The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Muloghonto]

You could name twelve, and I could disagree on seven or eight or nine, but I don't know that it'll achieve much.

So we might as well, seeing as this is a forum...

Hmm, lets see: from mid 80s to early 2000s: Martin Crowe, Graham Thorpe, Mohd. Azharuddin, Sachin, Saurav, Laxman, Gibbs, Anwar, Inzamam, Saleem Malik, Gillchrist, Mark Waugh, Ponting, Carl hooper, Brian lara, Jayasurya, Aravinda deSilva, Viv, Haynes, Greenidge, Slater. Thats 20 i believe who were much harder to contain than Steve Waugh.

 

[the big bambino]

If you are not trying to make Hutton's point, then whats the point of saying Hutton knows more than me, when you are comparing your ancedote about Hutton to mine about Amre ?

I am saying Hutton is making Hutton's point. I am merely passing it on as it appeared in the book In celebration of cricket. Whereas you are just retailing a personal experience which can't even be verified. You can't prove you ever saw Amre play Nadkarni. I only accept your word that you have. Nevertheless your opinion, even then, can be discounted as your comment that Amre posssessed ATG skills v medium/spin attacks is contradicted by his stats.

Again I'm not offering an anecdotal experience. Hutton did and you are. I'm just making the decision his opinion is much better than yours. But don't worry. He'd have more cache than anyone on here. So stop fretting that you aren't as good a pundit as he.

 

[watson]

Anyone else reminded of the Monty Python 'Argument Clinic' sketch, or is it just me?

 

[Muloghonto]

I am saying Hutton is making Hutton's point. I am merely passing it on as it appeared in the book In celebration of cricket. Whereas you are just retailing a personal experience which can't even be verified. You can't prove you ever saw Amre play Nadkarni. I only accept your word that you have. Nevertheless your opinion, even then, can be discounted as your comment that Amre posssessed ATG skills v medium/spin attacks is contradicted by his stats.

Again I'm not offering an anecdotal experience. Hutton did and you are. I'm just making the decision his opinion is much better than yours. But don't worry. He'd have more cache than anyone on here. So stop fretting that you aren't as good a pundit as he.

You cannot use statistics to discount my point, simply because using test cricket as a sample, Amre simply did not play enough to correlate any data to a theory.
As i noted, if Jacques Kallis was discarded at a similar stage in his career as Amre, he would've merited comparisons with Mitchell Johnson the batsman.

You might want to take a few courses in statistics before getting into mindless numbers game, with no concept of what constitutes a valid statistical supposition and what does not.

 

[the big bambino]

The stats as they stand are contrary to your point. The fact there aren't many at test level argues against you even more convincingly. If Amre had the skills you mentioned he would have played more tests. He didn't bcos he couldn't. The counterpoint with Kallis is even more telling. No need to speculate "what if" about him. He did have the requisite skills and therefore made it - in contrast to Amre.

 

[Burgey]

Muloghonto plainly a fan of bright and breezy 30s. The sorts of knocks which lose you far more matches than they win.

 

[uvelocity]

You cannot use statistics to discount my point, simply because using test cricket as a sample, Amre simply did not play enough to correlate any data to a theory.
As i noted, if Jacques Kallis was discarded at a similar stage in his career as Amre, he would've merited comparisons with Mitchell Johnson the batsman.

You might want to take a few courses in statistics before getting into mindless numbers game, with no concept of what constitutes a valid statistical supposition and what does not.

look, i dont know who you think you are, and i hope i don't get in strife for this, but this guy was a first class cricketer, and i reckon he'd know a bit more than you. so zip it.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Tbf to him, he did say that he admires Waugh a great deal, has respect for his achievements and probably has a valid opinion. It's just that the manner in which he's chosen to put it forward thats annoyed everyone

 

[Dan]

look, i dont know who you think you are, and i hope i don't get in strife for this, but this guy was a first class cricketer, and i reckon he'd know a bit more than you. so zip it.

Did he ever captain his state? If so, perfect coincidence with his current title.

 

[honestbharani]

I don wanna take sides but it is perfectly possible that someone with ATG skills in one particular discipline and against one particular dimension, never got picked enough to show it at the international level. But then again, it also means that there is no real way to validate whether the skill the person in question had was in fact, ATG level or somewhere below, simply because he was never tested enough at the highest level. It is just opinion Vs opinion.

 

[marc71178]

You cannot use statistics to discount my point, simply because using test cricket as a sample, Amre simply did not play enough to correlate any data to a theory.

Didn't play enough = not good enough to play enough.

 

[the big bambino]

Basically. It aint rocket science.

 

[Muloghonto]

The stats as they stand are contrary to your point. The fact there aren't many at test level argues against you even more convincingly. If Amre had the skills you mentioned he would have played more tests. He didn't bcos he couldn't. The counterpoint with Kallis is even more telling. No need to speculate "what if" about him. He did have the requisite skills and therefore made it - in contrast to Amre.

1. Again, the stats as they stand, are irrelevant from a statistical point of view. This is mathematically indisputable, so I'd suggest you do not try to buttress your point by drawing insignificant numbers from the hat.

