ATGs in weak teams vs ATGs in strong teams

[CricAddict]

Tendulkar Lara Border Sanga Root Shakib vs Viv Ponting Steve Waugh Gilchrist Kohli Kallis

The first set played for comparatively weak teams and had to wage a lone battle many a times while the second set played for atg/super strong/No 1 teams for most of their careers and actually played a huge part in the team being that strong.

Which set of players do you rate better in your eyes?

 

[subshakerz]

Tendulkar Lara Border Sanga Root Shakib vs Viv Ponting Steve Waugh Gilchrist Kohli Kallis

The first set played for comparatively weak teams and had to wage a lone battle many a times while the second set played for atg/super strong/No 1 teams for most of their careers and actually played a huge part in the team being that strong.

Which set of players do you rate better in your eyes?

The second set because it has an extra player.

 

[Line and Length]

The second set because it has an extra player.

Count again. Steve Waugh is one player.

 

[subshakerz]

Count again. Steve Waugh is one player.

Oops my mistake

I will back the first set of players but it doesnt have to do with them being lone guns, just better players generally except for Shakib vs Kallis.

 

[TheJediBrah]

For these guys, ATGs? Probably no difference, talking purely from a stats point of view. I think that's pretty clear from the distribution of these players stats. If being in a weak team was significantly harder then you'd expect the weaker team guys to have on average weaker stats to go with it.

For mediocre players/young players/particularly mentally "weak" players then I would expect it could make a big difference though, being easier to come into a strong team and perform.

Also dependant on a player's personality and nature IMO. I think KP would actually thrive in a weaker team being the centre of attention for example.

As to which is more a impressive feat I think it's fair to say that the guys doing it in a weaker team like Lara, Border, Flower deserve extra credit for doing that

 

[_00_deathscar]

You could add Gavaskar to that first list.

Someone create a weak team ATG XI vs a strong team ATG XI

 

[subshakerz]

Tendulkar and Gavaskar has pretty good batting lineups for like half their career though. Sanga also had a pretty decent lineup for the early 2000s.

 

[CricAddict]

For these guys, ATGs? Probably no difference, talking purely from a stats point of view. I think that's pretty clear from the distribution of these players stats. If being in a weak team was significantly harder then you'd expect the weaker team guys to have on average weaker stats to go with it.

For mediocre players/young players/particularly mentally "weak" players then I would expect it could make a big difference though, being easier to come into a strong team and perform.

Also dependant on a player's personality and nature IMO. I think KP would actually thrive in a weaker team being the centre of attention for example.

As to which is more a impressive feat I think it's fair to say that the guys doing it in a weaker team like Lara, Border, Flower deserve extra credit for doing that

Isn't this a bit opposite to what you have said above it? So will you take team strength as a factor or not while rating an ATG?

 

[CricAddict]

Tendulkar and Gavaskar has pretty good batting lineups for like half their career though. Sanga also had a pretty decent lineup for the early 2000s.

May be the later half for Tendulkar but still the weak bowling almost always put more pressure on the batsmen.

For Gavaskar, I am not too sure but to my knowledge, think he had very little support throughout. Granted the other batsmen were not associate level but not even atvg with an exception or two.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Isn't this a bit opposite to what you have said above it? So will you take team strength as a factor or not while rating an ATG?

Not really IMO. I don't think Chanderpaul or Border would have done better if their teams were stronger

 

[Coronis]

May be the later half for Tendulkar but still the weak bowling almost always put more pressure on the batsmen.

For Gavaskar, I am not too sure but to my knowledge, think he had very little support throughout. Granted the other batsmen were not associate level but not even atvg with an exception or two.

Vengsarkar, Viswanath, Amarnath and Azharuddin (for his last ~20 tests) seems pretty decent support to me.

 

[Xuhaib]

Yes 71-87 India is quite a strong side the team quality went down for late 80's through the mid 90's

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Vengsarkar, Viswanath, Amarnath and Azharuddin (for his last ~20 tests) seems pretty decent support to me.

Yeah Vengsakar was ranked no 1 test batsman for a while (ahead of the likes of Viv, Miandad, AB, and Crowe), and Amarnath was a great player of pace and bounce.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't think it makes a big difference really at all. If you are an elite professional cricketer, you are going to deliver the goods regardless of your teammates. You switch Lara and Ponting and I would expect similar results somewhat. One reason I never liked the line 'Tendulkar faced the pressure of a billion Indian fans...'

 

[honestbharani]

I have always felt the "pressure of a billion people" is way overstated. I mean, yes, it is there and esp. in big games you can literally see it sometimes weigh our guys down and in cricket, sometimes all you need is that micro second of doubting yourself and that's it, especially as a batsman.

But I do feel the pressure of the team and the team mates is a very real thing and a big reason why I rate the likes of Lara and Murali so so high. Having to carry your team, to me, is the most real pressure a sportsperson faces within his sport.

 

[Red]

“Pressure of a billion people”. Lol. Most sportspeople want support and large crowds cheering for them. It’s part of why home grounds are an advantage

 

[subshakerz]

Guys like Tendulkar and Lara were undroppable. I wonder if that mitigated the pressure somewhat. Compare that to Steve Waugh who had to fight for his place when there was a lean spell.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

“Pressure of a billion people”. Lol. Most sportspeople want support and large crowds cheering for them. It’s part of why home grounds are an advantage

There is a NZ rugby doco "Weight of a nation" which gives an insight into the pressure on the All Blacks (especially Richie with a broken foot) to win the 2011 World Cup. The pressure was immense so the overwhelming response to victory was relief, as opposed to elation.

 

[CricAddict]

Yeah Vengsakar was ranked no 1 test batsman for a while (ahead of the likes of Viv, Miandad, AB, and Crowe), and Amarnath was a great player of pace and bounce.

I rarely see any of their names mentioned in any discussion of note, ranking lists or drafts and do assumed that they were not good. Happy to change my view if they are really rated highly.

 

[subshakerz]

I rarely see any of their names mentioned in any discussion of note, ranking lists or drafts and do assumed that they were not good. Happy to change my view if they are really rated highly.

They were quality batsmen but not elite level similar to Australia in the early 90s outside of Border and SA of the late 90s. Anyways, not a weak lineup by any stretch.