Modern era ATGs?

[Victor Ian]

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.

My Theory on Ponting is that his child ruined him. Children ruin many a career as the player realises there is more to life and loses the ruthless focus needed.

 

[Daemon]

I think if a player has played long enough you can discount the decline at the end but I don't like removing the earlier part of their career (Tendulkar, Anderson, Waugh) because it almost certainly shaped them to be the players they eventually became over the next decade(s).

 

[vcs]

I'm reluctant to judge people too harshly for carrying on past their best. Take Sanga and Kallis for example. If they had played on a couple of extra years, averaging only 38-40, but helped their teams win an extra important Test series or two, did they hurt their legacies because they didn't retire with a 55+ average? Sachin could have retired in 2005 after a solid 15 year career, when he had those back/elbow issues, because the team pretty much carried him between 2005 to 2007. But then he re-paid that in glorious fashion between 2008-10. Can't blame him for hanging on a couple of years past 2011 trying to recreate the glory.

 

[Stefan9]

A Player should be judged on his whole career not only when he was good for me. Going through the tough times is part of test cricket.

 

[Bolo]

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.

Ponting averaged 38-37-32 in the three years prior to his last year of 42. By the end of that run, it was clear that his batting wasn't a form issue, that he had gone into decline, and was a liability to the team. Australia was bowling for his head.

The cupboard was bare, which is partly why it was allowed to go on so long, but he was blocking the potential development of another bat .

 

[Bolo]

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.

You can pick an ATG team based on peak performances if you want. It's not how I do it, but both perspectives are valid in what is meaningless exercise with no rules.

What is not reasonable for me who is disregarding poor performances in an assessment of a player. A player who loses matches for their team is a lesser player. AKA Botham. Pick him in your world 11 if you want. He had an amazing start to his career, and was ahead of just about anyone else whether considering their first 6ish years or their peak 6ish years. But the dross he played in the second half of his career means he undoubtedly had a worse career than had he called time when still worthy of selection on merit.

On Waugh, as I said I'm not too sure. He would have had better stats had he been picked when a little older, but so would Tendulkar, Kallis, Ponting, AB... The reason I rate Waugh and Tendulkar as better batsmen than the other 3 is because they had long playing careers with their early years in the toughest of conditions.

 

[vcs]

Ponting averaged 38-37-32 in the three years prior to his last year of 42. By the end of that run, it was clear that his batting wasn't a form issue, that he had gone into decline, and was a liability to the team. Australia was bowling for his head.

The cupboard was bare, which is partly why it was allowed to go on so long, but he was blocking the potential development of another bat .

The current Amla is a good example. He was pretty important in SA winning against India recently, but he would have probably averaged only around ~40 in that series (without checking). And you also have to put up with some poor runs in the meanwhile (like his last couple of tours vs. Australia) as his good patches are fewer and farther between. I don't know whether SA have many good replacements available for Hash, but slotting a new guy in at 3 is always going to be tough, you'd rather bring him in at 5 or 6. So Amla carries on for a couple of years past his best for the good of the team, and "hurts" his legacy in the process.

 

[subshakerz]

If the criteria is 'shortlist for world ATG XI' then does that mean there are only two great spinners? How do we rate specialist #3s like Ponting and Dravid relative to Bradman?

I personally draw a generalised line at 50 for batsmen and sub 25 for pace bowlers (without anything too absurd affecting those averages like say scoring your runs at 80 at home and 23 away) with an appropriate quantity of runs or wickets for their era.

That's just how I do it and I tend to take a more relaxed approach to these things. I think that aside from Bradman you can throw a blanket over the top 10-15 best batsmen and bowlers of all time. Picking the test team to face the martians would probably require a lot of hair splitting over fielding, handiness with the bat etc

No. The idea is that an all-time great would merit consideration for an all-time XI. So, there can be 1-2 places for a spinner, but several options to seriously consider, such as O'Reilly, Warne, Murali, etc. But you know someone like Graeme Swann, as fine a bowler he was, wouldnt merit consideration in that group.

 

[Victor Ian]

You can pick an ATG team based on peak performances if you want. It's not how I do it, but both perspectives are valid in what is meaningless exercise with no rules.

What is not reasonable for me who is disregarding poor performances in an assessment of a player. A player who loses matches for their team is a lesser player. AKA Botham. Pick him in your world 11 if you want. He had an amazing start to his career, and was ahead of just about anyone else whether considering their first 6ish years or their peak 6ish years. But the dross he played in the second half of his career means he undoubtedly had a worse career than had he called time when still worthy of selection on merit.

On Waugh, as I said I'm not too sure. He would have had better stats had he been picked when a little older, but so would Tendulkar, Kallis, Ponting, AB... The reason I rate Waugh and Tendulkar as better batsmen than the other 3 is because they had long playing careers with their early years in the toughest of conditions.

