The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[smash84]

Agreed with Monk that Miller was a 50+ batsman - unfortunately he was also an ATG fast bowler which was bloody handy to the team

Miller was not even a 40+ batsman. Check his stats

 

[Jager]

Miller was not even a 40+ batsman. Check his stats

If he hadn't had to bowl

 

[Red]

Miller was not even a 40+ batsman. Check his stats

No, the original point was that if he hadn't been a pace bowler and had been in the side as a batsman only, his average would have been much higher.

Your friend Imran would be very similar I think.

 

[Dan]

If Miller had a good back and has a ruthless streak not dissimilar to Bradman's, he would have averaged 50 with the bat and 20 with the ball IMO. Freakishly talented guy.

He's be a statistician's dream if he didn't switch off when the game was well in hand.

 

[NUFAN]

If he hadn't had to bowl

He'd be playing Shield Cricket.

 

[Red]

He'd be playing Shield Cricket.

Premier or grade probably.

 

[Jager]

If Miller had a good back and has a ruthless streak not dissimilar to Bradman's, he would have averaged 50 with the bat and 20 with the ball IMO. Freakishly talented guy.

He's be a statistician's dream if he didn't switch off when the game was well in hand.

Awta

No, the original point was that if he hadn't been a pace bowler and had been in the side as a batsman only, his average would have been much higher.

Your friend Imran would be very similar I think.

Depends how you look at it. Imran only flowered as a batsman in his later years through a lot of hard work, and when his batting was flowering he was basically a specialist batsman anyway with a massively reduced workload bowling-wise, so I think his average is accurate.

I would never classify them in the same bracket talent wise - Miller was very attacking playing all bowlers "just slightly below the ball's merits that it scratches the bowler's ego" whereas Imran was more defensive, more of a match-saver.

 

[Red]

Depends how you look at it. Imran only flowered as a batsman in his later years through a lot of hard work, and when his batting was flowering he was basically a specialist batsman anyway with a massively reduced workload bowling-wise, so I think his average is accurate.

I would never classify them in the same bracket talent wise - Miller was very attacking playing all bowlers "just slightly below the ball's merits that it scratches the bowler's ego" whereas Imran was more defensive, more of a match-saver.

No doubt, Miller was a better batsman.

Keith Miller - ESPN Legends (PART 1 of 4) - YouTube

Class technique, beautiful to watch.

 

[smash84]

No doubt, Miller was a better batsman.

Keith Miller - ESPN Legends (PART 1 of 4) - YouTube

Class technique, beautiful to watch.

indeed.

But Imran definitely the better bowler

 

[Jager]

Just, definitely had tougher conditions in Pakistan to contend with... Imran and Miller

 

[vic_orthdox]

I don't think you could find many who would argue that Ponting/Border/Harvey is the second best batsman of all time. I like kyear's group, I think you could argue for any of them.

 

[Red]

I don't think you could find many who would argue that Ponting/Border/Harvey is the second best batsman of all time. I like kyear's group, I think you could argue for any of them.

You're right about Harvey, but he's a personal favourite of mine.

If Ponting had retired a few years ago, his legacy would have been much greater than it will be. There was a period in his career where he was unbelievable (from 1999-2006ish), and I believe he had the most successful and dominant run of 50 (?) tests as a batsman ever, apart from Bradman.

Border played in a brutal era and averaged 50 +. If you compare what he averaged in the 1980s to what his team-mates averaged, you can easily mount a case for him to be included alongside players like Tendulkar imo...

Allan Border still the greatest Australian batsman | Article | The Punch

 

[Jager]

Harvey and Compton are my two favourite batsmen for sure - both very similar in some ways, attacking geniuses who gradually declined after a sustained run of glory - but I'd probably put Compton a tiny fraction below kyear's list, with Harvey in there.

 

[kyear2]

You're right about Harvey, but he's a personal favourite of mine.

If Ponting had retired a few years ago, his legacy would have been much greater than it will be. There was a period in his career where he was unbelievable (from 1999-2006ish), and I believe he had the most successful and dominant run of 50 (?) tests as a batsman ever, apart from Bradman.

Border played in a brutal era and averaged 50 +. If you compare what he averaged in the 1980s to what his team-mates averaged, you can easily mount a case for him to be included alongside players like Tendulkar imo...

Allan Border still the greatest Australian batsman | Article | The Punch

Fully agree with Ponting, and as I stated is the closest to making the list and probably should. It's just the others definately should, if you understabd what I mean.
My objection.to Border is not what he did, but how he did it. He wasn't a natural match winner and had to pare back too much of his game to be who be became. He often played the anchor role, as a sort of Chanderpaul, but againts better bowling. He is an ATG, and.was invaluable to his team, but he wasn't the best after Bradman.

 

[smash84]

Fully agree with Ponting, and as I stated is the closest to making the list and probably should. It's just the others definately should, if you understabd what I mean.
My objection.to Border is not what he did, but how he did it. He wasn't a natural match winner and had to pare back too much of his game to be who be became. He often played the anchor role, as a sort of Chanderpaul, but againts better bowling. He is an ATG, and.was invaluable to his team, but he wasn't the best after Bradman.

yeah.....would probably bucket Border in the Miandad league

 

[vic_orthdox]

A lot of these players deserve to be compared to a guy or two in the group that kyear named. But they aren't in the argument, IMO, for the second best batsmen of all time.

For example, I think you can argue that Steve Waugh deserves to be put in the same bracket as Brian Lara in terms of what he achieved as a batsman, and their records as their careers overlapped. You won't find anyone arguing that he is the second best of all time.

 

[Jager]

People tend to view attacking flair as a sign of batting brilliance and therefore favour the more aggressive batsmen in these arguments, but all that matters in the long run is getting a swag of runs. I'm starting to sway away from the idea myself

 

[watson]

There's not much point in a 'swag of runs' if you don't have enough time to bowl the opposition out twice.

 

[kyear2]

My thoughts exactly. It also relieves pressure in run chases from the other batsmen.

 

[kyear2]

As I had said earlier I thought I had included Chappell and edited him in. When I look at some one to say that he is a legitimate contender for best after Bradman, they are all batsmen you can say is the second best batsman ever or at their best was the equal to the Don, as great as Border was, and he is in my AT Australia XI, I dont think that anyone can make the argument that he was the best ever or place in in an all time xi or the second team. Ponting is closer to that list and could make it. Again:

Greg Chappell, Graeme Pollock, Wally Hammond, George Headley, Viv Richards, Brian Lara, Garry Sobers, Sachin Tendulkar, Jack Hobbs, Barry Richards

The next level would include:
Ricky Ponting, Neil Harvey, Everton Weekes, Clyde Walcott, Javed Miandad, Kumar Sagakarra, Frank Worrell, Allan Border, Jacques Kallis, Ken Barrington, Sunil Gavaskar, Len Hutton.
Would also include the likes of Rohan Kanhai, Steve Waugh, Denis Compton, Clive Lloyd, Peter May, Rahul Dravid, Bobby Simpson, Gordon Greenidge and Inzamam Ul-Haq with this group.

One feature of the top tier is that they were all match winners, attacking batsmen that could destroy an attack and often did. As I said, Ponting, Harvey, Weekes, Walcott and Gavaskar are the closest to the top tier, but just (for me) missed out as it's harder to say unequivically that they were the second best ever. Border, Kallis, Barrington and Hutton though great, were not always attacking enough and had to lower their rate of scoring to be effective or that was just their natural speed (Hutton, Kallis) and were not natural match winners.

Made some additions to the second group. Too big now?