Ticking off the boxes in the ATG quest - Bowlers

[NUFAN]

I know there is already several all time great threads, but I thought we could try something a little different.

I'm looking to see if we have enough interest where we work as a group to create a checklist of sorts that a Cricketer should be striving to accomplish to be considered an all time great. Obviously opinion will be divided, and of course the final list wont mean that everyone should follow this framework moving forward. I also ask that we don't get too specific to make the criteria suit your favourite player, so taking a Test hattrick at the Gabba in a draw will not make the list (although taking a hatty might).

I think we should be aiming at around 8 - 12 options.

I'm not exactly sure the best way to work this out but if people offer their own suggestions or expand on other ideas, we can then have some sort of vote.

To start it off, I'm going to nominate:

- A bowler must have a very dominate series. They need to take 6 or more wickets per Test at an average below 20. If the series is only 2 Tests, the average should drop to below 17.5 (I just think it is easier to do it over 2 Tests, compared to more.

 

[mr_mister]

I'm unhealthily interested in this kind of stuff. So count me in

 

[Howe_zat]

Can't agree. Be interested to hear the finished product but I really don't think you can come up with a list that can apply to everyone when there's such a variety of cricket having been played over the last 140 years. What someone has to do to be considered an all time great is win a ****load of matches, but who they're against, what competition they're in, what the expected scores are to compare your performance to and even what format they're in has changed too much.

 

[NUFAN]

Can't agree. Be interested to hear the finished product but I really don't think you can come up with a list that can apply to everyone when there's such a variety of cricket having been played over the last 140 years. What someone has to do to be considered an all time great is win a ****load of matches, but who they're against, what competition they're in, what the expected scores are to compare your performance to and even what format they're in has changed too much.

I agree. So what I am proposing is a checklist for current or aspiring test cricketers. Take Holland or Joseph for example: I don't think they are all time test greats yet but if they do x, y, 2, z, c, banana, g I think they might be.

 

[Prince EWS]

Can't agree. Be interested to hear the finished product but I really don't think you can come up with a list that can apply to everyone when there's such a variety of cricket having been played over the last 140 years. What someone has to do to be considered an all time great is win a ****load of matches, but who they're against, what competition they're in, what the expected scores are to compare your performance to and even what format they're in has changed too much.

I think my forum signature rules me out of this one too.

 

[Spikey]

- In the 1979-80 tour of Pakistan, they must average better than 100

 

[NUFAN]

I think my forum signature rules me out of this one too.

That's a shame as some of the things I know you like, for instance longevity and standardised average is up for discussion.

 

[Prince EWS]

That's a shame as some of the things I know you like, for instance longevity and standardised average is up for discussion.

The problem I have with checklist analyses is that they create a massive bias to well-roundedness despite well-rounded players not necessarily always being the best or most useful. A checklist requirement might say a bowler had to do X and Y to qualify, while a bowler who did 3X but not Y may be better and yet excluded.

 

[NUFAN]

The problem I have with checklist analyses is that they create a massive bias to well-roundedness despite well-rounded players not necessarily always being the best or most useful. A checklist requirement might say a bowler had to do X and Y to qualify, while a bowler who did 3X but not Y may be better and yet excluded.

Yep that's a good chance of happening. I want this to be an interesting discussion but I don't want the results to be locked in or anything. I think the majority of people on here will still hold there own opinion and if someone they rate checks off 8 from 10 boxes they still can be an ATG, we just need to look into them a little more, wheres ideally if someone does tick off all boxes (and we compile a suitable list of criteria) I would like to think that 99% of people would agree that they are a great.

So you may think what's the point then of doing this, which is fair enough. I just like the idea of seeing why some people think a particular person is not an all time great yet and when exactly they need to do to become one. For instance, in the period Kallis played, I held it against him for not having a double ton. I felt like when he finally reached 200 for the first time it was really hard to argue against him being an ATG bat and it could end up being a kind of fun thing to keep track of to see whether the player you like/hate has checked off all the boxes.

I've asked the question a few times on here.. What does player 1 have to do to be considered great or better than a former player. I think this may go some way in helping working things out.

 

[watson]

RULE: There must be a general consensus by cricket writers and columnists that a bowler is great during his career, and an ATG at the conclusion of his career. The consensus should not be restricted to any particular country but widely accepted throughout the cricketing community.

The following is the sort of review that you would expect to find in cricketing literature for an ATG bowler;

One of the trickiest questions is who the best bowler was I ever faced. Inevitably my mind turns to the West Indies quick men who gave me the most torrid times of my career. Trying to pick one out, given all their strengths and differences, is not easy but the palm would have to go to Malcolm Marshall. I was far from the only batsman of my generation who felt like that. And perhaps most persuasively of all, his West Indian peers rated him ever so highly. Andy Roberts and Michael Holding both conceded that he was probably the best. My respect and admiration for him was one of the reasons why in 1990 I joined Hampshire, where he had long been an established star –respect, admiration and an instinct for preservation that saw this as a sure-fire way to reduce the chances of me having to face his bowling.

David Gower

 

[Furball]

1. Be named Glenn McGrath
2. See number 1.

 

[Red]

- Success against (almost) all opponents in (almost) all conditions.

- 3.5+ wickets per test (was thinking 4 but it disallows Lindwall, Pollock and Botham)

- Long term consistency AND/OR an incredible purple patch for a reasonable amount of time (2-3 series)

 

[NUFAN]

RULE: There must be a general consensus by cricket writers and columnists that a bowler is great during his career, and an ATG at the conclusion of his career. The consensus should not be restricted to any particular country but widely accepted throughout the cricketing community.

The following is the sort of review that you would expect to find in cricketing literature for an ATG bowler;

Im happy to consider cricket writers opinions as a option. I dont think we should include the ATG part when the career finishes as id kind of like for us to identify when a player becomes an ATG, or is on ATG track during his playing days. The only

 

[Black_Warrior]

Does it change between fast bowlers and spinners? I would assume spinners won't average below 20 for most part.

 

[NUFAN]

- Success against (almost) all opponents in (almost) all conditions.

- 3.5+ wickets per test (was thinking 4 but it disallows Lindwall, Pollock and Botham)

- Long term consistency AND/OR an incredible purple patch for a reasonable amount of time (2-3 series)

Cheers and thanks watson for making a rule too. We need to work what is success. Is 7 wickets in 2 tests vs Zim @ 29.99 success or how about 41 wickets @ 31 in 10 vs the best batting lineup?

3.5 tests is fine.

For the long term consistency i was thinking anyone who averages under say 27.5 home and away across 3 consecutive calendar years is doing well. Youd have to put something in that they must play 60% of the countries tests.pakistan games at uae woukd be home for them and away for others. Does that average appear fair?

 

[NUFAN]

Does it change between fast bowlers and spinners? I would assume spinners won't average below 20 for most part.

Is this for my suggestion? I havent looked at past performances but it doesnt sound that impossible does it, just for a series.

 

[OverratedSanity]

1) Don't be Indian

 

[Black_Warrior]

Is this for my suggestion? I havent looked at past performances but it doesnt sound that impossible does it, just for a series.

Oh ok. I thought you meant overall. Yeah that sounds right.

 

[NUFAN]

1) Don't be Indian

That's covered by the success home and AWAY clause.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Nice