• 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.

What is the best way to judge ATGs with imbalanced careers?

subshakerz

International Coach
Based on the careers of most ATGs, you can assume they have the following phases of their careers:

Early career phase (10 percent)

Peak (40-50 percent)

Good phase (20-30 percent)

Late Decline (10-20 percent)

The cricketers who are in the top rung of ATGs will tend to be those whose peak/good phase covers a higher percentage than normal of their careers, like Tendulkar and McGrath.

While the lower rung of ATGs tend to have their stats and standing affected by a higher percentage of early/decline phases, like Waqar, Wasim and Botham.

Then there are the rare few like Lillee and Chappell who dont really have peak or decline phases in their careers and were unusually consistent.
 

bagapath

International Captain
Then there are the rare few like Lillee and Chappell who dont really have peak or decline phases in their careers and were unusually consistent.
And Kapil Dev and David Gower as well... Long careers with no major inconsistencies...
 

shortpitched713

International Captain
I tend to think that people put too much emphasis on peaks. Yes, you need match-winners in any given match and all matches are important, but you help your country most by performing better for longer.

Peaks are a neat thing to look at, but if I'm picking one guy vs another, both of whose entire career has already completed, I'm of course going to judge both of these players' entire careers.
 

subshakerz

International Coach
I tend to think that people put too much emphasis on peaks. Yes, you need match-winners in any given match and all matches are important, but you help your country most by performing better for longer.

Peaks are a neat thing to look at, but if I'm picking one guy vs another, both of whose entire career has already completed, I'm of course going to judge both of these players' entire careers.
Fair enough but wouldnt you look for players whose peak period covers a bigger share of their career? If you think about it, most ATGs build their reputation almost exclusively on their peak.
 

shortpitched713

International Captain
Fair enough but wouldnt you look for players whose peak period covers a bigger share of their career? If you think about it, most ATGs build their reputation almost exclusively on their peak.
It ends up being relative. If one guy's career was longer, then "how much longer?", if the other guy had a better peak, "how much better?" It feels like people mostly just pick and choose what suits their fancy, so it's not really a science.
 

subshakerz

International Coach
It ends up being relative. If one guy's career was longer, then "how much longer?", if the other guy had a better peak, "how much better?" It feels like people mostly just pick and choose what suits their fancy, so it's not really a science.
Yes, the point of this thread is to see whether there is some way to fairly measure the peak/longevity issue. My own thesis is that regardless of how long your career is, your peak or productive phases should cover around 50 percent of your overall career ideally as an ATG. The ATGs would end up in the upper echelon tend, like Marshall, Tendulkar and McGrath, have comfortably more than 60 percent of their careers being in top form and their declines still not to calamitous.
 

Top