SS "Most overrated batsmen of all time: All of them"

[slowfinger]

The reason they are good is because no-one (Warne + Murali)were like them in these ways:
Warne:
1. No one had heard of leg-spinners, and he was un-natural in that way.
2.To back that (he was un-natural) have you ever seen any body else EVEN TRY to bowl them out behind their legs? Not me.

Murali:
1. Shoiab Akhtar- And Murali can get away with it
2.Cheat.
3. So there is absolutely no limits to the two.

(and they had 20-15 year careers)

 

[Ikki]

Lillee was needed much more by Australia than Marshall was needed by the West Indies. The question is if you put Lillee in the West Indies team, and Marshall in the Australian team, would they be different? I'd say most people would admire Marshall as they do Lillee for the same reasons, while Lillee would still rightly be considered one of the best quicks.

Again, poor and simplistic reasoning Manan. If how a team relied on a bowler was the decider then Hadlee would have been considered the best. Almost unanimously Lillee is heralded as the best of his time - including Hadlee's own opinion. It was for his fight, his skill, his completeness, his never say die attitude...for you to think it was because of the above is a disservice to the man. Some may consider it an insult.

And the example you bring...mate, Lillee did what Hadlee did and carry a team. Marshall did not do that. Maybe he could have, that's not the argument. But what you're asking is a huge hypothetical. Marshall bowled with an attack that consisted bowlers pretty much as good as him. The jump would be a massive one - a part of a deadly attack, and then a lone wolf.

This is where I get upset with people. Argue one is a bit better, fine. But not even close? Warne or Murali not even close? Do you know how many cricketers - your hero included - would laugh into your face if you said that?

 

[Ikki]

You are saying if you had (for example):

2 Warne and 2 Murali in an attack, and I had 2 Marshalls and 2 Lillees (for example) in an attack, that the former would do better than a latter? I wish that were possible to test, because I am pretty certain that my attack will win out every single time, under any conditions, against any lineup. Hell, even on turning pitches I'd take the latter.

If I could answer that question: I am no sure either attack would be better than the other. Because I consider them in the same class. The bold shows your opinion, obviously.

Really, you could put 2 Shaun Pollocks and 2 Waqar Younis against Marshall and Lillee and even those two will have successes against Marshall/Lillee...let alone Warne/Murali.

 

[Sanz]

Agree with KazoH0lic here. Kumble and Murali are more valuable to their teams than Warne is for his, does that automatically make them better than Warne ?

 

[Ikki]

On a spinning track in India pedestrian spinners used to outbowl/outperform some of the great fast bowlers of all time. In 2001 series Harbhajan singh alone won more matches than the famous pace attack of Australia.

Fast bowlers obviously get more help with the new ball, and their superiority with the new ball can not be questioned. But that has more to do with the condition of the ball than with their bowling skills, not saying that bowling skills doesn't matter a lot, just that, it is not a true test.

But in a test match, once the ball is 20-25 overs old, I can safely say that 4 spinners of Warne/Murali caliber are as good as 4 bowles like Marshall/Lillee if not better.

They also have the opportunity to face at least 2 unsettled batsmen. Warne and Murali - to a lesser extent - have to pry out batsmen. Taken over a career, it would explain 2-3 points in average or 2-3 balls in SR.

 

[slowfinger]

Agree with KazoH0lic here. Kumble and Murali are more valuable to their teams than Warne is for his, does that automatically make them better than Warne ?

I would not think necesserilly, unless this affects his performance (Warnes) but it didn't necesserily.

 

[silentstriker]

Agree with KazoH0lic here. Kumble and Murali are more valuable to their teams than Warne is for his, does that automatically make them better than Warne ?

No. That's why I said Lillee was more valuable to his team than Marshall but I think Marshall was better.

 

[slowfinger]

No. That's why I said Lillee was more valuable to his team than Marshall but I think Marshall was better.

But its about performance, not really about if you need each other at all.

 

[Ikki]

No. That's why I said Lillee was more valuable to his team than Marshall but I think Marshall was better.

