Daemon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Just falls slightly short imo, an ATVG for sure though.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
How G is an ATG?
- Thread starter AndrewB
- Start date
Victor Ian
International Coach
I wonder how the hell I ended up making a point about ODI. Sorry for forgetting about default rules.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
The maf QTs are getting to you... 
Teja.
Global Moderator
Tbh, Walsh is a bad comparison for Anderson because Walsh is one of the pacers with freakish longevity (16 years) who did about as well throughout his career as Anderson did in his best half.
Anderson is definetly a cut above Gillespie etc though. Anderson is the very model of a ATVG cricketer.
Interesting to hear judgements on Anderson and Walsh, would from afar probably agree with your list Red Hill in terms of hard to say anyone on that list doesn't deserve to be on it, guess ATG is a somewhat abstract idea but there has to be some line. Out of interest, I get that Test performances are a huge contributor in making what most would define an ATG but would anyone's stance on Anderson or Walsh change if they had been truly immense in ODIs say like Joel Garner - crazy looking at his ODI stats
Adders
Cricketer Of The Year
I audibly groaned when I read JOJO's post bringing Jimmy A's name into this discussion......not because its unreasonable but because of this forums inability to discuss and rate him with any sort of sense or reason. This might be the first time its been achieved (so far......give it time)
Agree with what's been said thus far. If ATG is your top tier, then Jimmy sits in the next level down.
Agree with what's been said thus far. If ATG is your top tier, then Jimmy sits in the next level down.
Line and Length
Cricketer Of The Year
Definitely a true ATG.
Flem274*
123/5
it's arbitrary at the low end of the spectrum so my broad criteria are
openers - 45+ average
middle order - 50+
allrounder - meets atg criteria with one discipline
keeper - most arbitrary, but world class gloveman and can use his bat somewhat. 35+ average, leeway given to both disciplines case by case
spinners - 26 or 27 and below
quicks - sub 25
openers - 45+ average
middle order - 50+
allrounder - meets atg criteria with one discipline
keeper - most arbitrary, but world class gloveman and can use his bat somewhat. 35+ average, leeway given to both disciplines case by case
spinners - 26 or 27 and below
quicks - sub 25
NotMcKenzie
International Debutant
To answer the thread title, AT.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Yeah, to me Anderson is great but not quite ATG. I don't like this concept of ATVG. Just simply call them great, you **** s.
GoodAreasShane
Cricketer Of The Year
Gillespie over Anderson by the width of the Pacific Ocean as far as I'm concerned
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Opposite tbh
Daemon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Adders
Cricketer Of The Year
Ha, hardly surprising from you two.......just need stephen to chime in that Jackson Bird is better than Jimmy Anderson and we'll have the trifecta of Aussie clowns stinking up a JA discussion once again.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Ben Hilfenhaus would be a better comparison
Jackson Bird is a class above them both
Jackson Bird is a class above them both
Line and Length
Cricketer Of The Year
A totally ridiculous opinion. Based on what?
Their Test bowling averages are similar (Anderson 26.8 v Gillespie 26.1). In terms of wickets per Test played it is similar again (Anderson 3.9 v Gillespie 3.6).
However in terms of longevity (Anderson 151 Tests v Gillespie 71), number of 5 wickets in an innings (Anderson 28 v Gillespie 8 equating to Anderson 1 every 5.4 games v Gillespie 1 every 8.9 games) and 10 wickets in a match (Anderson 3 v Gillespie 0) there is no comparison.
An additional factor is that 75% of Anderson's 'fivefers' came in the first innings (when the game is often won and lost) while only 50% of Gillespie's 'fivefers' came in the first innings.
If you are going to express an opinion, substantiate it with some facts otherwise your opinion counts for little.