Modern era ATGs?

[Red]

Exactly this. An ATG player should not be out of place in a discussion for an All Time World 11. So while not everyone would name Dale Steyn in their 11 he is certainly not out of place discussing him with the likes of Marshall, McGrath Hadlee etc.

Jimmy Anderson is a great player of this generation, arguably makes an England all time 11 (or at least gets close) but no way does he belong in any conversation for an AT World 11. So I think this makes him ATVG.

Steve Smith is well on his way, I can't put him in yet as he's only mid way through his career but it is interesting.......when do you say, yep he's there? Very few would argue Steyns rating as ATG and he's played 86 tests, Steve Smith is currently playing his 63rd so not that far behind really but he's only been around for 8 years compared to Steyns 14.

Bit to ponder here, but I have time this arvo! I'll roll with your definition...

Players who I consider not out of place in a World XI.

Opening bats - Hutton, Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Richards, Gavaskar, Greenidge

Number 3s - (including others beside Bradman for fairness) Bradman, Hammond, Ponting, Sanga, Lara, Dravid, Richards

Middle order bats - Sachin, Lara, Hammond, Richards, Sobers, Border, Kallis, G.Chappell, Pollock

All rounders - Botham, Miller, Sobers, Imran, Kallis

Keepers - Gilchrist, Ames, Knott, Evans

Quicks- McGrath, Marshall, Lillee, Imran, Wasim, Ambrose, Steyn

Spinner- Warne, Murali, OReilly, Grimmett (seen plenty of all time teams picked in the 70s and 80s - Pre Warne/Murali - include Underwood also...)

 

[watson]

No.....not at all, afaic anyway.

All Time Great means just that.........A player you can talk about as a great across all generations. All of those players named are greats of their generation but only Dale Steyn is good enough to be considered an All Time Great at this stage.

I only said that because there is no direct way of comparing WG Grace to Sachin Tendulkar. All you can say is that a champion of one era would most likely be a champion in another era.

I agree that Steyn is the only obvious ATG in that list of bowlers, but there are good cases for selecting Anderson and Boult in their respective ATG national teams.

Hazlewood’s Ave of 26, SR of 55 in a batting friendly era is pretty impressive and Rabada looks the goods so I’m opimistic about him.

I’m not overly excited about Starc and Philander, but you never know I guess.

I would call Herath and Swann ATGs for their ability to run through sides and win Test matches. I’m sure that there are other modern spinners that Cricketweb will be raving about in 20 years time.

 

[Daemon]

Depends what we're talking about here. Are we just talking tests, or are we referring to ODIs and T20 also? I only usually refer to tests.

In my opinion, an easy way to label an ATG is whether or not he is a contender for his nation's all time test XI. This is obviously slightly problematic because a) not everyone who plays in the minnow test teams should be an ATG, and b) India has only every produced one ATG quick.

I actually think an easy way to judge an ATG is whether or not that particular player could conceivably break into NZ's all time XI. This is meant as no slight on NZ, but I think they've produced enough borderline ATGs to justify someone who is able to displace one of them in a team being classified an ATG

Eg:

Glenn Turner
Stewie Dempster
Kane Williamson
Martin Crowe
Martin Donnelly
John Reid
Brendon McCullum +
Dan Vettori
Richard Hadlee
Shane Bond
Jack Cowie


Obviously no system is perfect, but I reckon any player (at the end or near the end of his career) capable of displacing one of these is pretty much an ATG.

Hmm, doesn't work imo. Dempster, Crowe and Hadlee the big standouts. But with your method you don't need to eclipse them to break into the side? Many non ATG all rounders can get ahead of John Reid/Vettori and plenty batsman ahead of Donnelly. Pretty easy for any spinners as well. The pace attack is really good I'll give you that, even if those who value longevity will put many ahead of Bond.

 

[Slifer]

Bit to ponder here, but I have time this arvo! I'll roll with your definition...

Players who I consider not out of place in a World XI.