2. The fact that there arn't many at test level argues towards many things. One of them being, the test arena is *NOT* the complete arena of batsmanship that is intrinsically the objective of this thread. If you want to argue the point that a format that predominantly provides oppotunity to hunker down for a batsman, is the guage of whether a batsman is easy or hard to contain, then it shows the limited scope of your argument. Test cricket does not put an onus on the batsman to avoid getting contained.

3. Would've played more tests has many factors than simply, skills. To assume that every single cricketer who did not play many tests, is solely a factor of skill (and its inverse), would demonstrate a complete lack of awareness to many variables that otherwise impact selection of players.

4. I won't even begin to address the logical absurdity of the last two sentences of your post.

 

[Muloghonto]

Muloghonto plainly a fan of bright and breezy 30s. The sorts of knocks which lose you far more matches than they win.

Err no, i would appreciate if you asked me what i am a fan of, instead of presuming to speak on my behalf.
I am a fan of batsmanship. The total mastery a batsman can display in the process of scoring a mountain of runs. I am also in awe of the various mental skills demonstrated by limited sportsmen in their successful journeys to the top.
There is a difference between the two.

There is a place for Waugh in most teams in reality. Because in reality, alltime XIs do not happen ( no team has ever fielded 11 individuals simultaneously who can merit a case for their national XI) and the dogged fighter who plays his limited game to excellence, is worth his weight in gold. But in an alltime XI, particularly in a world context, Steve Waugh was *not* in the same league as several others, when it comes to total mastery of batsmanship- the ability to play every shot and multiple shots to many deliveries, along with scoring a mountain of runs.

 

[Muloghonto]

look, i dont know who you think you are, and i hope i don't get in strife for this, but this guy was a first class cricketer, and i reckon he'd know a bit more than you. so zip it.

I am someone who does a significant amount of mathematics for a living. A first class cricketer or not, his take on statistics is laughable.

 

[Muloghonto]

Didn't play enough = not good enough to play enough.

Not necessarily true.
One can argue that KP didn't play enough (assuming England do not renege on their proclamations). Hardly fits the bill of 'not good enough', since he's been, by a lightyear, the best English batsman for three decades at the very least. Just a simple demonstration of the logical fallacy of your comment.

 

[Muloghonto]

I don wanna take sides but it is perfectly possible that someone with ATG skills in one particular discipline and against one particular dimension, never got picked enough to show it at the international level. But then again, it also means that there is no real way to validate whether the skill the person in question had was in fact, ATG level or somewhere below, simply because he was never tested enough at the highest level. It is just opinion Vs opinion.

I have played against Amre. amongst many others. He was a wasted talent but cricket in India in the 80s was not strictly professional either: if you didnt make it to the national team, you still needed some form of income augumentation, aka reducing you to a part time cricketer or a seasonal cricketer at best.

 

[Flem274*]

Nah, this narcissist has a mean streak. Richard fapped to himself in the mirror, was always right and had some smugness but he pales in comparison to this bloke.

 

[Red]

Because in reality, alltime XIs do not happen ( no team has ever fielded 11 individuals simultaneously who can merit a case for their national XI) and the dogged fighter who plays his limited game to excellence, is worth his weight in gold. But in an alltime XI, particularly in a world context, Steve Waugh was *not* in the same league as several others, when it comes to total mastery of batsmanship- the ability to play every shot and multiple shots to many deliveries, along with scoring a mountain of runs.

Perhaps you could explain then, why for a significant amount of time (maybe 3 or 4 years), the three best batsmen in test cricket were Steve Waugh, Brian Lara and Sachin Tendulkar, with many astute judges saying Waugh was the best of the three?

Look, to say Steve Waugh isn't a contender for an all time world XI is probably fair (although I wouldn't begrudge someone that opinion at all), but to say he isn't a contender for Australia's all time XI is absurd, and basically offensive to a great batsman.

 

[Muloghonto]

Perhaps you could explain then, why for a significant amount of time (maybe 3 or 4 years), the three best batsmen in test cricket were Steve Waugh, Brian Lara and Sachin Tendulkar, with many astute judges saying Waugh was the best of the three?

Look, to say Steve Waugh isn't a contender for an all time world XI is probably fair (although I wouldn't begrudge someone that opinion at all), but to say he isn't a contender for Australia's all time XI is absurd, and basically offensive to a great batsman.

I am yet to hear a single astute judge say Waugh being the best of the three but he is the obvious third wheel in the great trinity of 90s batting.

I've already explained why Steve Waugh was not in Lara or Tendulkar's league. he scored as much as they did, atleast in one format (tests) but never quite had the same dominance as them in one dayers, where certain skills not mandatory in test success rise to the fore ( ability to dictate pace of the innings while scoring runs on a regular basis).
Why he was successful ? because limited as he was, he was great at shot selection. Had like 1 shot for a certain type of ball. Not 2 or three shots for many balls like many batsmen do. But, he was good at selecting his shots very well and sticking to his style of batting adroitly. Very rarely did Steve Waugh get out to a rash shot and there-in was his mantra to success.