The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Bolo.]

1. Sachin
2. Lara
3. Ponting
4. Kallis
5. Sanga

Is this the general consensus on players who played from 1990-2010?

This is probably the general compromise concensus, but you would likely struggle to find a single person who agrees with the exact order.

For my money, I dont really care where you rank them after Sachin, but I think HTBs get overrated. Ie. needs more Steve Waugh. Either kick Sanga off the list, and include Waugh, or make it 90 to 2015 and include Waugh in a group of 6.

 

[Coronis]

Whoa whoa whoa no way is Steve Waugh in that second tier of players.

Sachin

Waugh
Lara

(small margin)

Ponting
(very small margin)
Sanga
Kallis
Dravid

Case for Ponting to be in the first tier to be honest - his peak certainly demands it, but he made merry in the 2000s (as did many of the second tier) which was notoriously more batting friendly (and Sachin, who was still around then, was a very different batsman by that point and nowhere near his 90s best).

Lara was the best on his day. Ponting the best peak maybe (certainly raw numbers wise). Sachin the most consistent throughout and could (and did) play a number of different roles (more attacking in the 90s, more of an accumulator in the 00s), Waugh the most gritty.

Idk I think Sanga runs him very close or surpasses him on peak numbers. Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

This is probably the general compromise concensus, but you would likely struggle to find a single person who agrees with the exact order.

For my money, I dont really care where you rank them after Sachin, but I think HTBs get overrated. Ie. needs more Steve Waugh. Either kick Sanga off the list, and include Waugh, or make it 90 to 2015 and include Waugh in a group of 6.

Idk if calling Sanga a HTB is fair. He averages over 50 away, over 60 in 4 other countries and over 40 in England. Also something I was previously unaware of, he does average 40+ against every opposition.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Idk I think Sanga runs him very close or surpasses him on peak numbers. Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com



Idk if calling Sanga a HTB is fair. He averages over 50 away, over 60 in 4 other countries and over 40 in England. Also something I was previously unaware of, he does average 40+ against every opposition.

He wasn't an htb at all but I'd say his overall stats are helped considerably by the fact that a massive proportion of his matches (almost three quarters) were played in the subcontinent. Also like murali got to bash Bangladesh a lot more than most players.

Rate him very highly though, only behind Sachin and Lara and maybe Ponting for that era imo.

 

[Bolo.]

I'm not picking Sanga out for being a notable htb, but rather because his peak happened after 2010. He was something of a htb, and a notable fair weather bully though, which Kallis (the only guy not named Sachin in that 5 who wasnt a htb) also suffers from.

Everybody from 2-6 has some horrible holes in their careers, and I dont mean just something specific like record in x country- i am including the things that are really hard to measure through traditional cricket stats.

 

[Slifer]

We all agree that Sachin was probably the best of his generation but let's not pretend like he doesn't have holes as well. For example as bad as Lara stunk it up vs Donald and the 2 Ws, Sachin also averaged in the 30s overall vs said bowlers. Yes he made hundreds vs them but he was still an overall mediocre vs said bowlers. Sachin unlike Lara played more than a handful of tests vs Zimbabwe/Bangladesh. I see people all the time bashing poor Murali for this but Murali isn't the only player who capitalized on playing these much weaker attacks. Sachin imo, also doesn't really have what I would call an atg great series vs an atg attack. Steve waugh has the odyssey in the wi in 95 and 99, lara has Australia 99, kallis imo had his vs wi in 98 when wi got white washed etc.

So yeah sachin was the most consistent but he has his holes as well and isn't inarguably the best of his generation (in tests).

 

[OverratedSanity]

I certainly wouldn't call what Tendulkar did against Donald or especially the Ws mediocre unless you just look at averages. He played two series against them, one when he was 16 and he made a match saving fifty and once in 1999 when he made one of the greatest 4th innings tons and didn't get out to the Ws even once because it was saqlain getting him out.

 

[Red]

And I don't think Symonds was ever good enough to consistenly bowl 10 overs in ODIs, forget an ATG ODI XI. .

What a load of bollocks. Symonds regularly bowled 10 overs in a game. He'd have regularly bowled ten apart from the fact that we had two all rounders most of that time (Symonds and Watson). His actual average overs per game was 6.

I cbf typing them out, but go thru the times Symonds bowled quite a few overs. He was almost always tidy, and regularly took wickets.

Bowling records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

 

[Slifer]

Averaging 30 odd is not good or great it's mediocre. It's the same measure we've been using to punch holes in the records of ponting, lara, Waugh etc. Sachin as good as he was shouldn't get some special treatment.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Averaging 30 odd is not good or great it's mediocre. It's the same measure we've been using to punch holes in the records of ponting, lara, Waugh etc. Sachin as good as he was shouldn't get some special treatment.

Yeah and the measure is stupid contextless garbage just like I've been saying. It shouldn't blindly be used against anyone.

 

[Red]

I don't think they were tough conditions on the field for players from Australia back then tbh. The Indian attack was pretty ordinary tbh and Chappell was an awesome player of spin. Likewise with England in 81. I don't really know why he missed that tour, I think he may have had business interests but I cbf looking it up, but the point is he'd hardly missed out or struggled in England before. If he plays that series Australia wins it 3-1 or 4-0 tbh. Pakistan in 82-83 also a weird one. He toured there in 79/80 and made nearly 400 runs at 80*, so it isn't like he couldn't play there. The decks there were regarded as pretty flat back then.

I suspect, but have no way of knowing for sure, that he missed England because he was mentally shattered in 81, even though he didn't admit it. I also think he missed India because he would have heard a thousand stories from team mates that it was a ****hole to tour back then. Those stories were rife after the 1969-70 tour.




