Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
But Anderson doesn't play full series. He gets droppedHe's right, it's why Boult and Southee are hacks and Anderson is an S tier great.
But Anderson doesn't play full series. He gets droppedHe's right, it's why Boult and Southee are hacks and Anderson is an S tier great.
Nah, Holding is just below atg status.What is an all-time great (ATG)?
To me, it is someone who is best of the best, and merits consideration for an ATG XI selection from all eras (to be shortlisted if not actually enter the XI, like Tendulkar, Warne, Kallis, etc.)
Below that are great cricketers (among the best their team has produced in their country history but not quite rated best of the best, like Waqar, Dravid, Walsh, Michael Clarke, Anderson, Martin Crowe etc.).
Below that are world class cricketers (among the best when they played but didnt play long enough to be considered a great, Shane Bond, Shoaib, Ian Bishop, Saeed Anwar, etc).
Then you have frontline cricketers who are the top cricketers and automatic selections of their specific team at the time they played (like Mark Waugh, McDermott, etc.)
By the criteria, in the last 50 years, you have the below ATGs:
Australia: Lillee, Greg Chappell, Border, Warne, Ponting, Steve Waugh, McGrath, Gilchrist, Steve Smith
WI: Sobers, Viv, Marshall, Ambrose, Lara, maybe Holding
England: Trueman, Botham
NZ: Hadlee
Pakistan: Imran, Wasim
India: Gavaskar, Sachin, maybe Kohli
Sri Lanka: Murali, maybe Sanga
Zimbabwe: maybe Andy Flower
South Africa: Graeme Pollock, Allan Donald, Steyn, Kallis
32 players if you include the "maybes" (almost enough for 3 teams) but only ONE opener in Gavaskar. Also Kohli shouldn't be on that list as he's only the 5th best Indian test batsman of the timeframe (SRT, Sunny, Sehwag, Dravid, Kohli).What is an all-time great (ATG)?
To me, it is someone who is best of the best, and merits consideration for an ATG XI selection from all eras (to be shortlisted if not actually enter the XI, like Tendulkar, Warne, Kallis, etc.)
Below that are great cricketers (among the best their team has produced in their country history but not quite rated best of the best, like Waqar, Dravid, Walsh, Michael Clarke, Anderson, Martin Crowe etc.).
Below that are world class cricketers (among the best when they played but didnt play long enough to be considered a great, Shane Bond, Shoaib, Ian Bishop, Saeed Anwar, etc).
Then you have frontline cricketers who are the top cricketers and automatic selections of their specific team at the time they played (like Mark Waugh, McDermott, etc.)
By the criteria, in the last 50 years, you have the below ATGs:
Australia: Lillee, Greg Chappell, Border, Warne, Ponting, Steve Waugh, McGrath, Gilchrist, Steve Smith
WI: Sobers, Viv, Marshall, Ambrose, Lara, maybe Holding
England: Trueman, Botham
NZ: Hadlee
Pakistan: Imran, Wasim
India: Gavaskar, Sachin, maybe Kohli
Sri Lanka: Murali, maybe Sanga
Zimbabwe: maybe Andy Flower
South Africa: Graeme Pollock, Allan Donald, Steyn, Kallis
Most of the ATG openers were before the 50 year period, like Hobbs.32 players if you include the "maybes" (almost enough for 3 teams) but only ONE opener in Gavaskar. Also Kohli shouldn't be on that list as he's only the 5th best Indian test batsman of the timeframe (SRT, Sunny, Sehwag, Dravid, Kohli).
Like Sobers, his career tailed into just the beginning of the period of consideration.I like the idea that Trueman is an England ATG in the last 50 years. The only cricket he played was a handful of 40 over JPL matches on a Sunday.
Yeah, I guess he would need at least 300 wickets to get there.Nah, Holding is just below atg status.
to reach 300 wickets at a solid 4 wkts/match average one needs to play 75 tests. In Holding's era it would have taken more than 15 years of test cricket, and for a fast bowler that wasn't easy. West Indies didn't play as much test cricket as England and Australia. When he retired, no fast bowler from his country had reached the 300 mark.Yeah, I guess he would need at least 300 wickets to get there.
Nothing like Sobers. Sobers played Test Cricket up to 1974. Trueman retired from First Class Cricket in 1969, then made a brief comeback in 1972 with a handful of 40 over matches.Like Sobers, his career tailed into just the beginning of the period of consideration.
I regard Dravid higher still. Kohli scores quicker but Dravid is safe as houses home and away and even in conditions Kohli hates.Most of the ATG openers were before the 50 year period, like Hobbs.
I think if Kohli retired tomorrow, he would be rated ahead of Dravid and Sehwag. His challenge was always whether he can outshine Sachin.
No it's not that, honestly it's more of a gut feeling tbh. His stats overall aren't that different from lillee who i consider an atg.Yeah, I guess he would need at least 300 wickets to get there.
I regard Dravid higher still. Kohli scores quicker but Dravid is safe as houses home and away and even in conditions Kohli hates.
Also, this could be my nostalgia, but I think the plan to Kohli is more obvious than to Dravid. Kohli really is deteriorating in that wide channel. Normally I'd say too much white ball cricket but he hasn't played much iirc.
Sehwag an interesting one because they're not in competition for a spot and I haven't thought about it before now. I think Sehwag might actually have more value here if you can only have one. He and Kohli tend to dislike the same countries but Sehwag can bat anywhere in the order and offers that point of difference (true YOLO to Kohli's mere #intent) to Kohli.
If Kohli was stronger in England and NZ that would be a really good debate, but great openers are so much more valuable than great middle order players because of their relative scarcity. Kohli's closer to Dravid than Sehwag in value to a test side.
Only if you were in a mental institution. That's pretty mental. He was a fantastic player, but no one was putting him in the same league as Sachin (in tests).Hmm comments like this show how far Kohlis stock has fallen since his slump. Uptil 2018, he was reaching Tendulkar territory.
No one? You must have missed all that Kohli mania gripping pundits, Cricinfo and fans. To be clear, I always thought Sachin was a better bat, but by 2018, Kohli had essentially conquered everywhere in tests, including England, and was making a strong case for himself.Only if you were in a mental institution. That's pretty mental. He was a fantastic player, but no one was putting him in the same league as Sachin (in tests).
In fairness I think this place is a little reactionary wrt Kohli. He certainly hasn't had a great couple of years though.Hmm comments like this show how far Kohlis stock has fallen since his slump. Uptil 2018, he was reaching Tendulkar territory.
However, have to disagree about Sehwag, who was a walking wicket in SA, NZ and England. Even accounting for him being an opener, I would rank Kohli ahead of him as a pure bat.
The same folk probably still argue that today - hence why I said no one in a mental institution, as that's a mental call even back then.No one? You must have missed all that Kohli mania gripping pundits, Cricinfo and fans.
Essentially peer rating, not mere statistics. Richard was the undisputed top batsman of his era whereas Kohli's slump has put his rating in question.Here's a question. What makes Kohli a significantly inferior test batsman to Richards? I can't think of any and I'll tell why I asked this after few replies