The better CRICKETER Wasim or McGrath

[smash84]

Because ATXI 1 would have the 6 or so best batsmen ever assembled, and would be batting against a bowling line up consisting of probably the 5th-8th best bowlers, whilst their batsmen (presumable 7-12th best of all time) would be up against the 1st-4th best bowlers of all time. Having someone who averages around low 20's (just a guess, cbf looking up Wasim's stats) in at 8 would have minimal effect given the obvious strength of numbers 1-7.

Conversely wouldn't the extra batting give the extra edge?

 

[benchmark00]

Who said that the AT XI would be picked to play against the AT 2ndXI though?
I think the metaphor Prince EWS uses would be if they were to play against a team of hypothetical aliens who had a batsman just as great as Bradman etc. Bowlers better than Marshall. Surely the extra runs matter then?

Yeah hypothetical aliens. Cool.

 

[benchmark00]

Conversely wouldn't the extra batting give the extra edge?

No the superior top 7 would give the edge, or the superior 4 bowlers. The number 8 batsman wouldn't give an edge.

If we're judging as pure cricketers ofcourse Wasim is better. But as I said, it's completely moot. It's like how Sobers is probably a better cricketer than Bradman, but I sure know who I'd be having in my team over the other.

 

[weldone]

How else would an all time XI play a team close to it's ability like marcuss suggested??

Play against a super-power Jupiter XI or something, maybe.

By the way, my All-Time XI will neither have Akram nor McGrath. My bowling attack will consist of Hadlee, Marshall, Barnes and Muralitharan maybe (with Sobers as the partnership-breaker).

However, McGrath and Wasim may be fighting for a spot in the second All-Time XI. In the second all-time XI, I shall play two all-rounders (Imran and Miller), and a spinner (O'Relly or Warne)...That leaves place for 2 more pace bowlers...I may choose any two between Trueman, Ambrose, McGrath and Wasim (Lillee, Garner or Holding can be considered too). Wasim's variety might be a point there (along with his batting), not saying that it definitely will though.

 

[smash84]

No the superior top 7 would give the edge, or the superior 4 bowlers. The number 8 batsman wouldn't give an edge.

If we're judging as pure cricketers ofcourse Wasim is better. But as I said, it's completely moot. It's like how Sobers is probably a better cricketer than Bradman, but I sure know who I'd be having in my team over the other.

The Bradman analogy is totally irrelevant here..........

McGrath is marginally better than Wasim as a bowler not the difference of Sobers and Bradman as batsmen

 

[benchmark00]

The Bradman analogy is totally irrelevant here..........

McGrath is marginally better than Wasim as a bowler not the difference of Sobers and Bradman as batsmen

Bradman's batting was way superior to Sobers batting, though not double.
Sobers' bowling is way superior to Bradman's batting, I'd say double or more effective.

McGrath's bowling is slightly better than Wasims.
Wasim's batting is more than double as effective as McGrath.

I'd say it's a pretty fair analogy tbh.

 

[smash84]

Bradman's batting was way superior to Sobers batting, though not double.
Sobers' bowling is way superior to Bradman's batting, I'd say double or more effective.

McGrath's bowling is slightly better than Wasims.
Wasim's batting is more than double as effective as McGrath.

I'd say it's a pretty fair analogy tbh.

So the analogy is wrong in any case.

You should pick somebody like hutton or barrington whose batting is slightly better than Sobers not so much better and Sobers batting is more than double their bowling.

I surely knnow who I will pick then.

 

[benchmark00]

So the analogy is wrong in any case.

You should pick somebody like hutton or barrington whose batting is slightly better than Sobers not so much better and Sobers batting is more than double their bowling.

I surely knnow who I will pick then.

No but the analogy was to point out that you've asked two questions in the OP.

You've asked:

1) Who is the better cricketer - I find this question to be totally moot because it is totally unrelated to your last line of the post which asks:
2) Who would you like to have in your team? (presumably if you were creating a team from scratch) - This is by far the more pressing and relevant question, but question 1 and question 2 are mutually exclusive.

If we were to apply the Bradman/Sobers analogy, for question 1 I'd say Sobers, but for question 2 Bradman, every day of the week.

 

[smash84]

No but the analogy was to point out that you've asked two questions in the OP.

