• 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.

Tell me how a Kane Williamson is an ATG?

capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Hall of Fame Member
Rob Wesley said:
If you can barely average 32 vs Australia, South Africa, India, New Zealand,England away then you are simply not good enough to be rated as a test match all time great. Actually, he shouldn’t even be rated a tier below that as well.

Williamson is a Mahela Jayawardene and Mohammad Yousuf level test batsman. That’s it.

Test batters ahead of him among those debuted in last 25 years:-

Steve Smith
Joe Root
Kumar Sangakkara
Younis Khan
AB de Villiers
Hashim Amla
Alastair Cook
Graeme Smith
Virat Kohli
Kevin Pietersen
Michael Clarke
Virender Sehwag

All these players have done better than Williamson away from home vs top opponents.
Click to expand...
Certainly interesting to **** on KW for his away record and went on to glaze ****ing Sehwag
 
R

Randomfan

U19 Captain
sayon basak said:
Why exactly? Why does player A being great depend on player B being great?
Click to expand...
5% of players are ATG
25% of players are ATG
50% of players are ATG

With any threshold, a player will be always compared and ranked to see if he crosses a cut off unless we say 100% of palyers are ATG.

For me, ATG's are some one who could be a candidate for the first 2-3 world XI. For some one else, it could be some other criterion, but there will be always a cut off and cut off depends on relative performance. ATG is subjective, but relative comparisons will still play a part.
 
OverratedSanity

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Randomfan said:
5% of players are ATG
25% of players are ATG
50% of players are ATG

With any threshold, a player will be always compared and ranked to see if he crosses a cut off unless we say 100% of palyers are ATG.

For me, ATG's are some one who could be a candidate for the first 2-3 world XI. For some one else, it could be some other criterion, but there will be always a cut off and cut off depends on relative performance. ATG is subjective, but relative comparisons will still play a part.
Click to expand...
So in theory, it's possible that one day, zero of the players you currently rate as ATGs will remain ATGs because they're inevitably going to be surpassed by future players.
 
R

Rob Wesley

U19 Debutant
capt_Luffy said:
Certainly interesting to **** on KW for his away record and went on to glaze ****ing Sehwag
Click to expand...
During Sehwag time, SL was a good side and he did superb vs Murali in SL in addition to doing well in Pakistan and Australia. Also, he was an attacking high SR opener and not like other classical mould batters. So, a different breed of player. But not sure what you mean by glaze here as Sehwag is not much ahead of him, he was the last name there as per my list.

Shall we come back to Williamson now and try and understand why should he be rated so high when his performance in SENAI away is so mediocre that he averages 32 there? Why is it that every time his purple patch come up when facing the likes of Pakistan, West Indies and Zimbabwe and not against the top lads?
 
A

Agonizingly Awkward

School Boy/Girl Captain
Rob Wesley said:
If you can barely average 32 vs Australia, South Africa, India, New Zealand,England away then you are simply not good enough to be rated as a test match all time great. Actually, he shouldn’t even be rated a tier below that as well.

Williamson is a Mahela Jayawardene and Mohammad Yousuf level test batsman. That’s it.

Test batters ahead of him among those debuted in last 25 years:-

Steve Smith
Joe Root
Kumar Sangakkara
Younis Khan
AB de Villiers
Hashim Amla
Alastair Cook
Graeme Smith
Virat Kohli
Kevin Pietersen
Michael Clarke
Virender Sehwag

All these players have done better than Williamson away from home vs top opponents.
Click to expand...
You have problem with Kane away average against some countries but then you have Sehwag ahead of him who average a couple of dozen runs in SENA.
 
R

Rob Wesley

U19 Debutant
Agonizingly Awkward said:
You have problem with Kane away average against some countries but then you have Sehwag ahead of him who average a couple of dozen runs in SENA.
Click to expand...
Already answered just above. Refer that as well.

For Kane, it is not some countries. It is the top 5 countries of his era I have taken. There was a clear decline beyond this as SL and Pak have been below par during Williamson time.

Now, do the same for Sehwag. In his era, SL had Murali and Pak were a good side too with Akhtar in it. He did well in Australia also. Also, he was obviously a different breed of cricketer- Attacking opening batsman with high strike rate.

 
R

Rob Wesley

U19 Debutant
Rob Wesley said:
Note that I enjoy watching him bat and always wished him to do well and regard him highly as a gentleman of the game. But let’s talk about his career stats.

The true measure of greatness is always your performance away from home vs top teams like Australia, India, England, South Africa ( in this era). This is not the only stats that matter but it is important.


View attachment 49330

You will find pretty much all great players in this list ahead of Williamson. Even the likes of Azhar Ali, Rahane and Chandimal have done better. Now, I don’t claim these names are as good as Williamson but due to his lack of performances away from home vs AISE, I really find it strange that he gets rated above the likes of Crowe, Amla, Younis Cook, Pietersen, Clarke, VVS, Kohli, Inzy etc.

Where would you rate him as a test batter overall?
Click to expand...
By the way, Sehwag don’t average a couple of dozen but actually higher than Williamson in SENA. There you go! Get the facts right mate.
 
R

Randomfan

U19 Captain
OverratedSanity said:
So in theory, it's possible that one day, zero of the players you currently rate as ATGs will remain ATGs because they're inevitably going to be surpassed by future players.
Click to expand...
Yes, if I am alive for 300 years your scenario is possible theoretically.

Coming back to reality, I said a candidate for first 2-3 all time XI. They don't need to guarantee a spot, but be a strong candidate for a spot. Some one who is a strong candidate now is unlikely to stop being a candidate in the next 30 years. They will be still in contention. May be a bit weaker contention.

Now, if some one is not even in contention for the first 2-3 world XI, I simply don;t think in my ATG list. I am just talkign about contention here and that means player is not even in top 35-50. I am not going to have 100 players in my ATG list. Now, some one caa have 100 players in their list. It's perfectly fine because there is no objective criterion for ATG cut off.

As per this thread, Kane is never in contention for a spot in the first 2-3 world XI for me, so I don't cosider him an ATG. Some one else can have him due to volume, career avg etc and it's perfectly fine.
 
R

Randomfan

U19 Captain
I agree that list should grow with time, but then some players can be removed from the list as well.

An ATG after the first 20 years of cricket history may not make the cut when talking about ATG after 200 years of history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top