• 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 most important criterion for someone to be classified as an ATG?

Most important criterion for an ATG is...


  • Total voters
    18
  • Poll closed .

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
but we are not going to choose a david gower or a mark waugh over a ricky ponting or a steve waugh simply because the first two look a lot better at the crease. only between players of similar stats, aesthetics come in handy to separate them.

the step by step process of choosing an all time great is what we should define since everything listed in the poll is a factor to be considered in this regard.

let me try my hand at this. you guys can agree with it or tear it apart.

Step 1: Their test match stats should be among the very best of all time. To start with, a bowling average < 25 or a batting average > 50 is a must. all rounders are expected to average around 30 with the ball and average a little more with the bat. a healthy run aggregate (5000+), wickets aggregate (200+), and a good bowling SR (under 10 overs for fast bowlers and under 15 for spinners) are compulsory too. In addition to the averages and aggregates, number of centuries (15+) and five wicket hauls (10+) make a significant difference. all these factors come under the statistics.

Step 2: They should have performed well against most, if not all, major teams. for example, batting figures boosted by 100+ average against the minnows won't mean much if their performances against the big teams are piss poor.

Step 3: They should have had a career long enough to enable the opponents to have worked out their weaknesses. counter punching those strategies makes a good player great. this way, the mike husseys don't get to sit at the same table as the comptons and borders. a reasonable number would be 50 tests or more. lengthy career also means tackling different playing conditions, different opponents, dealing with injuries and different kinds of match situations. one's ability to keep delivering despite encountering different challenges is important for an ATG.

Step 4: They should have played some iconic knocks or bowled memorable spells; like taking 7 for 1 in one spell or scoring 149* while following on, or hitting 153* in a successful fourth innings chase. all these numbers mean something special to every cricket fan.

Step 5: They should have created unforgettable moments of magic that define their careers in a nutshell: bowling the ball of the century, reverse swinging the old ball in karachi, bowling out the opposition with one hand in plaster, or whacking warne for sixers when the ball is pitched on the rough all mean something special. These are the moments that make them legends.

Step 6: They should perform well against traditional rivals and world champions. English and Australian cricketers should have good Ashes records. Indian and Pakistani cricketers should have some numbers to boast off against each other. In the past 15 years, Indians and Australians are expected to give their best against each other, too. Good stats against the Windies in the 70s and 80s and against the Aussies in the 90s and 00s matter a lot.

Step 7: They should definitely rock in away games. For example, doing well against Australia in Australia or against the old Windies in Windies is no mean task. doing well in India against India is not easy either; just ask ponting.

Step 8: They should look good. It could be flair, exaggerated back lift, a high arm action, aggression, technical perfection or charm; a champion on the field should look like a champion, and not like a club cricketer playing to keep his job.

Step 9: They should have achieved most of the individual milestones expected of dominant players; a double century shows a batsman can out bat the opposition all by himself. and a ten wicket haul shows a bowler can run through a batting lineup on his own. an ATG should display this ability at the highest level as often as he could.

Step 10: They should contribute equally well in victories and draws and losses. and in first and second innings.

Step 11: They should, at some point in time, be the best of their ilk in the world during their careers. they should be the player their opponents lose sleep over.
Great post. Almost exactly captures my own criteria for judging greats.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
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.
As far as auras go, surely McGrath's is the best of all time? Other players might have been more showy, but McGrath just constantly got the best batsmen that he faced out, time and again.

The other thing that should add to McGrath's aura is that he had no obvious weapon.
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
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.
SS approves.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
As far as auras go, surely McGrath's is the best of all time? Other players might have been more showy, but McGrath just constantly got the best batsmen that he faced out, time and again.

The other thing that should add to McGrath's aura is that he had no obvious weapon.
Did you hear Atherton talking about facing McGrath on commentary this summer? Just was saying how at times he felt he had literally no chance at all of getting through his opening spell, only bowler who ever made him feel that way.
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
Aura, if it serves the purpose of getting a player better returns, is something that's already reflected in the stats anyway.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Did you hear Atherton talking about facing McGrath on commentary this summer? Just was saying how at times he felt he had literally no chance at all of getting through his opening spell, only bowler who ever made him feel that way.
Didn't hear that, but I have heard Atherton talking about walking in hoping that McGrath wasn't going to be opening the bowling and knowing that it was time to go.
 

nick-o

First Class Debutant
but we are not going to choose a david gower or a mark waugh over a ricky ponting or a steve waugh simply because the first two look a lot better at the crease. only between players of similar stats, aesthetics come in handy to separate them.

the step by step process of choosing an all time great is what we should define since everything listed in the poll is a factor to be considered in this regard.

let me try my hand at this. you guys can agree with it or tear it apart.