*Famously overshadowed by TOTAB who made 395 at 131, including 150 in each dig of the first test. The first man to do so.

Both Chappells were pretty fierce advocates for players' rights. G.Chappell in particular seemed susceptible to quite severe mental fatigue and burnout, or mental health issues (which, ironically, would today be applauded as a brave stance but seems to be still looked at retrospectively with criticism).

But I think some of Chappell's missed tours were a **** you to the Australian Cricket Board of the time. Both Chappells had approached the board (both Australiand and state) prior to WCS in an attempt to set up better player payments and superannuation for cricketers, but these requests were dismissed. They were fed up with the board and having to go away from family and business for months for little renumeration. Players were poorly paid.

Most modern cricketers and cricket supporters would do well to say a massive thank you to the Chappells for what they did for player rights.

 

[Red]

That’s because, like all Australians, despite pretending to be alpha male, they’re all weak. “Mentally shattered” for ****s sake man up. Imagine what would have happened to him if he had to deal with the pressure of a billion people instead of some bratty Aussies.

This is an appalling post. For so many reasons. And no surprises as to which posters have liked it.

 

[Slifer]

Yeah and the measure is stupid contextless garbage just like I've been saying. It shouldn't blindly be used against anyone.

??????

 

[Red]

You can close this thread and start 2 new ones for each format.

That would suit my undiagnosed and possibly non-existent OCD better than having a "Tests only" thread that also had posts about ODIs for its first 13,000 posts.

Threads that are correctly named originally and then re-named later so suit new posts and not old posts have always been a bit a bug bear of mine. Few things worse IMO than opening a thread called "Somethingsomething 2019" and the first post was made in 2013 about something that happened in 2012.

I vehemently object to my thread being closed for the sake of people who want to discuss ODIs on a cricket forum.

 

[Red]

You can close this thread and start 2 new ones for each format.

Just close this thread.

Start a new thread as Part 2 of ATG thread.

Isn’t that much easier?

**** off.

 

[Burgey]

This is an appalling post. For so many reasons. And no surprises as to which posters have liked it.

I think it was liked by at least one solution architect. No surprise to anyone that someone who does that for a crust would buy into the wrong thing and then adopt an idiotic take on it anyway.

And as usual, the moderators do nothing.

 

[Bolo.]

Solution architect? I figured I gad already made it clear that I couldnt understand actual english in the other thread, and now you are are trying to hit me with this nebulous wiffle-waffle? Then again, you are a lawyer. I guess it cones naturally

 

[Burgey]

Bolo, I quite agree the term "solution architect" is a crock of ****. I believe it's someone who takes a ****load of things which actual smart people have developed and tries to make sure they all work with each other. They actually get paid to do it, instead of the industry within which they work actually designing things to be useful in the first place, you know, like real-world people have to in their lives. It's a sad indictment on the entire IT industry, but then, have a quick perusal of the posters on here who are in that line of work, and you get an idea of the low-brow folk attracted to it.

 

[TheJediBrah]

What a load of bollocks. Symonds regularly bowled 10 overs in a game. He'd have regularly bowled ten apart from the fact that we had two all rounders most of that time (Symonds and Watson). His actual average overs per game was 6.

I cbf typing them out, but go thru the times Symonds bowled quite a few overs. He was almost always tidy, and regularly took wickets.

Bowling records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

You're absolutely right about Symonds being a genuine 5th bowling option, and of course hb is utterly wrong in everything he says, however I feel like I have to point out that Watson and Symonds didn't really play together all that much, and most of Symonds' bowling especially was done before Watson earned a regular spot. For a fair chunk there it was Symonds and Clarke sharing the 5th bowling duties and Watson came along mostly when Symonds bowling was well and truly on the wane.

 

[stephen]

What a load of bollocks. Symonds regularly bowled 10 overs in a game. He'd have regularly bowled ten apart from the fact that we had two all rounders most of that time (Symonds and Watson). His actual average overs per game was 6.

I cbf typing them out, but go thru the times Symonds bowled quite a few overs. He was almost always tidy, and regularly took wickets.

Bowling records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

McGrath only bowled 8 overs and 4 balls per innings on average. 6 overs per match means a player is usually bowling around 8-10 and occasionally doesn't bowl due to rain or because the other bowlers ran through the opposition.

Saying that Symonds couldn't/ wouldn't bowl 10 overs regularly must come from not having watched him play much.

 

[vcs]

I don't think they were tough conditions on the field for players from Australia back then tbh. The Indian attack was pretty ordinary tbh and Chappell was an awesome player of spin. Likewise with England in 81. I don't really know why he missed that tour, I think he may have had business interests but I cbf looking it up, but the point is he'd hardly missed out or struggled in England before. If he plays that series Australia wins it 3-1 or 4-0 tbh. Pakistan in 82-83 also a weird one. He toured there in 79/80 and made nearly 400 runs at 80*, so it isn't like he couldn't play there. The decks there were regarded as pretty flat back then.

I suspect, but have no way of knowing for sure, that he missed England because he was mentally shattered in 81, even though he didn't admit it. I also think he missed India because he would have heard a thousand stories from team mates that it was a ****hole to tour back then. Those stories were rife after the 1969-70 tour.




*Famously overshadowed by TOTAB who made 395 at 131, including 150 in each dig of the first test. The first man to do so.

Ah yes, look at the man who calls countries **** holes as an excuse for players not touring getting uppity about likes. Spare me the fake outrage, Burgey.

Then again, it's not a surprise given the hotel room antics of your hero.