The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[jimmy101]

He played for 20+ years!

But I have no arguments with Chappell regardless.

 

[Coronis]

Sutcliffe belongs in that discussion too imo.

 

[Red]

**** stats, Viv was the ****ing absolute king.

 

[Coronis]

**** stats, Viv was the ****ing absolute king.

How many people have to miss the ****ing point the XI was about players whose repuatation was greater than their raw stats.

 

[jimmy101]

Sutcliffe belongs in that discussion too imo.

He certainly does. I'd even also lean towards Ranji when it comes to grouping the best of the best.

 

[h_hurricane]

My all time 11 of players who were not as good as their stats suggest. Several of them were good to very good, some high impact players but not proven across a variety of conditions.

I have considered only players retired or close to retirement.

Mathew Hayden
Virender Sehwag
Dilip Vengsarkar
Mohammad Yousuf
Mahela Jayavardene
Tilan Samaraweera
Kamran Akmal
Vernon Philander
Jim Laker
James Anderson
Terry Alderman

 

[TheJediBrah]

My all time 11 of players who were not as good as their stats suggest. Several of them were good to very good, some high impact players but not proven across a variety of conditions.

I have considered only players retired or close to retirement.

Mathew Hayden
Virender Sehwag
Dilip Vengsarkar
Mohammad Yousuf
Mahela Jayavardene
Tilan Samaraweera
Kamran Akmal
Vernon Philander
Jim Laker
James Anderson
Terry Alderman

I like this list but I think it's a bit harsh on the last 2. Anderson is class and I can't agree that a Test average of 27 flatters him. If anything I'd say the opposite. He's better than his stats suggest.

Same with Alderman. For a swing bowler who played half his games in Australia, in conditions he wasn't particularly suited, his stats are a bit harsh on him. If he was English you'd probably knock 5+ runs off his average.

 

[Starfighter]

I like this list but I think it's a bit harsh on the last 2. Anderson is class and I can't agree that a Test average of 27 flatters him. If anything I'd say the opposite. He's better than his stats suggest.

Same with Alderman. For a swing bowler who played half his games in Australia, in conditions he wasn't particularly suited, his stats are a bit harsh on him. If he was English you'd probably knock 5+ runs off his average.

I don't think so. Both are/were very good in a particular set of conditions and mediocre elsewhere, and their stats reflect that very well. Heck, both have played a somewhat disproportionately high amount of matches in closer to their preferred conditions, so I'd say h_hurricane is fairly close to the mark for those two.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don't think so. Both are/were very good in a particular set of conditions and mediocre elsewhere, and their stats reflect that very well. Heck, both have played a somewhat disproportionately high amount of matches in closer to their preferred conditions, so I'd say h_hurricane is fairly close to the mark for those two.

Kind of contradicted yourself there. The point of the list was players whose stats don't reflect their limitations. And it's not like they have incredible stats. If they were sitting on averages of 21 or 22 like Philander then I'd agree that they aren't as good as their stats suggest, but their career averages are ~27.

You're telling me that Anderson and Alderman should have higher averages?

(also I don't think Alderman really played a disproportionately high amount of matches in favourable conditions, he played a couple of long Ashes series but still played half his matches in Aus. If he was English he'd have played much more in his favourable conditions)

 

[Starfighter]

Kind of contradicted yourself there. The point of the list was players whose stats don't reflect their limitations. And it's not like they have incredible stats. If they were sitting on averages of 21 or 22 like Philander then I'd agree that they aren't as good as their stats suggest, but their career averages are ~27.

Their current records reflect their bowling with the caveat that I made in my second paragraph, and they're well below what they do in preferred conditions, so no I didn't contradict myself, and yes, I am suggesting their averages should be higher, same goes with Herath, he was a 30-average bowler.

 

[OverratedSanity]

My all time 11 of players who were not as good as their stats suggest. Several of them were good to very good, some high impact players but not proven across a variety of conditions.

I have considered only players retired or close to retirement.

Mathew Hayden
Virender Sehwag
Dilip Vengsarkar
Mohammad Yousuf
Mahela Jayavardene
Tilan Samaraweera
Kamran Akmal
Vernon Philander
Jim Laker
James Anderson
Terry Alderman

Vengsarkar is a bit of a weird choice, he only averaged 42 anyway, which is about what you'd expect from a good batsman who wasn't great overseas.

 

[trundler]

I'll throw Les Ames's name in there. One innings of note Vs Australia. Massive minnow basher. Still decent for a keeper, mind.

 

[Starfighter]

Players whose stats are better than their ability? Dilruwan Perera. Sure may not be ATG/ATVG figures, but boy is he actually crud.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Their current records reflect their bowling with the caveat that I made in my second paragraph, and they're well below what they do in preferred conditions, so no I didn't contradict myself, and yes, I am suggesting their averages should be higher, same goes with Herath, he was a 30-average bowler.

Fair enough. If you really think that Anderson & Alderman deserve to be averaging more than 27 then it's clearly a fair comment. I expect it would be a rare opinion though.

 

[h_hurricane]

Vengsarkar is a bit of a weird choice, he only averaged 42 anyway, which is about what you'd expect from a good batsman who wasn't great overseas.

True. I thought long and hard about him. Could not find many better choices. He only averaged in 20s in Aus, NZ and WI and only 32 overall abroad. Was poor in all countries except Ind and Eng. For a player who had that kind of long career that is definitely sub par. Pujara should knock him off this list once he finishes.

 

[vcs]

Surely Voges should be right up there? Or he didn't play enough to qualify?

 

[h_hurricane]

Surely Voges should be right up there? Or he didn't play enough to qualify?

A good choice. But as you said, there are many who played longer and hence more deserving. We know for sure what we get out of Vengsarkar in Aus and WI and Yousuf in Aus or SA, but do not know how Voges would have fared in many places.

 

[bagapath]

My all time 11 of players who were not as good as their stats suggest. Several of them were good to very good, some high impact players but not proven across a variety of conditions.

I have considered only players retired or close to retirement.

Mathew Hayden
Virender Sehwag
Dilip Vengsarkar
Mohammad Yousuf
Mahela Jayavardene
Tilan Samaraweera
Kamran Akmal
Vernon Philander
Jim Laker
James Anderson
Terry Alderman

Too harsh on hayden, sehwag and laker

Replace with cook, warner and ashwin

 

[a massive zebra]

Too harsh on Laker for sure. Often considered the best off spinner ever to bowl with an unquestionably legitimate action, Laker was the first cricketer to win the BBC sports personality of the year award and was voted in The Cricketer magazine's World Test team of the 20th Century. As he proved in 1950 and 1956, when conditions favoured him Laker was as destructive as any bowler ever. Far from a one trick pony, he was accurate, adaptable and dynamic enough to average low 20s on the unresponsive Australian pitches and to concede less than 1.7 runs per over in South Africa.

Ken Barrington, Clyde Walcott and Bill Johnston are other potential candidates. Their stats are up with the best in history but they pretty much never get considered for all time XIs.

 

[ankitj]

Ian Chappell regards Pollock's 274 at Durban as one of the most imposing knocks ever played, definitely worth consideration when you think about the fact that Chappelli would have seen almost every single one of his brother Greg's innings. Interestingly, Pollock has won Wisden's Leading Cricketer in the world award twice, in 1967 & 1969. Pollock is the only man to achieve this award and break Garfield Sobers' hold on the award from 1964 until 1970.

Pollock's peak icc rating points are also very high for someone who played 23 tests only. Shows he was very dominant very quickly. I usually put Pollock very high on batsmen's list.