The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[L Trumper]

Originally Posted by The Sean

Overall, I'd rank them in that order. However if you guaranteed me I was getting them on their very best day then I'd take Lara no question.

Same for me.

Also kyear2, I don't think Chappell is under rated on CW. It is probably Viv, Chappell, Gavaskar, Border etc. in that order, not many disputes there.

[centurymaker]

Originally Posted by MrPrez

You're seriously saying he wasn't great until 2010?!?!?!

he wasn't recognized as an ALL time great until around 2010. (he had been under-rated for some time because of his style)

[centurymaker]

Originally Posted by MrPrez

He most certainly did not singlehandedly carry the Indian batting line-up. Azharuddin, Laxman, Ganguly, Dravid are a few names that pop into one's mind.

The time debate is also nullifiable by Kallis having the extra burden of bowling 140kph pace alongside being the key batsman in his team.

But read above - I'm not trying to say Kallis is BETTER than SRT. Just that they are of the same tier. The rest comes down to subjective opinion based on other facts.

when did the so called laxman, dravid, ganguly really start performing i.e. turn into very good batsmen??
not until around 2000.
Before that it was just tendulkar and azhar really.
The kallis of last few yrs is clearly better than the one before. He just wasn't at the same level for long time.

[Monk]

Originally Posted by sobers no:1

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.. )

Can you please quote the experts who have specifically said Gavaskar was greater than Chappell? With a reference?

And your opinion on Bradman is absolutely and utterly ridiculous. What an absolute crock of crap. So, Bradman, who averaged 100 in one particular era, would average "50+" now, but Hammond who played in basically the same era as Bradman and averaged 50 something, would still average "50+" now?

How the **** could you possibly justify that assumption that would be in anyway logical?

[harsh.skm]

Originally Posted by Monk

Can you please quote the experts who have specifically said Gavaskar was greater than Chappell? With a reference?

And your opinion on Bradman is absolutely and utterly ridiculous. What an absolute crock of crap. So, Bradman, who averaged 100 in one particular era, would average "50+" now, but Hammond who played in basically the same era as Bradman and averaged 50 something, would still average "50+" now?

How the **** could you possibly justify that assumption that would be in anyway logical?

I love how Monk has gone ape-**** on the "argument" here. My thinking has always been that Bradman would have definitely been a 75+ averaging batsman in any era. More, definitely possible, but not less.

And I think the reason some people might think Gavaskar to be a better batsman than Chappell may be because when the past players and experts describe the best batsmen of that era, they name the best attacking batsman, i.e. Viv, and then the best defensive batsman, i.e. Gavaskar, and do not mention that the second best attacking batsman, i.e. Chappell was better than Gavaskar.

[Coronis]

The bowling rankings of the world after Grimmett's last test >_>

[watson]

Originally Posted by The Sean

Overall, I'd rank them in that order. However if you guaranteed me I was getting them on their very best day then I'd take Lara no question.

Is there another type of day? Obviously all the players in an ATG XI are assumed to be in the best form of their respective careers.

It is nonsensical to suppose that any batsman could be both in-form and out-of-form at exactly the same time when walking out to bat. Or to put it another way, Lara cannot be the the Brain Lara of 1990 and 2006 similtaneously.

When batting at the crease for an ATG XI Brain Lara can only be the Brian Lara from a singular date. Maybe - March 30th 1999. On that date his form was good enough to score153 not out at the Kensington Oval and 'single handedly' defeat Steve Waugh's team.

[The Sean]

Originally Posted by watson

Is there another type of day? Obviously all the players in an ATG XI are assumed to be in the best form of their respective careers.

It is nonsensical to suppose that any batsman could be both in-form and out-of-form at exactly the same time when walking out to bat. Or to put it another way, Lara cannot be the the Brain Lara of 1990 and 2006 similtaneously.

When batting at the crease for an ATG XI Brain Lara can only be the Brian Lara from a singular date. Maybe - March 30th 1999. On that date his form was good enough to score153 not out at the Kensington Oval and 'single handedly' defeat Steve Waugh's team.

Ok Watson.

I reckon it's pretty clear what I meant but knock yourself out anyway.

[harsh.skm]

Originally Posted by watson

Is there another type of day? Obviously all the players in an ATG XI are assumed to be in the best form of their respective careers.

It is nonsensical to suppose that any batsman could be both in-form and out-of-form at exactly the same time when walking out to bat. Or to put it another way, Lara cannot be the the Brain Lara of 1990 and 2006 similtaneously.

When batting at the crease for an ATG XI Brain Lara can only be the Brian Lara from a singular date. Maybe - March 30th 1999. On that date his form was good enough to score153 not out at the Kensington Oval and 'single handedly' defeat Steve Waugh's team.

Or when selecting players for the ATG XIs, we do not know which version of the player will walk out, the 99 or the 06 one. So we select players who we know had more good days than bad ones, i.e. who were much more consistent than the others.

[watson]

Originally Posted by harsh.skm

Or when selecting players for the ATG XIs, we do not know which version of the player will walk out, the 99 or the 06 one. So we select players who we know had more good days than bad ones, i.e. who were much more consistent than the others.

Good point oh-harsh-one

BTW your monkey head avatar thingo freaks me out every time

[harsh.skm]

Yeah, freaked me out too. So I thought I would share the pleasure with you guys

[The Sean]

Originally Posted by harsh.skm

Or when selecting players for the ATG XIs, we do not know which version of the player will walk out, the 99 or the 06 one. So we select players who we know had more good days than bad ones, i.e. who were much more consistent than the others.

Yeah this is basically it, give or take.

So in the example sited - on balance over the course of his career, under all circumstances and against all opposition, I think Tendulkar is the greatest batsman of his generation and I would take him over Lara, Ponting or anyone else of the modern era in an All Time XI. BUT if we are talking just in terms of their absolute singular one-off peaks - like the best day or innings batting any of them could possibly produce - then personally I would put Lara at the top of the pile.

[centurymaker]

Originally Posted by harsh.skm

Yeah, freaked me out too. So I thought I would share the pleasure with you guys

could you please take it off, it's revolting.

[kyear2]

I was always under the impression that while players are chosen on ghe basis of their whole career, they are choosen at their very best, for example Marshall cica '83- '84, Viv '76 or Hobbs before the war.

[watson]

Originally Posted by kyear2

I was always under the impression that while players are chosen on ghe basis of their whole career, they are choosen at their very best, for example Marshall cica '83- '84, Viv '76 or Hobbs before the war.

I judge a player over his whole career out of fairness. If a player like Curtly Ambrose was great from the beginning of his career to the end of the career then he deserves to be in the ATG side ahead of Jeff Thomson. This is despite the fact that for about 2 years in the mid-70s Thomo was palpably the better fast bowler. As a couple of dozen English and West Indian batsman would testify.

However, when things are roughly equal, as in Tendulkar V Lara, then I am going to gravitate toward Lara because on his 'good days' he was truly stunning.