Ahh, but you said because Lillee was more valuable to his side then he would be considered better by all. Yet Hadlee was more valuable than Lillee to his side. So you're negating your own argument. So, the reason for Lillee's legacy does not rest on this...because it can't rest on this - logically.

 

[Slifer]

Malcolm Marshall > Shane Warne easily. For crying out loud Marshall's highest average against ne team was 22 against Australia. BTW none of the bowlers in the great WI teams of the 1980s were remotely in Marshall's class. Marshall was great in all conditions against all comers. The same cannot be said of Shane Warne or Murali. I think this is the point that SS et al r trying to get at, the top seamers tend to do a whole lot better in more varied conditions than the great spinners.

 

[silentstriker]

Ahh, but you said because Lillee was more valuable to his side then he would be considered better by all. Yet Hadlee was more valuable than Lillee to his side. So you're negating your own argument. So, the reason for Lillee's legacy does not rest on this...because it can't rest on this - logically.

No, I am saying it affects people's judgment. It is not the sole reason obviously, you have to be very good bowler. It's about differentiating people in the top tier. I do think Lillee's legacy is in large part due to the fact that he stood up alone a lot of times. And to clarify, I am not saying that no spinner can ever be as good as someone like Marshall, I am saying none so far has existed that is even close. And as Silfer said, Warne struggled against countries, so does Murali. Warne himself is averaging close to 35 in the Aussie domestic scene, while Murali's struggles vs. Australia are well known. They both also struggled against India. Marshall (and the other top five or so), comparatively, have almost no weaknesses.

If you take:

Marshall vs. W/M (Warne or Murali) at their best (or vs. sides they do their best)
Marshall vs. W/M at average (or vs. sides they do their average)
Marshall vs. W/M at lowest (or vs. sides they do badly)

Marshall comes out ahead in all three categories - both statistically and when you watch the games (though obviously latter is an opinion).

 

[slowfinger]

Quite Obviously.

 

[Ikki]

Malcolm Marshall > Shane Warne easily. For crying out loud Marshall's highest average against ne team was 22 against Australia. BTW none of the bowlers in the great WI teams of the 1980s were remotely in Marshall's class. Marshall was great in all conditions against all comers. The same cannot be said of Shane Warne or Murali. I think this is the point that SS et al r trying to get at, the top seamers tend to do a whole lot better in more varied conditions than the great spinners.

Warne's played the majority of his Test career in places that are either unsuitable for spin or don't help much. It's expected he'd have a higher average. He also had to prise wickets out. Marshall was a part of an attack that relentlessly tested batsmen who did not get a breather. Warne also played in an era of higher averages and economy rates.Marshall also never had to carry an attack to my knowledge.

And if we regarded the numbers so heavily, then McGrath is not close, neither is Dennis Lillee or Ambrose in comparison to Marshall. Also, no one has a complete record all over the world really. Lillee doesn't, so does that mean Lillee is not even close to Marshall?

As aforesaid originally, too many holes and differences.

 

[Sanz]

No, I am saying it affects people's judgment. It is not the sole reason obviously, you have to be very good bowler. It's about differentiating people in the top tier. I do think Lillee's legacy is in large part due to the fact that he stood up alone a lot of times. And to clarify, I am not saying that no spinner can ever be as good as someone like Marshall, I am saying none so far has existed that is even close. And as Silfer said, Warne struggled against countries, so does Murali. Warne himself is averaging close to 35 in the Aussie domestic scene, while Murali's struggles vs. Australia are well known. They both also struggled against India. Marshall (and the other top five or so), comparatively, have almost no weaknesses.

If you take:

Marshall vs. W/M (Warne or Murali) at their best
Marshall vs. W/M (Warne or Murali) at average
Marshall vs. W/M (Warne or Murali) at lowest

Marshall comes out ahead in all three categories.

If it all has to come down to stats then there is no point in getting into any discussion, simply post the statsguru data and close the thread.

 

[subshakerz]

Want to know why Marshall is better than either Warne and Murali? Because overall, he'll take more wickets for fewer runs in less deliveries against all countries and in all conditions notably better than the spinners do.

