How G is an ATG?

[stephen]

I'd take Willis and Pollock ahead of either in a heartbeat. Tyson and Bishop too if you could guarantee fitness.

But I think it's fair to say that they fall a rung below the all time greats, which is the point.

 

[Bolo.]

The first time I remember analysis of the term ATG was from a cricinfo article in the early 2000s. It said something to the effect of 'we all tend to draw a cutoff at 25/50, whether consciously or not'.

I dont know the degree to which my opinion was formulated around the article (I really knew dick about cricket analysis before the internet). Or if it just makes sense, but it does seem to be a useful rule of thumb.

Obviosly there are exceptions on both sides. Im not gonna include/ exclude guys like Ganteaume/Warne on such narrow parameters. But I think, with the qualification of a profific career and some conditions/opposition adjustment, almost everyone would stick close to the 25/50 rule.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It should always be judged individually on a players performance. The last thing you should do is say it only applies to a certain number with a cut off point.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Yeah I always liked Hoggard the most of the 2005 quartet. Sijo was too injury prone, Harmison too hit and miss, Flintoff too overrated but Hoggard was a toiler who earned every wicket he took. I remember him being the pick of the English bowlers in the Amazing Adelaide test when Australia piled on 550.

Do you think England would have taken that series without Flintoff's bowling? Overrated the rest of his career certainly but anything but in that series.

 

[stephen]

Do you think England would have taken that series without Flintoff's bowling? Overrated the rest of his career certainly but anything but in that series.

England scraped through even with Flintoff's performance. But over his career he was overrated. Never had a great tour of Australia and only had one decent ashes even at home.

Hoggard was a workhorse who succeeded in spite of his limitations. Flintoff was lazy and ill disciplined but who happened to have one ATG ashes series.

 

[Red]

England scraped through even with Flintoff's performance. But over his career he was overrated. Never had a great tour of Australia and only had one decent ashes even at home.

Hoggard was a workhorse who succeeded in spite of his limitations. Flintoff was lazy and ill disciplined but who happened to have one ATG ashes series.

He was phenomenal in that series, one of the great all-round performances in a series ever. His first innings ton in the 4th test clinched the series for Eng.

Even 4 or 5 years of what he did in the 2005 Ashes and he'd be possibly the greatest pure all rounder of all time, better than Miller and Botham. Proper top order bat who could also legit open the bowling.

Him and KP just loomed large and ominous in that series. Australia hadn't been bullied like that in about a decade.

Flintoff and Warne's 2005 Ashes series were epic.

 

[marc71178]

England scraped through even with Flintoff's performance. But over his career he was overrated. Never had a great tour of Australia and only had one decent ashes even at home.

Hoggard was a workhorse who succeeded in spite of his limitations. Flintoff was lazy and ill disciplined but who happened to have one ATG ashes series.

He had more than just that one ATG series.

 

[kyear2]

I believe ATG status should come relatively close to an NFL discussion I heard a few weeks back with regards to being elected to the hall of fame.
1. Were you a transcendent player who changed or left an impression on the game.
2. If you have to wonder or think about it too much, they probably aren't / weren't.

For me personally , the best or genuinely in the argument to be among the best in your discipline. Basically if I'm picking an AT XI and you have made the shortlist from which the team would be selected. Again similar to the recent NFL top 100 players list and the associated short list.

 

[Engle]

Largely agree. Seems like everyone and their uncle is called ATG

There should only be 10 - 15 cricketers bestowed with ATG status. These are the ones who stood out by being the best in what they did, contributed immensely to the game and accepted without argument.

As tough as it is, the number has to be kept small with easily memorable cricketers and to avoid dilution.

 

[h_hurricane]

So essentially, it is the top 7 batsmen, top 5 quicks, top 2 spinners and one wicket keeper batsman. I would add Imran Khan and Jacques Kallis as they were great in one skill and really good in secondary one as well.

So, in no particular order,

Don Bradman
Garry Sobers
Vivian Richards
Sachin Tendulkar
Brian Lara
Jack Hobbs
Len Hutton
Malcolm Marshall
Richard Hadlee
Glenn Mcgrath
Curtly Ambrose
Dale Steyn
Shane Warne
Muttiah Muralitharan
Adam Gilchrist
Imran Khan
Jacques Kallis

17 players. One could add Hammond, Headley and Miller to make it 20.

