What's new

Is it important to dominate in both Tests and ODIs in order to be deemed an All Time Great?

shaz619

shaz619

Test Star
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Runs
38,368
Post of the Week
7
Can a Test specialist who is not great at ODI's be deemed an ATG?

Can a ODI specialist who is not great at Tests be deemed an ATG?

With Tests being the pinnacle for me, am of the view that if you can dominate that format you are an All Time Great.
 
Well, Bevan is one of the greatest ODI players ever despite not achieving much at test level.

On the flipside, Younis was a bit of a flop in ODIs but there should be no doubting his greatness when it comes to test cricket.

Obviously you'd like to dominate both but it doesn't prevent you from being great.
 
I think he has to be at least a top level cricketer in ODIs as well to go down as an ATG cricketer. Take the example of Waqar and Lara. I wouldn't consider them ATGs in ODIs but they were still top notch batsman and bowler in ODIs. In Tests they are certified ATGs.
 
Oh and for bowlers, Mohammad Asif wasn't much cop in ODIs but that didn't prevent him from being up there with Steyn as the best quick bowler of his generation.
 
Big Mac said:
Well, Bevan is one of the greatest ODI players ever despite not achieving much at test level.

On the flipside, Younis was a bit of a flop in ODIs but there should be no doubting his greatness when it comes to test cricket.

Obviously you'd like to dominate both but it doesn't prevent you from being great.
Click to expand...

Well you can label them ATG ODI batsman and ATG Test batsmen respectively.
 
You can be a great in one format . For instiance I rate ABD as a odi great but don't think he is a great in tests.
 
JaDed said:
Yes that's why I asked you don't think Sunny is an ATG coz he didn't play in this era and wasn't great in ODI in the previous era but was defn in tests.
Click to expand...
ODIs didn't hold as much value during his time. It's not for me to decide, the cricketing fraternity declares him as great.
 
Since the 90s era, a Top Level batsman is expected to be better at both forms of the Cricket.

A Batsman who is ATG in Both formats is greater than a Batsman who is ATG only in Tests.
 
If by all time great you mean "world class" then yes you have to be equally good and effective in all formats.
 
Inzamam v/s Younis Khan? Who was a better batsman ?

I would say Inzi even if Younis was marginally ahead as a Test Batsman simply because Inzamam was a reliable batsman in Tests as well as Odis while Younis was good in Tests but flop in Odis.
 
"I don't think I can be the best batsman. I don't play all formats. Kohli is definitely the best player in the world. He has got competition in quite a few players, like Steve Smith, Kane Williamson, and there are a lot of players - with Quinton de Kock coming through - around the world. But I truly believe you can be the best player only if you play all formats in cricket. If you are in the top five in all three formats, that's when you know you can really play the game." - de Villiers


I concur with what de Villiers said. Different people can consider different batsmen ATG due to different reasons, but in this era, if you are not quality in all three formats - or at least not in both Tests and ODIs -, you will not be considered an elite batsman.
 
Test cricket is where greats are born. If you are great in the longest format and equally good in the shorter formats, you become a bonafide legend. You can still become an ATG solely on your test performances like Gavasker, Dravid and Younis.

If you're a pathetic test player and a great ODI player, you better be something really special if you want your name to be out there when people talk about great players.
 
Barring the T20 format, a modern day ATG batsman has to be a dominant player in both tests as well as odis
 
Bilal7 said:
Test cricket is where greats are born. If you are great in the longest format and equally good in the shorter formats, you become a bonafide legend. You can still become an ATG solely on your test performances like Gavasker, Dravid and Younis.

If you're a pathetic test player and a great ODI player, you better be something really special if you want your name to be out there when people talk about great players.
Click to expand...

That is when someone like Bevan comes in I suppose. Speaking of Khan and limited overs, he averaged 57 in the World T20 in 2009 and did a great job in the middle order; helped us win the tournament and lead from the front, that is something to be valued; how many of these great limited overs players in the world today have won an ICC Trophy? and people can look down on that win, but I recall the euphoria in that moment; it liberated the pains of Pakistani people even if it was for a short while there was so much joy and dancing in the streets all around the world as pakistani brothers and sisters congratulated each other and celebrated while time stood still in that moment
 
shaz619 said:
Can a Test specialist who is not great at ODI's be deemed an ATG?

Can a ODI specialist who is not great at Tests be deemed an ATG?

With Tests being the pinnacle for me, am of the view that if you can dominate that format you are an All Time Great.
Click to expand...