Opening bats - Hutton, Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Richards, Gavaskar, Greenidge

Number 3s - (including others beside Bradman for fairness) Bradman, Hammond, Ponting, Sanga, Lara, Dravid, Richards

Middle order bats - Sachin, Lara, Hammond, Richards, Sobers, Border, Kallis, G.Chappell, Pollock

All rounders - Botham, Miller, Sobers, Imran, Kallis

Keepers - Gilchrist, Ames, Knott, Evans

Quicks- McGrath, Marshall, Lillee, Imran, Wasim, Ambrose, Steyn

Spinner- Warne, Murali, OReilly, Grimmett (seen plenty of all time teams picked in the 70s and 80s - Pre Warne/Murali - include Underwood also...)

I would include Hadlee and Allan Donald in the fast bowlers tbh

 

[stephen]

I would include Allan Donald in the fast bowlers tbh

And Steve Waugh amongst the batsmen (Sangakkara too - he's seriously underrated on here).

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Bit to ponder here, but I have time this arvo! I'll roll with your definition...

Players who I consider not out of place in a World XI.

Opening bats - Hutton, Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Richards, Gavaskar, Greenidge

Number 3s - (including others beside Bradman for fairness) Bradman, Hammond, Ponting, Sanga, Lara, Dravid, Richards

Middle order bats - Sachin, Lara, Hammond, Richards, Sobers, Border, Kallis, G.Chappell, Pollock

All rounders - Botham, Miller, Sobers, Imran, Kallis

Keepers - Gilchrist, Ames, Knott, Evans

Quicks- McGrath, Marshall, Lillee, Imran, Wasim, Ambrose, Steyn

Spinner- Warne, Murali, OReilly, Grimmett (seen plenty of all time teams picked in the 70s and 80s - Pre Warne/Murali - include Underwood also...)

I'd add Paddles and Barnes

 

[Zinzan]

And seeing around 40 names & no Hadlee doesn't look right

 

[sunilz]

Remove Botham and include Hadlee . Botham neither has career average of ATG nor does his performance against top 2 sides of his era WI and Pak make him ATG IMO.

 

[Victor Ian]

Botham is a great example of players who were exceptional for long enough to be ATG but then have people say he wasn't because he got to play past his prime and hurt his stats because his country had nothing better.
People judge ponting as barely over 50. Sachin as 53 or Waugh as 50ish (he is alternative case of playing too early because his country was ****e).
I think ATG should not include the whole career except if it adds weight to the atg status.

 

[Victor Ian]

And if B Richards is ever in the argument the Grace is most certainly deserving of being in the list too.

 

[Gowza]

Procter should also be inconsideration if B Richards is considered.

 

[Victor Ian]

And if B Richards is ever in the argument the Grace is most certainly deserving of being in the list too.

Edit: and I agree B Richards should be in the list

 

[Bolo]

Botham is a great example of players who were exceptional for long enough to be ATG but then have people say he wasn't because he got to play past his prime and hurt his stats because his country had nothing better.
People judge ponting as barely over 50. Sachin as 53 or Waugh as 50ish (he is alternative case of playing too early because his country was ****e).
I think ATG should not include the whole career except if it adds weight to the atg status.

Botham hurt his stats because he got fat and lazy. He played for a couple of years as a cricketer past his best who was playing because his country had nothing better. Then he played something like a third of his career as a player coasting on his reputation that had no business being in his country's D team. Talent was scarce at this time, so he wasn't given a nudge like Waugh for example, but he was diabolically bad, adding almost nothing to his team and blocking the development of players who could have done something.

Ponting and Sachin went from mid 50s players to low 50s players because they were junk at the end. They coasted on their reputations and hung around too long when the writing was on the wall, hurting their teams in the process. I'm not willing to give them a free pass because they selfishly played on at the expense of their team.

