The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[doesitmatter]

if Benaud is there Qadir and Chandra has to be there IMO..

[8ankitj]

Originally Posted by Monk

Sachin is only considered the best because 40 trillion Indians with internet are adamant he is. In reality, you can't split them easily.

What cracks me up is that same argument doesn't get applied to someone like Shane Warne. What is that word that starts with 'h' ?

[Jager]

Originally Posted by 8ankitj

What cracks me up is that same argument doesn't get applied to someone like Shane Warne. What is that word that starts with 'h' ?

Just can't understand people who don't rate Tendulkar at least Lara's equal.

[Monk]

Originally Posted by 8ankitj

What cracks me up is that same argument doesn't get applied to someone like Shane Warne. What is that word that starts with 'h' ?

Hypocrisy? I don't think I was being hypocritical. My point was that so many Indians inundate internet discussions saying how good he is, that weight of numbers sway things towards him being considered above the others.

I saw a cricinfo article once on the greatest left handed batsmen of history. So naturally, Lara, Sobers, Pollock, Harvey, Sangakkara etc were discussed. In the comments section (I kid you not), there were about 45 comments along the lines of "what, no Tendulkar", or "where's Sachin?"

If someone says to me, "I rate Murali above Warne", I don't argue the point with them. That's fair enough. As is saying "Tendulkar is better than Lara". But neither are clear cut.

[Eds]

Kallis isn't in the same class as Tendulkar or Lara, but it'd be more than harsh to group him with Dravid (however likeable the latter may be).

[kyear2]

To a large part I agree, one has to dig or nit pick to separate them. With Lara vs Sachin it's sachins consisrentcy, Warne vs Murali, it's mural's difference btwn home and away stats and total of matches vs the minnows. Most would disagree but that is how i separate them.

[Mike5181]

Originally Posted by kyear2

To a large part I agree, one has to dig or nit pick to separate them. With Lara vs Sachin it's sachins consisrentcy, Warne vs Murali, it's mural's difference btwn home and away stats and total of matches vs the minnows. Most would disagree but that is how i separate them.

Yeah, Murali has 176 wickets vs minnows. Warne has 17. Their records are pretty similar against non-minnows.

[watson]

The fearsome fifteen: a look at the great bowlers

....It does not matter which route is taken, be it the high road or low road, be it the country road or the highway, be it the scenic route or the road through the concrete jungle, there is only one destination. The one which proclaims Muralitharan as the best amongst the equals. Let no one forget the X-factor here, the impact Muralitharan has had on Sri Lankan cricket. Glenn McGrath comes in next, a well-deserved place for this outstanding metronome. Richard Hadlee, the legendary fast bowler from down under clocks in the third position. Malcolm Marshall, that fearsome Bajan fast bowling "giant" is in fourth position, closely followed by the other Caribbean giant, this time physically also, Curtley Ambrose.

Imran Khan follows next, a well-deserved position for this wonderful bowler, batsman and born leader of men, despite playing in quite a few tests as a batsman. Dennis Lillee, one of the all-time greats, follows next. He is the highest placed bowler who does not lead in any category. Alan Donald is in seventh position, closely followed by the other West Indian giant, Joel Garner. Now comes Shane Warne, a well-deserved top-10 position for this magician.

It Figures | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

According to this limited study the order of preference is;

01. Murali
02. McGrath
03. Hadlee
04. Marshall
05. Ambrose
06. Imran
07. Lillee
08. Donald
09. Garner
10. Warne

[NUFAN]

I started watching cricket in the 90s and think this team is gun to watch XI

1. Michael Slater
2. Graeme Smith
3. Ricky Ponting
4. Brian Lara
5. Mark Waugh
6. Kumar Sangakarra
7. Adam Gilchrist
8. Shane Warne
9. Dale Steyn
10. Curtly Ambrose
11. Glenn McGrath

[Eds]

Originally Posted by watson

The fearsome fiftteen: a look at the great bowlers

Hm. I'd go for:

01. M Marshall
02. S Warne
03. C Ambrose
04. G McGrath
05. M Muralitharan
06. R Hadlee
07. I Khan
08. D Lillee
09. S Barnes
10. M Holding

[Jager]

Originally Posted by NUFAN

I started watching cricket in the 90s and think this team is gun to watch XI

1. Michael Slater
2. Graeme Smith
3. Ricky Ponting
4. Brian Lara
5. Mark Waugh
6. Kumar Sangakarra
7. Adam Gilchrist
8. Shane Warne
9. Dale Steyn
10. Curtly Ambrose
11. Glenn McGrath

Surprised to see Martyn omitted and Smith making an appearance - hideous technique the big fella has.

[Mike5181]

Originally Posted by NUFAN

I started watching cricket in the 90s and think this team is gun to watch XI

1. Michael Slater
2. Graeme Smith
3. Ricky Ponting
4. Brian Lara
5. Mark Waugh
6. Kumar Sangakarra
7. Adam Gilchrist
8. Shane Warne
9. Dale Steyn
10. Curtly Ambrose
11. Glenn McGrath

1.
2.
3. Ricky Ponting
4. Brian Lara
5. Mark Waugh
6. Damien Martyn/Mohammad Yousuf
7. Adam Gilchrist
8. Christopher Cairns
9. Shane Warne
10. Dale Steyn
11. Shane Bond

Can't think of many openers I really enjoyed watching. Hadyn, I guess.

[Mike5181]

Originally Posted by Jager

Surprised to see Martyn omitted and Smith making an appearance - hideous technique the big fella has.

Beat me to it. Martyn was awesome to watch.

[kyear2]

Originally Posted by JBMAC

Bit rough leaving out Bishen Bedi in that bottom lot

Who would you have left out?

[kyear2]

Originally Posted by JBMAC

Bit rough leaving out Bishen Bedi in that bottom lot

Originally Posted by watson

The fearsome fiftteen: a look at the great bowlers



According to this limited study the order of preference is;

01. Murali
02. McGrath
03. Hadlee
04. Marshall
05. Ambrose
06. Imran
07. Lillee
08. Donald
09. Garner
10. Warne

No Linwall and no Holding tends to weaken and any bowler comparrisons for me. This is why stats are a strong guideline and not an absolute (still not an avenue for Larwood fans) Some of the ratings catergories that I don't think that are representative and eequired in such an analysis are total wickets (punishes great players with shorter careers), % of team load and team peer comparrisons (punishes players on good teams).
Catergories that show quality of players. Strike Rate, Accureatecy, Away Average (especially in comparrison to home average), % of top order wickets, total peer comparrisons and performance in matches won (what cricket is all about).