I haven't considered pre WWI players as the game was so different back then.

 

[trundler]

Naw that's too restrictive. There's no reason to have a cutoff for 5. It's just an arbitrary number. There's many others on the same level of quality. There should be ~12-15 fast bowlers there alone. We're talking about 143 years of cricket.

 

[kyear2]

Probaly a bit more than 5, but definitely less than 15 I believe.

 

[kyear2]

So essentially, it is the top 7 batsmen, top 5 quicks, top 2 spinners and one wicket keeper batsman. I would add Imran Khan and Jacques Kallis as they were great in one skill and really good in secondary one as well.

So, in no particular order,

Don Bradman
Garry Sobers
Vivian Richards
Sachin Tendulkar
Brian Lara
Jack Hobbs
Len Hutton
Malcolm Marshall
Richard Hadlee
Glenn Mcgrath
Curtly Ambrose
Dale Steyn
Shane Warne
Muttiah Muralitharan
Adam Gilchrist
Imran Khan
Jacques Kallis

17 players. One could add Hammond, Headley and Miller to make it 20.

I haven't considered pre WWI players as the game was so different back then.

On top of your 20, possibly..

Trueman
Gavaskar

Those are the only 2 that comes to mind as possible omissions.

More borderline ones.. and this is the slippery slope


Sutcliffe
Sangakkara / Chappell / Ponting / Weekes / Walcott / Barrington / Pollock
Knott
Lillee / Akram / Garner / Holding / Donald / Lindwall / Davidson
O'Reilly

 

[trundler]

Marshall, Garner, Holding, Ambrose, Walsh

McGrath, Lillee, Lindwall, Davidson

Imran, Wasim, Waqar

Trueman

Donald, Pollock, Steyn

Hadlee


Surely all of those guys are ATGs.

 

[vcs]

Having a number like 15 or 20 or whatever makes no sense. What if you want to make room for Smith or Kohli or Cummins? Can't go and kick out Richards or whoever.

 

[trundler]

That's what I think too. Maybe you can take out Walsh and Holding from that list. There's still over a dozen fast bowlers who wouldn't look out of place in an ATXI.

Likewise with guys like Ponting, Chappell and Barrington.

 

[trundler]

If we do a country wise list post War, England would look like:

Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hutton, Verity, Hammond, Laker, Evans, Trueman, Barrington, Boycott, Knott, Botham

Australia

Oldfield, Grimmett, Bradman, O'Reilly, Lindwall, Miller, Harvey, Grout, Simpson, Lillee, Chappell, Border, Healy, Warne, Ponting, McGrath, Gilchrist, Smith

WI

Headley, Worrell, Weekes, Walcott, Sobers, Kanhai, Richards, Holding, Garner, Marshall, Walsh, Ambrose, Lara

That looks like way too many but aside from a few borderline calls here and there it's still like 40 dudes from the 3 above countries minimum

 

[kyear2]

Yeah, while most if not all of those players are great, ATG players must be transcendent to a certain degree and most of those players just don't fit into that for me.

For me it's great statistics combined with great impact. The top line amazing tier player who is in the argument to be the best ever.

So basically our definitions are just different. I'll stick to my above list of about 38 and I'm more inclined to remove names than to add.

And yes, I also agree that there shouldn't be a cut off at a certain number, just more nuanced requirements

 

[stephen]

For most of their careers Ponting, Lara and Tendulkar were considered very close. At age 33 Pointing had an average of a touch under 60. He fell away at the end but surely if you're including Lara and Tendulkar you'd also include Ponting, despite him playing on after his eye went.

 

[trundler]

For most of their careers Ponting, Lara and Tendulkar were considered very close. At age 33 Pointing had an average of a touch under 60. He fell away at the end but surely if you're including Lara and Tendulkar you'd also include Ponting, despite him playing on after his eye went.

And this is the thing for me. There's lots of players on a similar sort of level to bonafide ATGs and so in the interest of consistency my list gets too big. It's subjective of course but imo if you have Sanga then Dravid and YK have to be there too. Same with say, Steyn and Donald.