We like to add certain intangibles like "aura" and "legacy" in judging bowlers, but at the end of the day bowlers are primarily wicket takers, and those who are overall better at taking wickets should be rated higher. Warne and Murali are all-time great spinners no doubt, but even their wicket taking capacity isn't that special compared to many worldclass fast bowlers.

 

[silentstriker]

If it all has to come down to stats then there is no point in getting into any discussion, simply post the statsguru data and close the thread.

I haven't posted any stats. Nor will I (I would but I know some people dislike them, and I can make the argument without stats, in my mind, its a very clear difference in quality between these two). Watching them, Marshall did better than Warne/Murali virtually everywhere under all conditions. I've seen matches on flattest track you can imagine, and spinners paradise, and very few people have bowled on those better than Marshall. He outbowled even spinners on some of those tracks tailor made for spinners...

 

[Ikki]

No, I am saying it affects people's judgment. It is not the sole reason obviously, you have to be very good bowler. It's about differentiating people in the top tier. I do think Lillee's legacy is in large part due to the fact that he stood up alone a lot of times. And to clarify, I am not saying that no spinner can ever be as good as someone like Marshall, I am saying none so far has existed that is even close. And as Silfer said, Warne struggled against countries, so does Murali. Warne himself is averaging close to 35 in the Aussie domestic scene, while Murali's struggles vs. Australia are well known. They both also struggled against India. Marshall (and the other top five or so), comparatively, have almost no weaknesses.

If you take:

Marshall vs. W/M (Warne or Murali) at their best (or vs. sides they do their best)
Marshall vs. W/M at average (or vs. sides they do their average)
Marshall vs. W/M at lowest (or vs. sides they do badly)

Marshall comes out ahead in all three categories - both statistically and when you watch the games (though obviously latter is an opinion).

You still haven't said anything that really proves your point. Lillee didn't do well everywhere. Neither did Marshall or McGrath. How does Lillee compare to Marshall or McGrath then? And Lillee doesn't compare to Warne because Lillee has a much worse record against Pakistan than Warne does against India.

Anyway, your criteria doesn't make Marshall > Warne/Murali. As I replied to Slifer in many points, they're too different. Had Marshall played the same roles as Warne and in the same game/team conditions as Warne, for example, I'd seriously doubt he'd keep his average. There is a reason why generally pace bowlers have lower average and SR and it isn't always something to do with their ability.

Sidenote: You keep saying Warne averaged 35 in the Australian domestic scene. I already replied to this saying I tallied up his career in Australian domestic cricket and it could not be above 30 and was closer to his overall record. If you have info disproving this, I'd appreciate if you were forthcoming. And if you don't, then please don't spread the fallacy.

 

[Ikki]

Want to know why Marshall is better than either Warne and Murali? Because overall, he'll take more wickets for fewer runs in less deliveries against all countries and in all conditions notably better than the spinners do.

We like to add certain intangibles like "aura" and "legacy" in judging bowlers, but at the end of the day bowlers are primarily wicket takers, and those who are overall better at taking wickets should be rated higher. Warne and Murali are all-time great spinners no doubt, but even their wicket taking capacity isn't that special compared to many worldclass fast bowlers.

So George Lohmann is so ahead of Marshall and Lillee that it doesn't need comparison? Thanks for pointing that out. Funny enough, that's the avatar of SS. Statsguru eat your heart out.

 

[silentstriker]

Sidenote: You keep saying Warne averaged 35 in the Australian domestic scene. I already replied to this saying I tallied up his career in Australian domestic cricket and it could not be above 30 and was closer to his overall record. If you have info disproving this, I'd appreciate if you were forthcoming. And if you don't, then please don't spread the fallacy.

Let me go find it. If I am wrong, I'd be happy to apologize.

 

[subshakerz]

So George Lohmann is so ahead of Marshall and Lillee that it doesn't need comparison? Thanks for pointing that out. Funny enough, that's the avatar of SS. Statsguru eat your heart out.

Lohmann didn't play enough tests or against enough countries for a proper comparision.