• 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.

From the last 50 years, who has the worst ATG XI from the big 8? SL, NZ or England?

subshakerz

International Coach
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
 
Last edited:

Slifer

International Captain
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
Nah, Holding is just below atg status.
 

Fuller Pilch

Hall of Fame Member
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).
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
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.
 

subshakerz

International Coach
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).
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.
 

bagapath

International Captain
Yeah, I guess he would need at least 300 wickets to get there.
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.

200 wickets was the gold standard in the 80s anyways. he actually retired with the 10th most wickets in test cricket among fast bowlers... and the second most for his country...

 
Last edited:

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
Like Sobers, his career tailed into just the beginning of the period of consideration.
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.
 

Flem274*

123/5
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.
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.
 

subshakerz

International Coach
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.

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.
 

_00_deathscar

International Debutant
Hmm comments like this show how far Kohlis stock has fallen since his slump. Uptil 2018, he was reaching Tendulkar territory.
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).

There is certainly an argument to be had in ODIs - I would disagree (on account of World Cup, JAMODIs, flat pitches/crazy run era - even Rohit as opener averages 55+ or something in last X whatever years - he's not near Sachin either) but I can understand the argument at the very least.
 

subshakerz

International Coach
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).
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.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
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.
In fairness I think this place is a little reactionary wrt Kohli. He certainly hasn't had a great couple of years though.
 

_00_deathscar

International Debutant
No one? You must have missed all that Kohli mania gripping pundits, Cricinfo and fans.
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.

Kohli did have big daddy hundreds over Sachin though and he was inching towards that discussion but no one sane would have put him in the same league as Sachin (or Lara etc). Sure there was always the question "would he?" but it was a long shot.
 

Gob

International Coach
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
 

subshakerz

International Coach
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
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.

If Sachin had retired in 2006 and Warne in 2001 before they each came out of their respective dips, they would still be considered ATGs but definitely wouldnt be remembered or rated as highly.
 

Top