From the 70s onwards, without a shadow of a doubt. And if you look at all teh true ATGs you can see they were greta across formats. It's why Steyn is never going to be better than Akram, McGrath, Marshall, Younis etc. It's why Root is regarded as so special for England because he is the first, actual English batsman to look impressive across both formats in a long, long time.
 
For me, yes!!!

However, it doesn't applies to players from older generation. For instance, Gavaskar is an ATG player and there is no denying to that.

This is where the likes of Younis or Cook get rated lesser as they dont play all formats and hence werent really central figures in world cricket like the young fab four or Sanga or KP or ABD were.
 
Tests obviously come first but LOIs are a significant part of the modern-day game so at least have to be decent LOI player for mine. Otherwise shows that a part of their game is lacking.
 
Depends. You could still be labelled an ATG if you dominated one format like Sanga or Dhoni did. This is where the likes of Younis and Chanderpaul miss out, as while they were very good in one format, it was still not good enough to push them towards ATG status.
 
Yes for sure.

I would argue that it is now important to be a good T20 player as well which Kohli, De Kock and Babar clearly are.
 
Do we need reminding there are 3 very different versions of international cricket.

They should all be judged completely separate when discussing ATGs in my opinion.

Tendulkar was never a T20 great. Should that count against him? Of course not, He is an ATG in Tests & ODIs.

Younis is one of the great Test batsmen of his era, but was a hopeless ODI batsman, and Martin Guptll of NZ is one of the great ODI batsmen of his era, but a hopeless Test batsman. For these two batsmen we can still say they are great batsmen of their era in one format.

I personally consider Test ATGs more highly than the other forms.
 
Snatch said:
Do we need reminding there are 3 very different versions of international cricket.

They should all be judged completely separate when discussing ATGs in my opinion.

Tendulkar was never a T20 great. Should that count against him? Of course not, He is an ATG in Tests & ODIs.

Younis is one of the great Test batsmen of his era, but was a hopeless ODI batsman, and Martin Guptll of NZ is one of the great ODI batsmen of his era, but a hopeless Test batsman. For these two batsmen we can still say they are great batsmen of their era in one format.

I personally consider Test ATGs more highly than the other forms.
Click to expand...

Performing across all formats shows the versatility and range of a batsman. No one underperforms in a particular format deliberately, but they have different weaknesses that are exposed in different circumstances, e.g. Younis' lack of shots and Guptill's poor defense. On the contrary, players like Kohli, Root, Smith etc. are clearly superior batsman who can do well in all formats.

T20s don't count against Tendulkar because they became big in international cricket in the last 5-6 years of his career, and India opted to play young players. He only played one T20Is, but there is no doubt that he would have been a quality player in this format as well, had it arrived a decade earlier.

Simply put, the ATG status is reserved for the most elite batsmen of an era, and in this era, you cannot be an elite player unless you are dominant across all formats. Now people can consider the likes of Younis and Cook ATGs (I personally consider the latter but not the former), but generally speaking, it is no surprise that they are rated lower than the Big Four for example.

Test is the most prestigious format for sure, and it is absolutely fine if a Test great is rated above a LOI great, but consider this hypothetical example:

Player A: Test average 50, ODI average 30 @75, T20 average 25 @ 110.

Player B: Test average 40, ODI average 45 @90, T20 average 35 @130

Player A is a much better player in the Test format, but it is very obvious that player B is a superior batsman and will thus, be rated higher in the modern era and rightly so.
 
Mamoon said:
Simply put, the ATG status is reserved for the most elite batsmen of an era, and in this era, you cannot be an elite player unless you are dominant across all formats. Now people can consider the likes of Younis and Cook ATGs (I personally consider the latter but not the former), but generally speaking, it is no surprise that they are rated lower than the Big Four for example.
Click to expand...
You're merely asserting this to be so, but I feel outside Asia Test cricket is put on a very different pedestal and treated very much in it's own right when deciding on ATGs and fans make the distinction by specifically saying "ATG Test batsman" or "ATG ODI Batsman". This is certainly my experience from cricket fans of interacted with across 3 countries, England, Australia and New Zealand.

I'm aware Tendulkar only played one T20I, but my point about him & T20s was based on his IPL stats (which most people factor ahead of T20I stats) and Tendulkar's career SR was only about 118. Poor, but irrelevant to me because that has no bearing on how I consider him as a Test ATG & as a ODI ATG.
 
Last edited:
Snatch said:
You're merely asserting this to be so, but I feel outside Asia Test cricket is put on a very different pedestal and treated very much in it's own right when deciding on ATGs and fans make the distinction by specifically saying "ATG Test batsman" or "ATG ODI Batsman". This is certainly my experience from cricket fans of interacted with across 3 countries, England, Australia and New Zealand.

