Are Compton and May ATGs?

[Jane Austen]

I have my cutoff around the Dravid-Sanga-Barrington level of batters. So those guys or the guys whom I rate as better than them. Approximately 20-25 batters I think.

Do Graeme Pollock and/or Viv Richards make the cut? I hope Virendhar Sehwag does.Test average 49+ strike rate 83! A one-off.

Good to see Ken Barrington squeezing in.Even at his consistent peak he was underrated in comparison with the commanding,brilliant Dexter and the stylists Cowdrey and Graveney.

 

[Thala_0710]

Do Graeme Pollock and/or Viv Richards make the cut? I hope Virendhar Sehwag does.Test average 49+ strike rate 83! A one-off.

Pollock and Viv do, Sehwag doesn't

 

[ma1978]

Its an interesting subject to delve into. Now so far into cricket history looking back people have a different perception. But if someone was once considered an ATG, should it be possible for them to then not be ATG later on in the sport’s history? I’m sure it was unfathomable at one point for say, Fred Spofforth not to be one of the top 10 test bowlers of all time and he’d definitely be an ATG. Now? You’d rarely if ever find him on such a list. Its unfathomable currently to think that Steyn could ever not be an ATG, but what might people think in another 100 or 150 years if 30 more pacers are seen as ahead of him? Should ATG as a definition be limited to X number of players or grow as the number of players and great players does?

Varying interpretations I’m sure across many posters on the site.

it has to grow as time passes and number of matches increase. And Spofforth is undeniably an ATG

 

[ataraxia]

May does not have the longevity.

Sure, but he has the quality. He averaged a good 7.5 points higher than one C Hill when overall batsmen in May's games averaged 1.5 less.

 

[trundler]

Sure, but he has the quality. He averaged a good 7.5 points higher than one C Hill when overall batsmen in May's games averaged 1.5 less.

Yeah but that's because of weak kiwi batsmen

 

[ataraxia]

Yeah but that's because of weak kiwi batsmen

Lol they unironically averaged 12 in 9 tests against May. Thankfully the great Kiwi bowlers (read: singular test-quality bowler) of said era restricted a strong English batting side to averaging 31 in the same matches.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah but that's because of weak kiwi batsmen

#weakness

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yeah but that's because of weak kiwi batsmen

Certainly to an extent, but May's Home record is top 3 Ever imo, without accounting for longevity.

 

[capt_Luffy]

If we ignore the 1960 West Indies series where May had big health issues, the average in games among the big four of the time (England, Australia, South Africa and West Indies) which included May, had the average of 26 over forty three games, just one point higher than the general average of May's games. May averaged 49 in those games too.

 

[kyear2]

You make a particularly salient point in any discussion about greaness Captain.
How was the player rated by his contemporaries whilst he was still playing.
What was written about him during his career.
Viv Richards is a case in point.Statistically a Test average of just 50 and 1st-class average of below 50 doesn’t justify the status he has.However there can’t be any dispute that he is amongst the very greatest batters of all time not least because of what was said and written about him during his playing days.
Again,contemporaries Clem Hill and Victor Trumper had very similar Test and 1st-class statistics.
Clem Hill is regarded as a great batter---Trumper as an immortal.Just read the likes of CB Fry,AE Knight,Plum Warner and other contemporary players and writers commenting about the greatness of Trumper even before his triumphant march through the soggy English season of 1902!
I have been watching cricket since 1953 and saw Peter May at his most majestic-would loved to have seen Denis Compton in full flow.
All things considered surely there can be no question that they are serious contenders for an All-Time England X1.

Since 1953, I look forward to your insight in your future posts.

Who do you see as the greatest batsmen, bowlers and cricketers in general that you've seen?

You've seen Hutton (tail end of but still), and Gavaskar... Trueman through Marshall to Bumrah, really interested in your takes.

Belated welcome to the forum.

 

[kyear2]

Its an interesting subject to delve into. Now so far into cricket history looking back people have a different perception. But if someone was once considered an ATG, should it be possible for them to then not be ATG later on in the sport’s history? I’m sure it was unfathomable at one point for say, Fred Spofforth not to be one of the top 10 test bowlers of all time and he’d definitely be an ATG. Now? You’d rarely if ever find him on such a list. Its unfathomable currently to think that Steyn could ever not be an ATG, but what might people think in another 100 or 150 years if 30 more pacers are seen as ahead of him? Should ATG as a definition be limited to X number of players or grow as the number of players and great players does?

Varying interpretations I’m sure across many posters on the site.

Some really.good points, my only question though is that even if their rankings change, would their status?

 

[kyear2]

I think with time we have to increase number of ATGs because number of players also increase.

There are comfortably more than 3000 players who have debuted in test cricket, no harm having 80/90 players as ATGs imo

Good in premise, but 80 is wayyyy to high for me.