Moderate up/downgrade thread

[TheJediBrah]

Not sure if sarcastic. But you have mistakenly mentioned upgrade instead of downgrade in all of the above.

First time coming across CodeOfWisden?

 

[honestbharani]

If he really thinks modern cricketers are all better than the ones who came before, at least he is being consistent, I guess.

 

[CodeOfWisden]

Not sure if sarcastic. But you have mistakenly mentioned upgrade instead of downgrade in all of the above.

Apart from gilly vs Pant what else do you think is wrong? And why?

Starc and lee were both scatterguns in tests but still Starc has a better record, even in lois Starc is atleast as good as lee.

Stokes is definitely considered a better allrounder than Flintoff.

Cummins vs Lillee - quite similar bowlers but cummins has a better all round record, even if you don't think the same, their records suggests they are not far off from each other

Kohli is better than Punter in odis and equally good in tests.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Starc and lee were both scatterguns in tests but still Starc has a better record, even in lois Starc is atleast as good as lee.

How does Clark Kent feel about that though?

 

[_00_deathscar]

Stephen had them in the same tier in the ATG thread, around a year back. There was a lengthy discussion on it back then.

WTF? That's a worse take than the Anderson / Courtney Walsh shouts.

 

[CricAddict]

Apart from gilly vs Pant what else do you think is wrong? And why?

Starc and lee were both scatterguns in tests but still Starc has a better record, even in lois Starc is atleast as good as lee.

Stokes is definitely considered a better allrounder than Flintoff.

Cummins vs Lillee - quite similar bowlers but cummins has a better all round record, even if you don't think the same, their records suggests they are not far off from each other

Kohli is better than Punter in odis and equally good in tests.

So you admit you were wrong in Gilly vs Pant which is good.

Starc/Lee, Stokes/Flintoff, Kohli/Ponting, Cummins/Lillee are all still quite close at this point and I won't say any of the modern guys have overtaken the previous generation yet.

If you want to compare their stats, compare it at a similar point of their career since most players usually have a dip at the end of their career as they age. And if you do, I bet the oldies will have better ones.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Over arm is a moderate upgrade over under arm

 

[stephen]

Stephen had them in the same tier in the ATG thread, around a year back. There was a lengthy discussion on it back then.

Citation needed.

Certainly Walsh was better than Zaheer, even though I rate Walsh as the least of the West Indian greats of the era.

 

[ParwazHaiJunoon]

Over arm is a moderate upgrade over under arm

 

[h_hurricane]

Citation needed.

Certainly Walsh was better than Zaheer, even though I rate Walsh as the least of the West Indian greats of the era.

This is what you wrote in ATG thread, page 534, post #10669. Took me some half an hour to find it, damn .

Anderson's career stats are around about McDermott's (with a lot better longevity) and that's generally about how good he was. Great on his day, ordinary at other times. ATVG level player. Fans of the side will love them for their servanthood to their country and will remember the highlights while non fans won't think too much about them when they're gone.

Other ATVG players:

Gillespie
Kumble
Vaas
Zaheer
Walsh (though many people would consider him an ATG, he was certainly a step down from Ambrose)
Benaud
Inzimam

 

[TheJediBrah]

no way is Zaheer an ATVG. He's an ATPG (All-Time Pretty Good)

 

[Flem274*]

devon conway is a moderate upgrade on the classic nz 10/2 every innings

 

[TheJediBrah]

devon conway is a moderate upgrade on the classic nz 10/2 every innings

I can't recall them ever getting bowled out for 2

 

[h_hurricane]

no way is Zaheer an ATVG. He's an ATPG (All-Time Pretty Good)

He is ATD(All time decent). Had a pretty good 2-3 years in late 2000s. Was ordinary outside that.

 

[stephen]

This is what you wrote in ATG thread, page 534, post #10669. Took me some half an hour to find it, damn .

Fair call. But i did give it a bit more context:

Yeah Walsh was a better bowler and maybe I'm giving too much credit to Zaheer, but how many other Indian pacers have done what he did? Kapil Dev is an ATVG in my eyes and the only one that has been clearly better than Zaheer (though Bumrah probably has already become the first picked Indian quick in an AT team). Shami is the only Indian quick other than Kapil to have taken over 100 wickets at an average of less than 30.

Maybe I'm being too generous.

Certainly my post wasn't implying that Zaheer was anywhere near as good as Walsh, only that they'd be categorised similarly like this:

Fans of the side will love them for their servanthood to their country and will remember the highlights while non fans won't think too much about them when they're gone.

Which is probably stretching things a bit for Walsh given he's probably a shade better than that.

 

[Starfighter]

Zaheer bowling average: 32.95
Overall average during Zaheer's career: 34.36

I think you could classify him as an 'all-time pretty damn average' (ATPDA).

 

[h_hurricane]

Which is probably stretching things a bit for Walsh given he's probably a shade better than that.

Walsh is certainly a lot better than you are giving him credit for. 519 wickets at 24.4 ! Comfortably an ATG. Ticked most boxes in his career and performed almost everywhere. Was a bit of a late bloomer but then blossomed into an ATG one. Incredible longevity too.

He had a better career than some one like Lillee for instance, though Lillee was a slightly better bowler.

 

[stephen]

Walsh is certainly a lot better than you are giving him credit for. 519 wickets at 24.4 ! Comfortably an ATG. Ticked most boxes in his career and performed almost everywhere. Was a bit of a late bloomer but then blossomed into an ATG one. Incredible longevity too.

He had a better career than some one like Lillee for instance, though Lillee was a slightly better bowler.

Possibly. I tend to mark him down a little for two reasons. 1) He never performed his best against Australia; and 2) he was a bit of a chucker. Probably a bit subjective, but I put him as being a bit, but not much better than Anderson. And like Anderson, there's absolutely no faulting him on his longevity.

 

[Gob]

Possibly. I tend to mark him down a little for two reasons. 1) He never performed his best against Australia; and 2) he was a bit of a chucker. Probably a bit subjective, but I put him as being a bit, but not much better than Anderson. And like Anderson, there's absolutely no faulting him on his longevity.

Walsh's away record is far superior to Anderson's though