I'm aware Tendulkar only played one T20I, but my point about him & T20s was based on his IPL stats (which most people factor ahead of T20I stats) and Tendulkar's career SR was only about 118. Poor, but irrelevant to me because that has no bearing on how I consider him as a Test ATG & as a ODI ATG.
Click to expand...

I am aware of the distinction, but if you are dominant in both formats and elavates your status. You are also always in the news because you keep scoring runs all the time, be it a Test series, bilateral ODI series or an ICC tournament. Someone like Younis scores in Tests but then he doesn't play for the next 6 months and people end up forgetting about him. IMO, The Big Four would have been less popular today had they failed prominently in a certain format. I think Kohli vs Pujara sums it up. The latter will never have the same recognition and status as the former, even if he surpasses him as a Test batsman.
 
Mamoon said:
The Big Four would have been less popular today had they failed prominently in a certain format. I think Kohli vs Pujara sums it up. The latter will never have the same recognition and status as the former, even if he surpasses him as a Test batsman.
Click to expand...

With respect I'd say that would only be the case for ignorant fans, since when we're looking at the the best Test batsmen at the moment it is hard to go past the big 4. However if we were combining all 3 forms together then Warner, Kohli & AB would be slightly ahead of Smith, Williamson and Root simply because those latter 3 don't have the SR Warner, Kohli and AB have in the white ball forms to be up with them overall, even though they do have good ODI records.

So you have sort of countered your own point there. The big 4 are considered that in Test cricket, not overall. If all these forms were weighted evenly, Kohli, AB & Warner would be the big 3.
 
Last edited:
shaz619 said:
Can a Test specialist who is not great at ODI's be deemed an ATG?

Can a ODI specialist who is not great at Tests be deemed an ATG?

With Tests being the pinnacle for me, am of the view that if you can dominate that format you are an All Time Great.
Click to expand...
I agree.

Rahul Dravid and Younis Khan are ATG's.

Rohit Sharma and Martin Guptill are nobodies.

Only Tests count.
 
[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION], I will agree if you want to got through the exercise of deciding who have been the ATGs overall across 3 formats it could be an interesting exercise, but then you have to decide which formats you are going to place more weighting on, or whether you weight them all evenly.

I know ABV recently said he thinks an ATG should excel in all 3 forms, but that's just his opinion, and it is easy to see why he thinks that way. To counter that I've heard many current and past international players saying Tests mean basically everything when it comes to their records, statistics & legacy. Even McCullum said that at the end of his career, and he was probably better at ODIs and T20s overall.
 
Junaids said:
I agree.

Rahul Dravid and Younis Khan are ATG's.

Rohit Sharma and Martin Guptill are nobodies.

Only Tests count.
Click to expand...

Pretty fair summary of the situation.

Of course ODI deeds can add to someone's reputation, but if only if they also succeed in tests. They can ice a cake. But not take its place.

Much of Wasim's or Imran's or Inzi's legend comes from ODI's or the '92 WC in particular. Wasim's over in the final, Inzi's power hitting, Imran's leadership and tv interviews which just got Australia buzzing at the time (have you EVER hear a captain of any team speak like Imran did on that tour? Certainly we had not in Oz!)

But their test credentials are at least as impressive. And more importantly, their legends weren't made in endless bi-lateral ODi grinds but World Cup success.

Similar for Oz, S Waugh's allrounder days where he pioneered back of the hand slower balls or played some unforgettable WC centuries en route to winning as captain in England (forget the year- 99?) are fondly remembered, even if his overall ODI career was just good. Shane Warne in the same tournament delivers some of his greatest balls/spells of all time vs Pakistan & SA in big games- all part of his soap opera.

I'd agree if ODI is ALL you have (Michael Bevan, same story) then no chance really to be an ATG. But big game performances in ODI, tournaments, finals, world cups, these can add to a players story and legitimately so.
 
Last edited:
No. These are all hypothetical benchmarks. I don't believe in mingling of different formats.

The limited overs game is rapidly moving forward and the difference in the skillset required to play different formats is increasing. Consequently, we see it more often that the players (like Pujara, Rahane, Cook, Guptill, Tahir, Yasir etc) are doing well in only one form of the game. It would be unfair to expect current players to be versatile enough to be successful in all formats of the game as compared to former players who could play both tests and ODIs without having to change much of their approach and style.

Even if we play devil's advocate using contrapositive logic, player 'X' can be great across the formats and would be an ATG. Player 'Y' is superior to player X in only one format but is unsuccessful in other formats hence he won't be an ATG. If we take that one format, majority would pick Y in place of X. Means that a player who isn't an ATG is being preferred over a certified ATG. Doesn't make sense to me.