So I guess, when you pick a team, you toss a coin to see if you get the crap version of the player or not. No one does that, and no one takes the average version, because that version doesn't exist either. Be real. Everyone picks the players based on the highlights from their memories. I pick McGrath imagining he would knock over the best players in the opposition. I don't pick him to play like the times he took none-fors or the time Tendulkar took him to the cleaners.

If you are picking because of stats (because you have not seen them play - like all of us with Bradman except for that lucky lucky lucky **** JBmac), then you are not picking a player to average '50'. You are picking them to get the hundreds that made them average 50. If you value those that did it tough and still averaged 50, then that is because your real bar is that they averaged 60 when they were in the groove. That's my take on it.

 

[Bolo]

It could happen with Amla, but it hasn't. He hasn't been the same level of asset as prior years in recent times, but he is definitely still an asset. Bavuma is a regular in the team and averages about 32/33.

Everyone declines at the end. If you don't, you have done your team a disservice by retiring too early. What sets players apart is how long the decline is, and whether they are actually an asset during their decline. I'm pretty sure we are not going to see Hash limping on for years as a mid 30s bat unless cricket RSA begs him to stay because the replacement options are horrible.

 

[Bolo]

So I guess, when you pick a team, you toss a coin to see if you get the crap version of the player or not. No one does that, and no one takes the average version, because that version doesn't exist either. Be real. Everyone picks the players based on the highlights from their memories. I pick McGrath imagining he would knock over the best players in the opposition. I don't pick him to play like the times he took none-fors or the time Tendulkar took him to the cleaners.

If you are picking because of stats (because you have not seen them play - like all of us with Bradman except for that lucky lucky lucky **** JBmac), then you are not picking a player to average '50'. You are picking them to get the hundreds that made them average 50. If you value those that did it tough and still averaged 50, then that is because your real bar is that they averaged 60 when they were in the groove. That's my take on it.

I would more or less toss a coin to see if you get the good version or the bad version. Another way to look at it is: Ponting played 168 games. The ATG side hypothetically plays 168 times, and in each of those games you get Ponting of a quality similar to the quality that he had in real life.

As I said though, I don't have an issue with you doing it your way, I just have an issue with disregarding a significant portion of a player's career in which they have been a liability when assessing their career.

 

[CricAddict]

Aiden Markram and De Kock for modern era ATGs.

 

[AndrewB]

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 Headley to the #3s, and maybe Barrington (13 hundreds in 40 innings).

 

[Bolo]

If the criteria is 'shortlist for world ATG XI' then does that mean there are only two great spinners? How do we rate specialist #3s like Ponting and Dravid relative to Bradman?

I personally draw a generalised line at 50 for batsmen and sub 25 for pace bowlers (without anything too absurd affecting those averages like say scoring your runs at 80 at home and 23 away) with an appropriate quantity of runs or wickets for their era.

That's just how I do it and I tend to take a more relaxed approach to these things. I think that aside from Bradman you can throw a blanket over the top 10-15 best batsmen and bowlers of all time. Picking the test team to face the martians would probably require a lot of hair splitting over fielding, handiness with the bat etc

This method works out surprisingly well and doesn't even need much of an adjustment for problems like home track bullies. Batting average in particular works well in the modern game. There are players like Viv and Waugh who i consider greats who just sneak through and players like Sehwag and Jayawardene who just miss the cut who I never considered ATGs, even when they were averaging above 50.

I'd add in a category for tier 1 players to distinguish a Marshall from a Pollock, and which can't be defined in average alone, but if you want a definition of ATG that is a little broader than than tier 1, 25/50 is pretty reasonable.

 

[Saint Kopite]

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...)

Would add Hadlee and Headley.

 

[AndrewB]

Would add Hadlee and Headley.

But not Hedley (Verity)?

 

[Red]

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

Simply forgot Hadlee (stupidly). No drama with Donald being in there either.

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

Correct on SWaugh. I have Sanga in my list.

I'd add Paddles and Barnes

See above on Hadlee. I've stopped adding early era players to these lists. I think pre-Hobbs it's better to categorise players in another list.

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

As above for Barnes.

 

[Burgey]

no spinners? I certainly think Ashwin will end up being remembered as ATG, if not at least one among Yasir and Herath and Rashid Khan too

Mate. Come on.

 

[akilana]

I think if a player has played long enough you can discount the decline at the end but I don't like removing the earlier part of their career (Tendulkar, Anderson, Waugh) because it almost certainly shaped them to be the players they eventually became over the next decade(s).

I am in favor of removing the earlier part of their careers because players get selected before they are ready in many cases. There are instances of players dominating domestic cricket and getting introduced to international cricket when they are ready. These players did most of their learning in domestic cricket and produced results almost immediately hence they are likely to have better records.

Players keep playing when they are in decline mostly because they cannot come to terms with the fact they are not what they used to be. They are in control of what’s going on with regards to their declining careers. But when a young/new player gets picked, he is going to take it even if he is not ready.

 

[akilana]

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.

Not if we apply the batting got easier, bowling got harder logic to it.