You've asked:

1) Who is the better cricketer - I find this question to be totally moot because it is totally unrelated to your last line of the post which asks:
2) Who would you like to have in your team? (presumably if you were creating a team from scratch) - This is by far the more pressing and relevant question, but question 1 and question 2 are mutually exclusive.

If we were to apply the Bradman/Sobers analogy, for question 1 I'd say Sobers, but for question 2 Bradman, every day of the week.

yes but to answer bradman every day of the week there has to be a reasoning behind it right? What reasoning is there??? Can you elaborate on the reasoning?

 

[benchmark00]

yes but to answer bradman every day of the week there has to be a reasoning behind it right? What reasoning is there??? Can you elaborate on the reasoning?

Because by picking Sobers over Bradman you pick an inferior player in a specialist position in order to make up in an area where you don't need anything to be made up in.

But that is again moot because I'd obv have both Sobers and Bradman in 'my team'.

 

[Spark]

yes but to answer bradman every day of the week there has to be a reasoning behind it right? What reasoning is there??? Can you elaborate on the reasoning?

More generally I'd say it's because you don't pick the best eleven cricketers you can to make your team, you pick whatever cricketers give you the best team. A subtle but dramatic difference. One assumes that batting and bowling skill are of equal importance, the other weights them according to "context".

More to the point, who is the better cricketer? Wasim, I would say. Who would I pick first? McGrath, definitely.

 

[Z-Man]

I assume that the "Better" Cricketer also means overall attitude which includes being controversy free.
In that case, Mcgrath takes over Wasim easily as Wasims career was not controversy/match fixing free(Assuming we all know what happened in the late 90's).

Even otherwise, I would prefer taking 4 wickets/30 runs than 15 handy runs and 2 wickets that also not reliable enough. So McGrath would still take over as he was a complete class in his department also considering the fact that McGrath was very reliable and you could guarantee a couple of wickets in every match.

 

[smash84]

Because by picking Sobers over Bradman you pick an inferior player in a specialist position in order to make up in an area where you don't need anything to be made up in.
.

but then again your are not putting somebody in that position who is marginally lesser a batsman than Bradman. Hence your analogy does not hold.

For your analogy to hold you need to get a MARGINALLY inferior batsman and that is not what you are doing.

The difference between McGrath and Wasim's bowling is marginal really. At least much less than the difference between Bradman and Sobers

 

[smash84]

I assume that the "Better" Cricketer also means overall attitude which includes being controversy free.
In that case, Mcgrath takes over Wasim easily as Wasims career was not controversy/match fixing free(Assuming we all know what happened in the late 90's).

Even otherwise, I would prefer taking 4 wickets/30 runs than 15 handy runs and 2 wickets that also not reliable enough. So McGrath would still take over as he was a complete class in his department also considering the fact that McGrath was very reliable and you could guarantee a couple of wickets in every match.

I really did not know that the difference between McGrath and Wasim was that great????

Is this a troll????

 

[Spark]

I really did not know that the difference between McGrath and Wasim was that great????

Is this a troll????

Not needed.

 

[benchmark00]

but then again your are not putting somebody in that position who is marginally lesser a batsman than Bradman. Hence your analogy does not hold.

For your analogy to hold you need to get a MARGINALLY inferior batsman and that is not what you are doing.

The difference between McGrath and Wasim's bowling is marginal really. At least much less than the difference between Bradman and Sobers

fmd, the analogy is not to show that all four players careers are comparible. It's to show that you don't pick a player on the basis of them being overall a better cricketer, you pick the player because they have more value to the team.

 

[smash84]

More generally I'd say it's because you don't pick the best eleven cricketers you can to make your team, you pick whatever cricketers give you the best team. A subtle but dramatic difference. One assumes that batting and bowling skill are of equal importance, the other weights them according to "context".

More to the point, who is the better cricketer? Wasim, I would say. Who would I pick first? McGrath, definitely.

hmmm.....I might be beginning to see what you (and Benchy) might be hinting at but still that Bradman analogy doesn't fit here tbh

 

[Himannv]

The answer to this question is either Tendulkar or Mangoes IMO.

 

[Redbacks]

A reactionary thread because Pidge was waltzing the other one. Wasim if you add batting, let him have it

 

[smash84]

A reactionary thread because Pidge was waltzing the other one. Wasim if you add batting, let him have it

errr......did you read the opening post???