On Waugh, I'm not too sure how much of his selection was due to a lack of talent in the pool, but almost all of the greats get picked too early. Batsmen typically only start to peak in their late 20s, but real talent gets identified earlier. It took Waugh's talent longer to bloom than most.

I can see your argument working a bit better for someone like Viv. He played for a long time past his peak and destroyed his stats. But he was still one of the best batsmen in the world and an asset to his team, so I don't hold his decline against him in the same way as the others.

 

[sphynx]

Steyn is already atg, all the rest have more to do.

If Smith retied now, he absolutely would be. Which makes him one.

An Average of 63+ with 23 tons, his record is arguably better than Steyns in comparative batting vs bowling terms vs his peers.

He'd displace Border in Aus's all time side imo.

 

[Starfighter]

He'd displace Border in Aus's all time side imo.

Burgey won't be too happy to hear that opinion.

 

[Gnske]

Kohli, Smith and Rabada I can see doing it, Shakib too actually in a way. Would Kohli qualify as the first cross-formats ATG assuming he continues and never gets divorced? Cbf thinking right now or ever about this or anything else.

On the plus side, Joe Root will make a fine ATG disappointment

 

[the big bambino]

Thing with Rabada is the amount of cricket he's played. He's been SA's foundation with injuries sidelining Morkel, Steyn and Philander at various points and length of time. With Morkel retiring and a big doubt now over Steyn, SA will become even more dependent on him. He's shown remarkable fitness but wonder if the workload will wear him down.

 

[Stefan9]

If Smith retied now, he absolutely would be. Which makes him one.

An Average of 63+ with 23 tons, his record is arguably better than Steyns in comparative batting vs bowling terms vs his peers.

He'd displace Border in Aus's all time side imo.

There is still a chance of Smith going on a big decline before his career is done, hence not cemented his spot yet. Closest of the rest. Also not been nr1 for as many years as Steyn.

 

[stephen]

Ponting was in the Australian side on merit until he quit. The cupboard was bare at the time so a batsman averaging a solid 40 deserved a spot.

I still don't know why Ponting could never recapture his form post 07, even temporarily but he never did and spent a long period of time being too good to drop but a shadow of his former self.

 

[Victor Ian]

Botham hurt his stats because he got fat and lazy. He played for a couple of years as a cricketer past his best who was playing because his country had nothing better. Then he played something like a third of his career as a player coasting on his reputation that had no business being in his country's D team. Talent was scarce at this time, so he wasn't given a nudge like Waugh for example, but he was diabolically bad, adding almost nothing to his team and blocking the development of players who could have done something.

Ponting and Sachin went from mid 50s players to low 50s players because they were junk at the end. They coasted on their reputations and hung around too long when the writing was on the wall, hurting their teams in the process. I'm not willing to give them a free pass because they selfishly played on at the expense of their team.

On Waugh, I'm not too sure how much of his selection was due to a lack of talent in the pool, but almost all of the greats get picked too early. Batsmen typically only start to peak in their late 20s, but real talent gets identified earlier. It took Waugh's talent longer to bloom than most.

I can see your argument working a bit better for someone like Viv. He played for a long time past his peak and destroyed his stats. But he was still one of the best batsmen in the world and an asset to his team, so I don't hold his decline against him in the same way as the others.

Whilst the tone sounds like you are disagreeing the content basically fleshed out what I was saying, so i guess you are agreeing.

My point - in a nutshell - is you don't pick ATK on the whole of their career - you pick them on the peak 5 or ten years - whatever floats your boat (i prefer about 10). That is the part you remember them being amazing for, not the other crap. The only issue is how long is enough and you are unreasonably unfair if you penalise a player after that.

Regarding Waugh, you must be joking. Australia was hopelessly terrible when he got picked and he, along with a few others, were thrown in and persevered with because the cupboard was bare and the team needed to rebuild after losing so much talent. Yes he had potential, but the usual way to get picked in Australia is to kick the door down and push out someone with undeniable figures. When Waugh was selected, the door was open.