I think it is even more important in current era not to fuse different formats while judging or comparing players. People would say that Steyn is a better test bowler than Wasim but Wasim is an 'overall' better bowler. I don't agree with the usage of this word 'overall'. How did we assign weights to different formats and come up with this 'overall' thing? How much importance should be given to each format? If Steyn is a better test bowler, he simply is a better test bowler irrespective of his standing in the other formats.
 
Personally, if a player averages 50 or even 60 in odi's 30 odd in T20's and 40 in test matches he can never considered an ATG.

If you don't perform in test matches you cannot be considered an ATG.
 
If you are extremely poor in either longer or shorter format, then you don't belong to be with the best in history. If you are not even among the best of your era due to being poor in one format, then talking about ATG for the same player is just non-sense.

You have to be good in one and gun in another format. If you are poor in one format then it's simply puts you out of contention because you are not good enough.
 
Last edited:
Stallion__ said:
The limited overs game is rapidly moving forward and the difference in the skillset required to play different formats is increasing.
Click to expand...

That's why anyone able to up their game with the best in all formats should be rated higher.
 
dildildalwalla said:
From the 70s onwards, without a shadow of a doubt. And if you look at all teh true ATGs you can see they were greta across formats. It's why Steyn is never going to be better than Akram, McGrath, Marshall, Younis etc. It's why Root is regarded as so special for England because he is the first, actual English batsman to look impressive across both formats in a long, long time.
Click to expand...

How Marshall and Younis are better in ODI ? Did they do anything to be among the top 3-4 pacers in that format during their career?
 
I think a player should dominate both to be considered a true ATG.

Hence true ATG cannot be applied to every player we see. Players like Tendu/Ponting/Lara/Viv are a notch above players like Dravid/Bevan etc who dominated only one format. Though Dravid did okay in ODI's, he was a bit too slow for that format.

The versatility of Tendu/Ponting/Lara/Viv to adopt to various formats puts them in a different league.
 
Stallion__ said:
Master of one > Jack of all

Master of all > Master of one
Click to expand...

Master of one + good enough in other > Jack of all.

Master of one + poor in other < Jack of all.

Here I am assuming that difference between Master and Jack is not too huge.
 
kukkad kamaal said:
Obviously yes.Fans are still in doubt whether Younis is ATG or not
Click to expand...

He won't go down as ATG even if only test format existed. He rarely retained the top 5 rank in the test format for sustained period. A vast majority of his career , he was ranked below top 5. How do you rank such performers as ATG? You got be the among the best at least in your era otherwise talking about ATG is weird. Ranking is surely not perfect at any time, but if you are going to spend pretty much all career outside of top 5 then you are not really up there.
 
Buffet said:
How Marshall and Younis are better in ODI ? Did they do anything to be among the top 3-4 pacers in that format during their career?
Click to expand...

huh?

Younis has many, many more wickets, a much better average, a better sr over a longer period of time and many, many more 5fers and 4fers in ODIs. Marshall had a similar ODI career to Steyn but is superior in tests, so overall is superior to Steyn.

Stey never had the fitness or skil consistency to continuously play ODI cricket alongside Test cricket.
 
I don't care for t20 stats but definitely look at ODI figures, especially when players' test figures are similar.

For example, in Viv vs Lara debate I give a nod to Viv based on his superior ODI performance. Players doing well across the format prove they are versatile.
 
Have to be great in test & atleast good in one dayers .T20S carries less weightage because it is basically more similar to onedayers

or have to be a great in one dayers & atleast very good in tests.

keep in mind tests gets the most priority.So the player needs to be only 'good' in other format.
but a player has to atleast great in onedayers & 'verygood' in tests.

going by above definition Sunil Gavaskar is an Atg. because he was not only 'great' but legend in the main format. And good in onedayers with almost 35 avg: for an opener considering the periods he played in.

Dravid is an ATG.. great in tests & good in onedayers.
Dhoni an ATG... very good in tests & legend in one dayers.
Miandad is ATG ... great in tests & onedayers
Younis khan ... no ... great in tests & avg: in one dayers.
Ganguly .... no .... good in tests ... great in one dayers..
 
dildildalwalla said:
huh?

Younis has many, many more wickets, a much better average, a better sr over a longer period of time and many, many more 5fers and 4fers in ODIs. Marshall had a similar ODI career to Steyn but is superior in tests, so overall is superior to Steyn.

Stey never had the fitness or skil consistency to continuously play ODI cricket alongside Test cricket.
Click to expand...