Step 1: Their test match stats should be among the very best of all time. To start with, a bowling average < 25 or a batting average > 50 is a must. all rounders are expected to average around 30 with the ball and average a little more with the bat. a healthy run aggregate (5000+), wickets aggregate (200+), and a good bowling SR (under 10 overs for fast bowlers and under 15 for spinners) are compulsory too. In addition to the averages and aggregates, number of centuries (15+) and five wicket hauls (10+) make a significant difference. all these factors come under the statistics.

Step 2: They should have performed well against most, if not all, major teams. for example, batting figures boosted by 100+ average against the minnows won't mean much if their performances against the big teams are piss poor.

Step 3: They should have had a career long enough to enable the opponents to have worked out their weaknesses. counter punching those strategies makes a good player great. this way, the mike husseys don't get to sit at the same table as the comptons and borders. a reasonable number would be 50 tests or more. lengthy career also means tackling different playing conditions, different opponents, dealing with injuries and different kinds of match situations. one's ability to keep delivering despite encountering different challenges is important for an ATG.

Step 4: They should have played some iconic knocks or bowled memorable spells; like taking 7 for 1 in one spell or scoring 149* while following on, or hitting 153* in a successful fourth innings chase. all these numbers mean something special to every cricket fan.

Step 5: They should have created unforgettable moments of magic that define their careers in a nutshell: bowling the ball of the century, reverse swinging the old ball in karachi, bowling out the opposition with one hand in plaster, or whacking warne for sixers when the ball is pitched on the rough all mean something special. These are the moments that make them legends.

Step 6: They should perform well against traditional rivals and world champions. English and Australian cricketers should have good Ashes records. Indian and Pakistani cricketers should have some numbers to boast off against each other. In the past 15 years, Indians and Australians are expected to give their best against each other, too. Good stats against the Windies in the 70s and 80s and against the Aussies in the 90s and 00s matter a lot.

Step 7: They should definitely rock in away games. For example, doing well against Australia in Australia or against the old Windies in Windies is no mean task. doing well in India against India is not easy either; just ask ponting.

Step 8: They should look good. It could be flair, exaggerated back lift, a high arm action, aggression, technical perfection or charm; a champion on the field should look like a champion, and not like a club cricketer playing to keep his job.

Step 9: They should have achieved most of the individual milestones expected of dominant players; a double century shows a batsman can out bat the opposition all by himself. and a ten wicket haul shows a bowler can run through a batting lineup on his own. an ATG should display this ability at the highest level as often as he could.

Step 10: They should contribute equally well in victories and draws and losses. and in first and second innings.

Step 11: They should, at some point in time, be the best of their ilk in the world during their careers. they should be the player their opponents lose sleep over.
I totally understand what you are saying and I agree with the idea, but the statistical criteria need some qualification, to take into account the era the player played in. At a glance there is only one cricketer who played his entire test career before WWII who could meet the criteria of runs scored (or wickets taken) and matches played -- Hobbs. But of players whose career is entirely post-war, it's a good definition, with 30 or so candidates on a purely statistical basis.

On the other hand, Garner, Sutcliffe and Kallis will be hurt by the 5w and double-century standards, and Warne can only scrape into the 25 bowling average if Willis and Underwood also make it, so there's some ambiguity around the edges. And Gilchrist will be aggrieved that there isn't a dispensation for wicketkeepers...
 
Last edited:

bagapath

International Captain
Hmm. Why exactly?
It means a truly ATG player would be able to milk runs as easily when the going is smooth as when the going gets tough and everyone else is struggling. He can bat to dominate (win), for pride (loss) and without ego (draw). He can score runs on a swinging juicy first day wicket and on a crumbling spinner's dust bowl in the second innings. Similar traits can be attibuted to an ATG bowler too if he performs well in win/loss/draw/1st inn/2nd inng equally.
 
