The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[trundler]

Still, it was Sunny's debut series & he played outstandingly well, especially in Trinidad. They were truly Earth-shattering knocks. And the bowling might not have stacked up to the WI pace quartets of later years, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a Test match standard bowling attack by any means. Just seems to be a crazy attempt at discrediting Gavaskar by rattling off the names of bowlers whom he didn't play against. Absolutely pointless.

Contributing to the first Indian win in the Caribbean is clearly inconsequential

 

[smash84]

Contributing to the first West Indian win in the Caribbean is clearly inconsequential

You mean Indian win in the west indies?

 

[trundler]

Ffs

 

[h_hurricane]

It was a path breaking series. India had won next to nothing anywhere prior to that. No test victories in WI, Eng or Aus let alone a test series.And then within the next 3-4 months, won a series in WI and England. Possibly the best 6 months in indian cricket history ever.

Nobody who saw Gavaskar then called him a flat track bully. In fact, Sir Garry Sobers rates him as the best batsman of his time. A bit generous may be (and the great man was known to be generous), but not an unfathomable opinion at all.

 

[trundler]

Well he was in the top 3 of his time. Would be like someone rating Ponting ahead of Lara end Tendulkar.

 

[honestbharani]

Niiice one trendy

 

[trundler]

Niiice one trendy

The famous trundle up

 

[stephen]

Haha but that's surely been my point from the very beginning.

Many people on this forum try and discredit Hayden's accomplishments by saying he couldn't play pace well, which stems largely from two tests against peak Ambrose when he was still green and the first four ashes tests in 2005 where he was coming off a period of 15 months without a hundred and still managed to make starts in most innings'.

The truth is that Gavaskar was an extremely talented batsman who despite having and excellent record can still have holes poked in it. Whether or not he's the greatest post- war opener or not is actually largely irrelevant. There is a lot of group think around it and while there is a lot of truth to the points I was exaggerating, he still managed 13 hundreds against the West Indies as they were emerging as the cricketing super power and 34 centuries in total.

So I decided to pick on the sacred cow to get my point across. Slicing and dicing any player can show them in a bad light. It's the people who say that Bradman never performed on a sticky wicket as though it counts against his genius.

Personally I'd have loved to see Hayden get picked regularly for Australia from 1997. He didn't get a real run in the Australian side until he was 30 which means we probably missed a good two or three years of his peak. He'd almost certainly have knocked off Gavaskar's record. I genuinely think that it wouldn't have taken much more for Hayden to have been seen as better than Gavaskar. It's insane that he scored 29 centuries in 81 tests over 8 years at an average of 58 (feb 2001 - feb 2008). If he'd retired a year earlier (age 38) or if you chop his first 7 tests off when he was not given any kind of run in the side he'd have averaged 53 overall. It's why I tend to rate him higher than Smith or Sehwag. Playing on for that extra year left him with an average that doesn't reflect how good he actually was and being picked and dropped sporadically over a 7 year period also doesn't show anything except that Australia had ridiculous depth of talent at the time.

Since I never really saw enough of Gavaskar's batting, and certainly not live, it's unfair for me to even compare him to Hayden, who I watched a ton of live. All I really have to go on are highlight reels, scorecards and word of mouth from those who played with and against him. It's basically the same with any player who's career happened before you were born.

What I have found disturbing is the revisionism that's been happening on the forum over the last couple of years. There really wasn't any serious debate that said Sehwag was better than Hayden until the last couple of years. Certainly nobody at the time who watched both careers thought it was the case, at least on this board. Hayden was way ahead of Sehwag as a batsman - technically, statistically (less hundreds, lower conversion rate, lower average and even less total runs) and temperamentally. I can only think that there's been a bunch of new Indian posters with nostalgia goggles on for Sehwag.

Anyway enough trolling and ranting for one day.

 

[harsh.ag]

Hahaha all well and good I was just trolling lol you kids

 

[jimmy101]

Anyway enough trolling and ranting for one day.

The SS Stephen is finally coming to rest.

 

[stephen]

My point is that players are often pigeon holed into being "a ftb" or "bad against pace/ spin". But the truth is that every player has holes in their record. If Hayden averaged overseas what he did at home he'd be regarded as better than Hobbs.

Similarly, I can discredit Gavaskar's record against the West Indies by pointing out...

Now this is a bad stat to use but Gavaskar got 5 player of the match awards in 125 tests.

It's a little of both. I really do think he's completely overrated and isn't the best post- war opener. But I'm also showing how stats can be picked apart quite easily.

(It's at this point I really start to troll harder)

I'll put serious mode on for a second. I do think Gavaskar is overrated. He's not unquestionably the best opener over the last 60 years. He certainly has a very strong case, but I definitely don't think it's unquestionable. I also think his batting against the West Indies is overplayed when taking him up. It's often cited as the reason he's so much better than everyone else. And it is a very good record, but like some of the early West Indian batsmen (Weekes in particular) his average is flattered by often not facing the best opposition that the country had to offer.

This wasn't Gavaskar's fault, much like the dearth of quality quicks wasn't Ponting or Hayden's fault between 2002 and 2007. The 71 West Indian attack was not very good and the Packer depleted 78 series in particular were not very string West Indian sides. Nor were the Packer depleted Aussie sides he faced.

Credit where credit is due, he was an exceptional batsman. But I can slice and dice his career to make him look poor just like every other batsman in history.