Waqar got spanked too much to be effective in ODI format and pretty much a non-entity in the biggest stage WC. He was gun in the test format, but Steyn is simply at another level in the test format. Marshall and Steyn is a good comparison, but marshall was not gun in the ODI format.
 
Buffet said:
Waqar got spanked too much to be effective in ODI format and pretty much a non-entity in the biggest stage WC. He was gun in the test format, but Steyn is simply at another level in the test format. Marshall and Steyn is a good comparison, but marshall was not gun in the ODI format.
Click to expand...

Nope. You sound like someone who is clearly trolling.
 
Each format has its own ATGs. So, someone like Gavaskar should be called a test ATG.

Then, there are some who dominated both formats like Tendulkar. I think that is an elite class and should be rated higher as overall cricketers.
 
dildildalwalla said:
huh?

Younis has many, many more wickets, a much better average, a better sr over a longer period of time and many, many more 5fers and 4fers in ODIs. Marshall had a similar ODI career to Steyn but is superior in tests, so overall is superior to Steyn.

Stey never had the fitness or skil consistency to continuously play ODI cricket alongside Test cricket.
Click to expand...

People forget to notice one thing in Marshall's ODI statistics.

He most played ODIs in the 80s and his numbers in the 80s read 24.52 at the ER of 3.39. Only Garner and Hadlee had better ERs in that period. Marshall's and Holding's were about the same. Marshall did not take many wickets but he kept it really really tight. Perhaps, batsmen gave him respect for his reputation as a test bowler and were happy to just see off his overs.

Now let's check Waqar's ER in the 90s (his peak years). He is not even among the top 50 economical bowlers in that period. 4.61 ER was extremely poor for a bowler in the 90s.

Now, before Waqar's wicket taking ability is mentioned. Waqar's wickets/match ratio is less than 2. So, overall it does not make any difference if he took 1.6 wickets a match as compared to let's say Ambrose's 1.3 wickets per match when Ambrose gave 12 runs less in every match.

Also, continuing with Ambrose as an example, Ambrose took more quality wickets (ratings of batsmen) so he enjoyed far superior ODI bowler ranking than Waqar.

BTW, Marshall's highest ODI ranking was #1 and rating points were 891 as compared to Waqar's #2 and 778. Malcolm also spent more time above 750 mark than Waqar.

Here is the link for your reference:

http://www.relianceiccrankings.com/...ted=1833&name_selected2=0&name_selected2=1685
 
The_Odd_One said:
People forget to notice one thing in Marshall's ODI statistics.

He most played ODIs in the 80s and his numbers in the 80s read 24.52 at the ER of 3.39. Only Garner and Hadlee had better ERs in that period. Marshall's and Holding's were about the same. Marshall did not take many wickets but he kept it really really tight. Perhaps, batsmen gave him respect for his reputation as a test bowler and were happy to just see off his overs.

Now let's check Waqar's ER in the 90s (his peak years). He is not even among the top 50 economical bowlers in that period. 4.61 ER was extremely poor for a bowler in the 90s.

Now, before Waqar's wicket taking ability is mentioned. Waqar's wickets/match ratio is less than 2. So, overall it does not make any difference if he took 1.6 wickets a match as compared to let's say Ambrose's 1.3 wickets per match when Ambrose gave 12 runs less in every match.

Also, continuing with Ambrose as an example, Ambrose took more quality wickets (ratings of batsmen) so he enjoyed far superior ODI bowler ranking than Waqar.

BTW, Marshall's highest ODI ranking was #1 and rating points were 891 as compared to Waqar's #2 and 778. Malcolm also spent more time above 750 mark than Waqar.

Here is the link for your reference:

http://www.relianceiccrankings.com/...ted=1833&name_selected2=0&name_selected2=1685
Click to expand...

First off, rankings don't mean much to me. It's a load of ********.

Also, your statistical analysis seems to disregard both Younis sr, one of the best across formats AND his average across formats.

Plus, the consensus agreement in cricket is that Younis was a great across formats. I'm not to worried what statguru warriors on here would think and I doubt Younis is either lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
LOI versus Test Cricket: Format Preference for Asian Nations
Replies
34
Views
625
kron
K
mominsaigol
[PICTURES] A message for Babar Azam and his fans: Focus on ODIs and retire from Test and T20I
2 3 4
Replies
311
Views
10K
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
Buffet
The role of the Ashes Test series in defining the legacy of England and Australia players
Replies
21
Views
661
Buffet
Buffet
MenInG
POTW: Buffet
Replies
21
Views
625
mominsaigol
mominsaigol
mominsaigol
Why do some Test greats struggle in White-Ball cricket and vice versa?
Replies
65
Views
2K
kron
K
Back
Top