The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Pratters]

Smith hasn't just had a good career, he has had an incredible career so far. The conversion rate, the big scores. Most other players, you wouldn't consider but Smith, sure. The Ashes series after the ban seals the deal re Smith being part of cricket top tier in his own right.

 

[mr_mister]

Has anyone other than Smith and Bradman hit 3 tons in a series 4 or more times?

 

[Red]

You can argue about Smith vs Tendulkar as the 2nd greatest to Bradman til you're blue in the face. And they're both ****ing good so making weird criteria about why one is better than the other is kinda futile. Tbh I'd rank them about on par.

Actual fact is neither of them is as good as Sobers or Viv anyhow. And I'd rank Hutton above both of them if we're including openers in the conversation.

 

[aussie tragic]

Has anyone other than Smith and Bradman hit 3 tons in a series 4 or more times?

Bradman and Sobers 5 times, Kallis amd Smith 4 times

 

[stephen]

You can argue about Smith vs Tendulkar as the 2nd greatest to Bradman til you're blue in the face. And they're both ****ing good so making weird criteria about why one is better than the other is kinda futile. Tbh I'd rank them about on par.

Actual fact is neither of them is as good as Sobers or Viv anyhow. And I'd rank Hutton above both of them if we're including openers in the conversation.

Smith and Tendulkar are both above Viv quite easily. Viv was on a par with Border except more aggressive (and thus rated more highly). Smith and Tendulkar are on different levels. Smith is pretty close to Sobers now IMO. At least with the bat.

 

[Nintendo]

You can argue about Smith vs Tendulkar as the 2nd greatest to Bradman til you're blue in the face. And they're both ****ing good so making weird criteria about why one is better than the other is kinda futile. Tbh I'd rank them about on par.

Actual fact is neither of them is as good as Sobers or Viv anyhow. And I'd rank Hutton above both of them if we're including openers in the conversation.

How good was viv in tests? I hear people speaking about him in the same best since bradman bracket that tendulkar, sobers and guys like that reside in but his stats aren't "that great", there good but he seems much closer to players like border than tendulkar. I never saw him live, was before my time so I only have stats to judge on.

 

[h_hurricane]

This is my order for non openers today.

Bradman
Sobers
Richards
Tendulkar
Lara
Smith

Might interchange Tendulkar and Lara on another day. Smith belongs to this list, I agree.

 

[h_hurricane]

Smith and Tendulkar are both above Viv quite easily. Viv was on a par with Border except more aggressive (and thus rated more highly). Smith and Tendulkar are on different levels. Smith is pretty close to Sobers now IMO. At least with the bat.

Not sure anyone would take the "quite easily" part seriously. Viv was ****** good as Red mentioned.

Also, Viv was not just on par with Border, he was simply better. Border's overseas record is oversold here. The fact is that he doesn't have a great record against WI.

 

[mr_mister]

Nah i agree with Nintendo. Viv outside of 1976 was very good but not ATG level

Nobody else in the hunt's record hurts as much from one year being removed and that raises questions about consistency

Mind you that 1976 is enough to make him an ATG but not end up above Sachin and Lara

People get way too misty eyed and argue all these intangibles when bigging up Viv

"To hear the sound off the bat when he middled them" and "the swagger he had when strutting to the middle to take guard" and many more

 

[Teja.]

There’s no way Smith’s done enough to warrant being ahead of Tendulkar at this stage imo, but the idea that 120 tests of averaging 65 would put him just on par with Tendulkar doesn’t sit right.

Lara ‘only’ played 130 tests and averaged roughly the same as Tendulkar. Why are they then spoken about in the same breath? Shouldn’t he have averaged about 60 to be considered on par?

As an accountant, are you legitimately subscribing to the ‘sample size is only used to see the batsman’s quality’ theory and not ‘more tests added = more value’ theory?

If you are looking for the most value from a player, what would you rather have, a batsman who averages 63 for 15 years and retires or a batsman who averages 40 for 4, 60 for 10, 50 for 10?

I find anyone choosing the former in the above hypothetical a bit mind boggling like one of the those yellow/gold dress things

 

[mr_mister]

As an accountant, are you legitimately subscribing to the ‘sample size is only used to see the batsman’s quality’ theory and not ‘more tests added = more value’ theory?

