What is the most important criterion for someone to be classified as an ATG?

[Prince EWS]

Symonds?? in aesthtically pleasing All TIme XI???? I don't remember his batting being that aesthetically pleasing.

I think Mark Waugh and Damien Martyn should be a shoo-in for my aesthetically pleasing XI.

He was taking the piss. I detest Symonds.

 

[bagapath]

trumper
greenidge
lara
g.chappell
hammond
sobers
knott (wk)
akram
marshall
warne
lillee

reserves: m.waugh, holding, matchfixereruddin, laxman.

 

[bagapath]

If it came down to say, McGrath or Waqar, for the final spot in the World Team, I'd pick the player who I thought would get me the best results, even if I liked the other guy better.

mcgrath is a considerably superior bowler to waqar. take out the minnows waqar's average goes above 25. his great SR is compensated by his bad ER and makes him a very good bowler - and not an all time great. mcgrath on the other hand is a perfect pace bowler. still.... majority believe lillee is a superior bowler to mcgrath - despite mcgrath's better record in every aspect. lillee's charisma, i am sure, swings it in his favor every time an all-time XI is selected; the recent cricinfo team is an example.

and, most importantly, remember your greatest cricketer, sir RJH? he never gets selected in these teams ever. his clinical bowling made him a terror all around the globe for a whole decade. and he could hold a bat, too. but when it comes to these ATG rankings, similar/lesser champions with more mercurial personalities, like marshall, ambrose and lillee get picked above him a lot of times.

 

[Prince EWS]

mcgrath is a considerably superior bowler to waqar. take out the minnows waqar's average goes above 25. his great SR is compensated by his bad ER and makes him a very good bowler - and not an all time great. mcgrath on the other hand is a perfect pace bowler. still.... majority believe lillee is a superior bowler to mcgrath - despite mcgrath's better record in every aspect. lillee's charisma, i am sure, swings it in his favor every time an all-time XI is selected; the recent cricinfo team is an example.

and, most importantly, remember your greatest cricketer, sir RJH? he never gets selected in these teams ever. his clinical bowling made him a terror all around the globe for a whole decade. and he could hold a bat, too. but when it comes to these ATG rankings, similar/lesser champions with more mercurial personalities, like marshall, ambrose and lillee get picked above him a lot of times.

That doesn't make it right though. It's actually ridiculous on many levels.

 

[Flem274*]

mcgrath is a considerably superior bowler to waqar. take out the minnows waqar's average goes above 25. his great SR is compensated by his bad ER and makes him a very good bowler - and not an all time great. mcgrath on the other hand is a perfect pace bowler. still.... majority believe lillee is a superior bowler to mcgrath - despite mcgrath's better record in every aspect. lillee's charisma, i am sure, swings it in his favor every time an all-time XI is selected; the recent cricinfo team is an example.

and, most importantly, remember your greatest cricketer, sir RJH? he never gets selected in these teams ever. his clinical bowling made him a terror all around the globe for a whole decade. and he could hold a bat, too. but when it comes to these ATG rankings, similar/lesser champions with more mercurial personalities, like marshall, ambrose and lillee get picked above him a lot of times.

Haha, Waqar and McGrath were the first who came to mind. McGrath and Lillee would be a better comparison.

I'm not arguing other people pick on aesthetics, I'm just saying I don't think it should happen.

 

[Ruckus]

mcgrath is a considerably superior bowler to waqar. take out the minnows waqar's average goes above 25. his great SR is compensated by his bad ER and makes him a very good bowler - and not an all time great. mcgrath on the other hand is a perfect pace bowler. still.... majority believe lillee is a superior bowler to mcgrath - despite mcgrath's better record in every aspect. lillee's charisma, i am sure, swings it in his favor every time an all-time XI is selected; the recent cricinfo team is an example.

I dunno about Lillee. According to Chappell at least, Lillee was chosen over Mcgrath et al. because (paraphrasing) "he can do all that McGrath can, but at an extra 15kph). Besides, there is a difference bewteen charisma/personality and aesthetics anyway. You could quite reasonably argue that a big personality makes a bowler more dangerous - it gives them an aura.

 

[bagapath]

That doesn't make it right though. It's actually ridiculous on many levels.

could be. but isn't that what is going on? why the hell would the experts leave hadlee and mcgrath out of two XIs otherwise? there is no way anyone can conclusively prove that trueman was genuinely superior to both of them!

 

[Prince EWS]

No-one's saying that players don't get picked on aesthetics. It happens all the time. What we're saying is that it's wrong and that it shouldn't happen.

 

[Flem274*]

could be. but isn't that what is going on? why the hell would the experts leave hadlee and mcgrath out of two XIs otherwise? there is no way anyone can conclusively prove that trueman was genuinely superior to both of them!

You can't, no, but that doesn't mean people should cop out and just choose the prettier player. They should make a proper call, put their balls on the table, and say player x was just better than player y because of abc.

 

[Flem274*]

No-one's saying that players don't get picked on aesthetics. It happens all the time. What we're saying is that it's wrong and that it shouldn't happen.

Two words: Daniel Flynn.

 

[bagapath]

You could quite reasonably argue that a big personality makes a bowler more dangerous - it gives them an aura.

this is very true of at least lillee and warne and definitely true of botham in the later part of his career.

 

[Debris]

Forgive me for being pedantic but one of my pet peeves is people who use acronyms because they are too lazy to type it out in full. It should be made clear in the text of the original post if you can't fit it in the title. You might think that it is obvious to everyone what it stands for but it often isn't. I am assuming in this case ATG stands for all time great.

 

[bagapath]

forgive me for being pedantic but one of my pet peeves is people who use acronyms because they are too lazy to type it out in full. It should be made clear in the text of the original post if you can't fit it in the title. You might think that it is obvious to everyone what it stands for but it often isn't. I am assuming in this case atg stands for all time great.

clab

 

[Prince EWS]

Forgive me for being pedantic but one of my pet peeves is people who use acronyms because they are too lazy to type it out in full.

AWTA.

 

[Debris]

And another of my pet peeves is people who make replies which they think are witty but are actually rather obvious and lame. It is the internet, though, so I have to make allowances.

 

[smash84]

trumper
greenidge
lara
g.chappell
hammond
sobers
knott (wk)
akram
marshall
warne
lillee

reserves: m.waugh, holding, matchfixereruddin, laxman.

is this an aesthetics XI??? Holding as a bowler should edge out Marshall in this XI I think. I don't know about Trumper since I haven't seen him bat and have not read much about him but Mark Waugh should have been there in the openers spot somewhere.

 

[Flem274*]

And another of my pet peeves is people who make replies which they think are witty but are actually rather obvious and lame. It is the internet, though, so I have to make allowances.

Sorry for not meeting your lofty peaks of wit.

 

[Teja.]

As to the Waqar thing, His stats are severely hurt by playing on for three years after he was done as a good bowler. If we consider his record from 1990-2000, an entire decade, up till the time he ideally should have retired, He averages 22.47 if we exclude B'desh and Zim, oh also taking wickets about 2 overs before Mcgrath or anyone else bar Donald(1 over before him too) btw.

 

[Prince EWS]

Sorry for not meeting your lofty peaks of wit.

Yeah WAC!

 

[Uppercut]

I definitely think of Waqar as an all-time great. Was about as good as any bowler has ever been for a decent chunk of time and changed the game forever.