The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[sobers no:1]

Originally Posted by Jager

Why is Viv considered greater than Greg Chappell? Because he was more spectacular? Personally I disagree with that.

1. viv , gavaskar > chappell

this is general view of experts . i think


is this similar to
2. sachin , lara > ponting

[Monk]

Originally Posted by sobers no:1

1. viv , gavaskar > chappell

this is general view of experts . i think


is this similar to
2. sachin , lara > ponting

Dunno if it's the view of experts. Maybe it's the opinion of trolls from India trying to bait Australians?

[Satyanash89]

Originally Posted by sobers no:1

1. viv , gavaskar > chappell

this is general view of experts . i think


is this similar to
2. sachin , lara > ponting

Not sure many experts would explicitly state gavaskar>chappell. Gavaskar is very highly rated as one of the greatest openers of all time. That doesnt necessarily mean he's rated above Chappell.

Personally think Chappell was better than Gavaskar by quite some distance

[MrPrez]

Genuine question here:

Why is SRT an automatic choice into a world XI, while Jacques Kallis is completely ignored despite being statistically better than him even whilst carrying the added burden of pace bowling? I know some will say "it's beyond stats" or something like that but is is really? Has Sachin not been overhyped due to his massive fanbase?

An interesting debate would be that, given that Sobers could be given the bowling in an ATG team, would a pure-batsman Kallis not be an even greater asset with the bat than he has been in his career whilst bogged down with the ball?

And finally, is Kallis seen as worse than SRT, Ponting and Lara because he is less exciting a player?

[Monk]

Sachin's consistency against everyone, everywhere, is a big selling point. The guys has never been mediocre against anyone, anywhere. Against all opponents, in all conditions. He is a brilliant batsman to watch, and probably the most "technically complete" batsman I've ever seen. I think that accounts for his success everywhere.

Massively overhyped by his Indian fan-base, sure. But an absolute champion.

[Satyanash89]

Originally Posted by MrPrez

Genuine question here:

And finally, is Kallis seen as worse than SRT, Ponting and Lara because he is less exciting a player?

Yup, undoubtedly. And its something i fully support actually. Lara, Sachin and Ponting at their peaks changed the course of games in breathtaking fashion, something which players like Kallis, Dravid etc couldnt. For people who value aesthetics, flair players will be rated higher if they have comparable records.
I dont mean to demean Kallis at all...,i think he's a legend and if someone picks him over the mentioned three i wouldnt argue, but personally, id have him just below those three for the generation.

[sobers no:1]

Originally Posted by Monk

Dunno if it's the view of experts. Maybe it's the opinion of trolls from India trying to bait Australians?

espn legends
gavaskar ranked no:10
chappel 16 / 17..??

gavaskar hailed as greatest opener / greatest modern era batsman by few
never heard anythng like tht on chappel

hobbs > chappel = general view
gavaskar arguably equal / better to hobbs

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by Jager

That's a matter of opinion. Can you please top making statements like they're fact?

kyear2 has this terrible habit of doing this time and again.

A conversation with kyear2 goes like this

FAST BOWLING CONVERSATION

poster x: For bowlers playing over 50 tests the averages are really close and a lot of avid cricket followers think that Lillee is the greatest fast bowler ever to play the game.
kyear2: The avid followers are pathetically biased

poster x: Why do you say that?
kyear2: Because Sobers is the greatest all rounder ever to play the game.

poster x: But we were discussing fast bowlers. Why do you think the so called experts and followers are heavily biased?
Kyear2: Because Marshall is the greatest fast bowler ever to play the game.

poster x: You make that sound like a fact. Do you have any reasons.
Kyear2: Marshall played in the greatest cricket team ever.

poster x: You pass that around like another fact. Do you have any reasons.
kyear2: That is my opinion. I don't need to give reasons.



poster x:

[Satyanash89]

Originally Posted by Monk

Sachin's consistency against everyone, everywhere, is a big selling point. The guys has never been mediocre against anyone, anywhere. Against all opponents, in all conditions. He is a brilliant batsman to watch, and probably the most "technically complete" batsman I've ever seen. I think that accounts for his success everywhere.

Massively overhyped by his Indian fan-base, sure. But an absolute champion.

Nailed it. He's one of the most aesthetically pleasing batsmen ever, with as complete and flawless a record as you can hope for. It may be unfair to state these reasons to say he's better than Kallis, who is probably equally if not more effective, but its how most people think

[MrPrez]

But that's just bollocks. Most entertaining and best batsman are two separate accolades. You should be selecting for an ATG team based on who the superior batsman is. Basically what you're saying is that because SRT is better to watch, he should make an ATG team? So you're basically saying aesthetics is more important than performance in determining the best player of all time.

[MrPrez]

It just sounds a bit like those lacking in cricket knowledge saying "OK, Steyn is the best in the world, and then Lasith Malinga is second. Why? Because he's awesome to watch."

Obviously that's an extreme example, but you get my point.

[Satyanash89]

Originally Posted by MrPrez

But that's just bollocks. Most entertaining and best batsman are two separate accolades. You should be selecting for an ATG team based on who the superior batsman is. Basically what you're saying is that because SRT is better to watch, he should make an ATG team? So you're basically saying aesthetics is more important than performance in determining the best player of all time.

way to go...completely missed the point.
First of all, i clearly said aesthetics come into the picture only if batsmen have comparable records, which these four do. Theres little to choose between them stats wise. Its totally subjective too so theres no point arguing this
Secondly, Sachin, lara and Ponting could change gears and do both the defensive and attacking jobs superbly and demonstrated that on numerous occasions. Kallis while as effective as them in terms of stats cant quite counter-attack as effectively as them which makes him less versatile in my opinion. Arguable, but i stick by what i said. Kallis.is magnificent but Lara, Sachin and Punter better batsmen for the reasons stated above

[The Sean]

Originally Posted by sobers no:1

espn legends
gavaskar ranked no:10
chappel 16 / 17..??

gavaskar hailed as greatest opener / greatest modern era batsman by few
never heard anythng like tht on chappel

hobbs > chappel = general view
gavaskar arguably equal / better to hobbs

Falling back on the opinion of experts to back you up is a little strange given where you rank Bradman.

[sobers no:1]

Originally Posted by Satyanash89

way to go...completely missed the point.
First of all, i clearly said aesthetics come into the picture only if batsmen have comparable records, which these four do. Theres little to choose between them stats wise. Its totally subjective too so theres no point arguing this
Secondly, Sachin, lara and Ponting could change gears and do both the defensive and attacking jobs superbly and demonstrated that on numerous occasions. Kallis while as effective as them in terms of stats cant quite counter-attack as effectively as them which makes him less versatile in my opinion. Arguable, but i stick by what i said. Kallis.is magnificent but Lara, Sachin and Punter better batsmen for the reasons stated above

well said.

four ?? not dravid ??

[Satyanash89]

Originally Posted by MrPrez

It just sounds a bit like those lacking in cricket knowledge saying "OK, Steyn is the best in the world, and then Lasith Malinga is second. Why? Because he's awesome to watch."

Obviously that's an extreme example, but you get my point.

Awful example. Atleast pick two cricketers whose achievements over their careers are equally impressive. Not one ATG and a mediocre at best cricketer FFS