Last edited:

bagapath

International Captain
I totally understand what you are saying and I agree with the idea, but the statistical criteria need some qualification, to take into account the era the player played in. At a glance there is only one cricketer who played his entire test career before WWII who could meet the criteria of runs scored (or wickets taken) and matches played -- Hobbs. But of players whose career is entirely post-war, it's a good definition, with 30 or so candidates on a purely statistical basis.

On the other hand, Garner, Sutcliffe and Kallis will be hurt by the 5w and double-century standards, and Warne can only scrape into the 25 bowling average if Willis and Underwood also make it, so there's some ambiguity around the edges. And Gilchrist will be aggrieved that there isn't a dispensation for wicketkeepers...

Agree with the era to be taken into consideration. 40 between wars and 30 before WW1 must be fine with everyone. Same goes for the point about WKs. may be an avg of 30 wud be a good cut off for them.

Don't think Garner, Sutcliffe and Kallis are shoe ins as ATGs. Better to leave them out rather than bend the rules. Kallis will make it as allrounder anyway.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
It means a truly ATG player would be able to milk runs as easily when the going is smooth as when the going gets tough and everyone else is struggling. He can bat to dominate (win), for pride (loss) and without ego (draw). He can score runs on a swinging juicy first day wicket and on a crumbling spinner's dust bowl in the second innings. Similar traits can be attibuted to an ATG bowler too if he performs well in win/loss/draw/1st inn/2nd inng equally.
It defies logic to expect a batsmen to score as many runs when his team loses as when they win.
 

nick-o

First Class Debutant
Don't think Garner, Sutcliffe and Kallis are shoe ins as ATGs. Better to leave them out rather than bend the rules. Kallis will make it as allrounder anyway.
With your criteria of 50+ tests and 5000+ runs, Sutcliffe ranks second only to Bradman in terms of career average -- seems like a shoe in to me.

Kallis doesn't make it as an allrounder by your definition -- bowling average greater than 30.

regarding allrounders: No batsmen fulfilling the 50+ tests and 5000+ runs definition have bowling averages of less than 30. Two bowlers fulfilling the 50+ tests and 200+ wickets definition have batting averages of more than 30 -- Imran and Pollock. Seems to me Pollock is hugely underrated.
 

Ruckus

International Captain
As far as auras go, surely McGrath's is the best of all time? Other players might have been more showy, but McGrath just constantly got the best batsmen that he faced out, time and again.

The other thing that should add to McGrath's aura is that he had no obvious weapon.
Yeh thats true, but I was really just refering to an aura arising from someone's personality. In that case, I would think Lillee wins.
 

bagapath

International Captain
With your criteria of 50+ tests and 5000+ runs, Sutcliffe ranks second only to Bradman in terms of career average -- seems like a shoe in to me.

Kallis doesn't make it as an allrounder by your definition -- bowling average greater than 30.

regarding allrounders: No batsmen fulfilling the 50+ tests and 5000+ runs definition have bowling averages of less than 30. Two bowlers fulfilling the 50+ tests and 200+ wickets definition have batting averages of more than 30 -- Imran and Pollock. Seems to me Pollock is hugely underrated.
sutcliffe hasn't scored any doubles. If u read my post fully it comes as a condition too.

For the all rounders, I said the bowling avg could be around 30 and the batting avg shud be more than that. There are many cricketers (for ex; cairns,gregory, kapil) who qualify.

Kallis qualifies too.
 
Last edited:

GotSpin

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
With your criteria of 50+ tests and 5000+ runs, Sutcliffe ranks second only to Bradman in terms of career average -- seems like a shoe in to me.

Kallis doesn't make it as an allrounder by your definition -- bowling average greater than 30.

regarding allrounders: No batsmen fulfilling the 50+ tests and 5000+ runs definition have bowling averages of less than 30. Two bowlers fulfilling the 50+ tests and 200+ wickets definition have batting averages of more than 30 -- Imran and Pollock. Seems to me Pollock is hugely underrated.
I'd have Miller over Pollock IMO
 

Ruckus

International Captain
Aura, if it serves the purpose of getting a player better returns, is something that's already reflected in the stats anyway.
I dunno about that. If a bowler has any aura, it could translate to things like wickets being taken at crucial times (something not represented by stats). It could also improve the performance of other bowlers/team mates (because the batsman might be unsettled by the previous spell, even if it didn't take a wicket).

These are all speculative of course, but I'm sure there are others benefits someone with an aura has which don't necessarily result in a boost to their own stats.
 

Top