 

[h_hurricane]

Personally I'd have loved to see Hayden get picked regularly for Australia from 1997. He didn't get a real run in the Australian side until he was 30 which means we probably missed a good two or three years of his peak. He'd almost certainly have knocked off Gavaskar's record. I genuinely think that it wouldn't have taken much more for Hayden to have been seen as better than Gavaskar.

The contrarian view is that if Hayden had been picked regularly from 1997 after getting owned by Ambrose, his career would not have lasted beyond 2000. He certainly wasn't considered good enough to remove the incumbent openers(Taylor,Slater or Elliot) during this period.

What I have found disturbing is the revisionism that's been happening on the forum over the last couple of years. There really wasn't any serious debate that said Sehwag was better than Hayden until the last couple of years. Certainly nobody at the time who watched both careers thought it was the case, at least on this board. Hayden was way ahead of Sehwag as a batsman - technically, statistically (less hundreds, lower conversion rate, lower average and even less total runs) and temperamentally. I can only think that there's been a bunch of new Indian posters with nostalgia goggles on for Sehwag.

Sure, I don't think many consider Sehwag as better than Hayden. 2 flat track bullies who really had an easy time in favorable conditions, got exposed in swinging conditions. But due credit to them for making hay while the sun was shining. Sehwag averaged about a run less than Hayden though and some 100 runs less. Not a clear case of him being way inferior. Something similar to Greenidge vs Haynes may be.

Both were convincingly streets below Gavaskar who remains unarguably one of the 4 greatest openers of all time.

 

[Red]

Side note: Simpson over Gavaskar is the sort of CW elitist opinion nerds like us tell ourselves because picking a guy from the 50s over a more popular rival means we have galaxy cricket brains.

You should stop this sort of posting, because it's you who comes across as the one trying to appear to have a "galaxy cricket brain", wtf that is.

Stephen just said he thinks Bob Simpson was better than Gavaskar.

 

[trundler]

Nah.

I did say it's a respectable opinion but you can't say we don't scrutinize old timers less. Like if Hayden had played in the 50s his weakness against pace would be seen as a minor blip rather than a big hole in his record. For what it's worth I had Gavaskar and Simpson fairly close on my list. You gotta admit this whole Gavaskar is a hack thing was pointless and contrarian.

 

[Red]

I'd never pick Gavaskar in a team. What a sook. And this as a national captain. Completely ridiculous situation.

 

[trundler]

I'd never pick Gavaskar in a team. What a sook. And this as a national captain. Completely ridiculous situation.

Gavaskar and Boycott open for my all time prick XI

 

[stephen]

The contrarian view is that if Hayden had been picked regularly from 1997 after getting owned by Ambrose, his career would not have lasted beyond 2000. He certainly wasn't considered good enough to remove the incumbent openers(Taylor,Slater or Elliot) during this period.
Sure, I don't think many consider Sehwag as better than Hayden. 2 flat track bullies who really had an easy time in favorable conditions, got exposed in swinging conditions. But due credit to them for making hay while the sun was shining. Sehwag averaged about a run less than Hayden though and some 100 runs less. Not a clear case of him being way inferior. Something similar to Greenidge vs Haynes may be.

Both were convincingly streets below Gavaskar who remains unarguably one of the 4 greatest openers of all time.

Hayden absolutely was better than Taylor and Elliot during this period. Taylor went through that ridiculous run of bad form at the time while Hayden was piling on runs in both shield and county.

And my point is that Hayden was considered a fair distance in front of Sehwag during their playing careers. It was only that last year of decline that really brought Hayden's average back down to somewhere near Sehwag's.

There was a period of a year or so where Sehwag piled on his triples and massive double where he probably was the best in the world but outside that short period it wasn't even close.

Hayden made hundreds far more regularly in more challenging conditions than Sehwag.

Saying that Hayden was "streets below" Gavaskar is as much of a troll as anything I wrote. Gavaskar may have been better but if he was it wasn't by much. After all, in spite of his runs against the West Indies he still only averaged 51 for his career, barely above Hayden. He got out regularly to the only decent spinner he faced and played in an era before neutral umpires which undoubtedly helped his home record (not as much as Miandad perhaps but still).

Nah.

I did say it's a respectable opinion but you can't say we don't scrutinize old timers less. Like if Hayden had played in the 50s his weakness against pace would be seen as a minor blip rather than a big hole in his record. For what it's worth I had Gavaskar and Simpson fairly close on my list. You gotta admit this whole Gavaskar is a hack thing was pointless and contrarian.

Hayden was not weak against pace. That has been demonstrated dozens of times.

And Gavaskar is an old timer almost as much as Simpson. Very few people on this board are 50+ Indian supporters who have seen a lot of Gavaskar.

 

[jimmy101]

Quite amusing that Aussie posters will try and tear down someone such as Gavaskar for being a "sook" or whatever, but have no problem worshipping a player such as Glenn McGrath who was one of the worst sportsmen to ever grace the field. Staggering double standards.

 

[Line and Length]

Gavaskar and Boycott open for my all time prick XI

Both had personality defects but I wouldn't mention Boycott in the same breath as Gavaskar when it came to petulant behaviour.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Glad I missed whatever's gone on here for the last few pages. Looks like AIDS.

Gavaskar was a great batsman, and a poor human. Almost certainly a better opening batsman than Hayden and Sehwag.

However Hayden is often underrated and pointing out his stats from the 90s (7 games, ~5 years before he really became a great batsman) as somehow being proof that he couldn't play good fast bowling is really dumb