The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Satyanash89]

Originally Posted by sobers no:1

well said.

four ?? not dravid ??

Dravid below these four imo... same reason as Kallis. I love Dravid an unhealthy amount but i wont let that influence me

[MrPrez]

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 that's just nonsense. He can probably counter-attack better than all of them; it's just never been in his role description until recently. Anyone remember his 31 ball 50? I'd also be interested to know his strike-rate over the past few years. He was always the guy expected to anchor the innings, hence earning a reputation of being selfish and boring. With guys like Amla coming into prominence, he has been able to play with more freedom, and has proven that he isn't just a one trick pony.

I understand it's subjective, but I reckon Kallis gets the short end of the stick in that people genuine see the tiers as

SRT, Ponting, Lara
Kallis
Dravid

whereas for me Kallis should be in the first row of the above. I'm not saying he's definitively better than the other 3; I also don't feel he is definitively worse, which is often the gospel spoken.

[Monk]

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.

That's not what I said. I said he is great to watch, because he has a near flawless technique....which accounts for his success everywhere. Which is very different to "he's great because he's awesome to watch".

[MrPrez]

Originally Posted by Satyanash89

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

An extreme example as I stated but I can tell you a fair few people around the world would place Malinga above Anderson purely because he is more entertaining to watch. Which highlights my point of our attraction towards aesthetics influencing our judgement on the actual performance and ability of players, even if in other cases the statistics of the various players are much closer.

It's a silly example on purpose, so that I can highlight the argument I'm trying to provide clearly.

[MrPrez]

Originally Posted by Monk

That's not what I said. I said he is great to watch, because he has a near flawless technique....which accounts for his success everywhere. Which is very different to "he's great because he's awesome to watch".

I wasn't referring to you

[Satyanash89]

Originally Posted by MrPrez

Well that's just nonsense. He can probably counter-attack better than all of them;

Seriously? wow... i guess its your opinion, but that is a real stretch.

This is why i despise player comparison threads. When you use subjective opinion to say why you think a particular batsman is better/worse, people call it nonsense. Stat-wars should just decide every debate. ****

[MrPrez]

Originally Posted by Satyanash89

Seriously? wow... i guess its your opinion, but that is a real stretch.

This is why i despise player comparison threads. When you use subjective opinion to say why you think a particular batsman is better/worse, people call it nonsense. Stat-wars should just decide every debate. ****

Yes, it is my opinion. I'm not really going to go into it, but there it stands.

I'm not saying that you're wrong in saying that you rate SRT greater than Kallis, I'm just saying that basing your decision on prettiness as opposed to performance is wrong. Basically, I'm of the opinion that between SRT, Ponting and Kallis, there isn't enough to definitively say that one is better than the others. Subjectivity will always be rife in these sorts of debates, and I am purely fighting for Kallis to be seen as on the same pedestal as the likes of SRT and Ponting, as opposed to the general opinion which is "he's a bit below the other three."

[Satyanash89]

I didnt say its just "prettiness" FFS

Aargh... im out....

[sobers no:1]

Originally Posted by The Sean

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

i ws not bckng my opinion. all i said is gavaskar > chappell in experts opinion.

bradman case ( may be a blunder.. still )

extra ordinary stats / performances happens only if ther is lack of competitiveness
hobbs scored 7 centuries after 40 , SFB bowling stats , headley , merchant ... dhyanchand in hockey

if bradman was a batting god , there must nt b any flaws.. he has his own limitations.
played very carefully (evident in 6 sixes) , averaged below 20 (?) in sticky wickets.
hobbs , headley ..etc handled the situation much better manner
better professional approach than contemporaries.,
played for strongest team ( contrast to headley carreer) , less opponents , same conditions..
i think , he wd hv been reduced to 50+avg in modern days. tht doesnt mean hammond will b a 30+avg batsman. he will remain the same 50+.
this is my logic

(assumptions can go wrong.. )

[Satyanash89]

oh god, sobers no.1, stop

[akilana]

Come on mrprez, Sachin is defenitely a better batsman than Kallis. Stop arguing.

[centurymaker]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

Yeah this. Add in that fact he has been seen as a legend from the very early on in his career, you can see why he's hyped so much.
He carried india's batting almost singlehandedly for around 8 years. Unlike kallis, he did it in more aggressive fashion. His approach changed the momentum of the game. He took on the bowlers when necessary instead of going into a complete shell.
It's alot easier to play freely when you have likes of Amla, AB, Smith around you to share the burden and pressure of scoring or recently when India had sehwag, gambhir, tendulkar, laxman all performing together.
If he had even retired in 2002/03, he'd have gone down as one of the greatest ever because by then he had already achieved pretty much everything there was to achieve except a world cup win. Guys already had him in their All time first XIs back then.
So he's been a legend for much much longer than Kallis (has also played for 6 more yrs than kallis)
Most greats slowly attain greatness whereas the likes of tendulkar, lara attained it every early in their careers. (let's not even mention his ODI exploits here)

Overall, if you bring kallis' bowling into play, then there's a strong case for having him instead of tendulkar unless you have already got all-rounders in your side.

[MrPrez]

Originally Posted by akilana

Come on mrprez, Sachin is defenitely a better batsman than Kallis. Stop arguing.

In your opinion.

Statistically they played largely in the same time period, and averaged a similar amount. They are certainly of the same "tier" of batsmen, along with Lara and Ponting.

That's all I'm trying to argue here.

[centurymaker]

Originally Posted by MrPrez

Well that's just nonsense. He can probably counter-attack better than all of them; it's just never been in his role description until recently. Anyone remember his 31 ball 50? I'd also be interested to know his strike-rate over the past few years. He was always the guy expected to anchor the innings, hence earning a reputation of being selfish and boring. With guys like Amla coming into prominence, he has been able to play with more freedom, and has proven that he isn't just a one trick pony.

I understand it's subjective, but I reckon Kallis gets the short end of the stick in that people genuine see the tiers as

SRT, Ponting, Lara
Kallis
Dravid

whereas for me Kallis should be in the first row of the above. I'm not saying he's definitively better than the other 3; I also don't feel he is definitively worse, which is often the gospel spoken.

I didn't see him counter-attacking when he was the one responsible for carrying the side by himself.
He's only managed to attain greatness after Amla and co emerged. (around 2010)

[centurymaker]

Originally Posted by MrPrez

In your opinion.

Statistically they played largely in the same time period, and averaged a similar amount. They are certainly of the same "tier" of batsmen, along with Lara and Ponting.

That's all I'm trying to argue here.

averages mean everything now. god. i am going to end it here.