number of high quality innings across multiple sets of conditions.
2) How much they contribute to a team.
3) Longevity is generally pretty important.

[Eds]

I tend to think of it as a "could he fit into any side in the history of cricket and play a decent role?". Of course, though, it's also skewed by the likes of the West Indian sides, who had a multitude of great fast bowlers, or the Australian side of the early naughties, who held the greatest wicket-keeper bat of all-time.

As a general rule, it works, though, IMO. A player that really is an ATG would be able to break into the West Indian sides even if they were a fast bowler.

[vic_orthdox]

An ATG for me, has to have that something extra that separates himself from the "mortals" of the game, often intangible. Lara and Tendulkar both had it, and yet Steve Waugh for much of the 1990s was as good a batsman as them. But for me, the first two will be in the top bracket, and SW wouldn't.

It's the type of thing that gives people the inclination to put Barry Richards up there, in spite of his lack of Test matches; the group of "ATG" for me did things that most people wouldn't even try, or couldn't comprehend doing.

[kyear2]

Why isn't Waugh seen as an ATG though, my only guess is that he was seen as a fighter and match saver while Lara and co. were seen as a match winner. Coincidentally though Sachin is seen neither but rather a gatherer (though a beautiful one) of runs and records, but has done it better than anyone else ever has.

[Monk]

Originally Posted by kyear2

Why isn't Waugh seen as an ATG though, my only guess is that he was seen as a fighter and match saver while Lara and co. were seen as a match winner. Coincidentally though Sachin is seen neither but rather a gatherer (though a beautiful one) of runs and records, but has done it better than anyone else ever has.

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.

[kyear2]

Think Waugh is ahead of Harvey though. Awful close either way.

[doesitmatter]

Originally Posted by kyear2

Why isn't Waugh seen as an ATG though, my only guess is that he was seen as a fighter and match saver while Lara and co. were seen as a match winner. Coincidentally though Sachin is seen neither but rather a gatherer (though a beautiful one) of runs and records, but has done it better than anyone else ever has.

Lara has as much match winning innings as Tendulkar has and that is one(153* and 103*)..Its just a myth that Lara is a matchwinner..Great Great Player absolutely no doubt

[Monk]

Originally Posted by kyear2

Think Waugh is ahead of Harvey though. Awful close either way.

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.

[kyear2]

Waugh maybe, but not Border or Ponting for sure, the bolwers that Border had to face and what he did for Australian cricket and Ponting has done it better for longer.

[Monk]

Originally Posted by kyear2

Waugh maybe, but not Border or Ponting for sure, the bolwers that Border had to face and what he did for Australian cricket and Ponting has done it better for longer.

This is only my opinion, and they're all great players, but in any conditions (including some terrible pitches), against any opposition (pace or spin), I'd take Harvey to bat to save/win a game over both Ponting and Border.

I agree absolutely on the opposition Border had to face being tougher than most.

And I agree that Ponting is probably the most dangerous Australian batsman in a long time. Only criticism of Ponting is that he is gold against pace, perhaps a bit suss against good spin bowlers.

Anyway, splitting hairs to compare, so it mostly comes down to personal opinions on what is most important I guess.