If you are looking for the most value from a player, what would you rather have, a batsman who averages 63 for 15 years or a batsman who averages 40 for 4, 60 for 10, 50 for 10?

As a critic and judge of batsmen are you not willing to dock points for poor periods where Sachin wasn't contributing?

 

[smash84]

Nah i agree with Nintendo. Viv outside of 1976 was very good but not ATG level

Nobody else in the hunt's record hurts as much from one year being removed and that raises questions about consistency

Mind you that 1976 is enough to make him an ATG but not end up above Sachin and Lara

People get way too misty eyed and argue all these intangibles when bigging up Viv

"To hear the sound off the bat when he middled them" and "the swagger he had when strutting to the middle to take guard" and many more

You really had to see him bat to believe the hype. He could put the fear of God in some of the fiercest fast bowlers ever to play the game. Every single one of the premier bowlers of his time ranked him as the greatest they played against. Lillee, Imran, Hadlee, Kapil, Thomson..it's a pity he didn't play against the WI quartet but even they thought he was something else.

 

[mr_mister]

You really had to see him bat to believe the hype. He could put the fear of God in some of the fiercest fast bowlers ever to play the game. Every single one of the premier bowlers of his time ranked him as the greatest they played against. Lillee, Imran, Hadlee, Kapil, Thomson..it's a pity he didn't play against the WI quartet but even they thought he was something else.

The stats don't back up his reputation at all

 

[Teja.]

As a critic and judge of batsmen are you not willing to dock points for poor periods where Sachin wasn't contributing?

I’m not a critic or judge of quality, I’m really only looking for marginal value added to the side.

Sachin’s 2 poor years are more than compensated for 10 years when he was averaging 50 which was after him already having a full ATG career.

Would you not rate Clarke differently if he played on for 10 more years as an elder statesman and averaged 50 supporting the current Australian lineup?

 

[stephen]

Yes but the thing about Viv is the same thing about Akram - they were bloody good and had that psychological effect on their opponents, but the stats tell us that those things don't count as much as the players felt they did.

 

[Teja.]

@Daemon would you rate Sachin higher if he retired at the end of 2004 having played for a full 15 years with 9.8k runs in 120 tests @ 58?

Those were his raw stats at that point. Within that period, he was also the standout batsman by 6-7 runs in one of the ATG fast bowling decade of the 90s.

Don't you think him playing for a decade after that and averaging 50+ is not a notable upgrade to the above?

If not, how do you justify your logic here?

 

[OverratedSanity]

There’s no way Smith’s done enough to warrant being ahead of Tendulkar at this stage imo, but the idea that 120 tests of averaging 65 would put him just on par with Tendulkar doesn’t sit right.

Lara ‘only’ played 130 tests and averaged roughly the same as Tendulkar. Why are they then spoken about in the same breath? Shouldn’t he have averaged about 60 to be considered on par?

Lara is generally rated on par with Sachin because he played some amazing innings and had massive series the kind Sachin didn't. And Smith will have similar arguments over Sachin because he's also piled up some immense Lara-esque series. This is something Tendulkar didn't quite do so it's a solid plus in Smith's favour.

But saying Smith should be rated above Sachin if he gets to a 60 average in a span of 100 tests is nonsensical because it's literally something Sachin did as well.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah I don’t put Viv quite in that top echelon of batsmen. The second half of his career (mainly as captain) as he was still quite a good batsman, but a long decline hurt him quite a lot. Of course, you only have to look at 1976 to know that at his absolute peak, he was one of the best. Unfortunately I don’t rate players purely on peak performance.

 

[Red]

Smith and Tendulkar are both above Viv quite easily. Viv was on a par with Border except more aggressive (and thus rated more highly). Smith and Tendulkar are on different levels. Smith is pretty close to Sobers now IMO. At least with the bat.

No one was “quite easily” above Viv. Unless the only metric you use in judging cricketers is statistical data.

 

[Red]

Yes but the thing about Viv is the same thing about Akram - they were bloody good and had that psychological effect on their opponents, but the stats tell us that those things don't count as much as the players felt they did.

Those things probably matter a lot more than a 3 run differential in batting avg, tbh