The better CRICKETER Wasim or McGrath

[Teja.]

Wasim, probably.

Pollock certainly superior to both though and I'd have him in an AT XI over both.

 

[Uppercut]

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

This is a contradiction, in my framework. Unless you're just being racist and want the white guy .

I would say the better cricketer is the cricketer that most increases the probability of his team winning or, failing that, not losing a match. That's a truism, the goal of cricket is to win. The best cricketers are the ones that increase the likelihood of their team winning by the most.

But obviously we can't compare the effect of McGrath on Australia to the effect of Wasim on Pakistan, we need our point of reference to remain constant. Benchy uses the idea of an All-Time XI playing against some random team, but I think that's problematic. It screws up the weighting given to different skills in cricket- most obviously, lower order batting isn't much use to such an XI but it was enormously useful to Pakistan. It makes much more sense to consider a distribution of all test teams (or if you hate distributions, the "average" test cricket team) and consider how much effect they would have on that team's likelihood of success.

Which sounds overly complicated, but I suspect it's really just a breakdown of what we do intuitively anyway.

 

[Z-Man]

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

Is this a troll????

No, not really.
My first point can not be denied that overall attitude wise, McGrath was a better team player and the history of Wasim Akram as a team player after Imran Khan left is not clean,1996 Quarter Final is one example.

If you see it skill wise, individually, then probably Wasim and McGrath stand the same but based on consistent performance McGrath wins the race. (I may be a bit Biased as I do not really 'like' Wasim Akram)

Again, Wasim Akram could turn the course of a match but not consistently however McGraths consistent performance keeps him a bit ahead (imo) in the race.

Its like having Afridi as a Batsmen in a team or Having Afridi the bowler in the team although this is a pretty bad example as Afridi the batsmen fails most of the time but just to give you an idea.

So my point is, Having Wasim in team is like having Afridi the batsmen in team, you always have a hope of winning the match in the 5th day.

On the other hand, Match fixing separates both of them and that, for me, is a huge difference.

 

[benchmark00]

This is a contradiction, in my framework. Unless you're just being racist and want the white guy .

I would say the better cricketer is the cricketer that most increases the probability of his team winning or, failing that, not losing a match. That's a truism, the goal of cricket is to win. The best cricketers are the ones that increase the likelihood of their team winning by the most.

But obviously we can't compare the effect of McGrath on Australia to the effect of Wasim on Pakistan, we need our point of reference to remain constant. Benchy uses the idea of an All-Time XI playing against some random team, but I think that's problematic. It screws up the weighting given to different skills in cricket- most obviously, lower order batting isn't much use to such an XI but it was enormously useful to Pakistan. It makes much more sense to consider a distribution of all test teams (or if you hate distributions, the "average" test cricket team) and consider how much effect they would have on that team's likelihood of success.

Which sounds overly complicated, but I suspect it's really just a breakdown of what we do intuitively anyway.

That is such a flawed definition/criteria.

A team of Scott Styris/Paul Collingwood/Another random bits and pieces player clones would beat a team of Glenn McGrath clones, despite McGrath being the better cricketer.

 

[weldone]

This is a contradiction, in my framework. Unless you're just being racist and want the white guy .

I would say the better cricketer is the cricketer that most increases the probability of his team winning or, failing that, not losing a match. That's a truism, the goal of cricket is to win. The best cricketers are the ones that increase the likelihood of their team winning by the most.

But obviously we can't compare the effect of McGrath on Australia to the effect of Wasim on Pakistan, we need our point of reference to remain constant. Benchy uses the idea of an All-Time XI playing against some random team, but I think that's problematic. It screws up the weighting given to different skills in cricket- most obviously, lower order batting isn't much use to such an XI but it was enormously useful to Pakistan. It makes much more sense to consider a distribution of all test teams (or if you hate distributions, the "average" test cricket team) and consider how much effect they would have on that team's likelihood of success.

Which sounds overly complicated, but I suspect it's really just a breakdown of what we do intuitively anyway.

AWTA

When I say that McGrath is a slightly better bowler, or that Wasim's batting is more useful, or that Wasim's left-arm fast bowling would add variety to the bowling attack, I necessarily have an average test team in my mind.

 

[Jarquis]

Yeah hypothetical aliens. Cool.

Just as likely as resurrecting half of the dead AT 2nd XI

 

[benchmark00]

Just as likely as resurrecting half of the dead AT 2nd XI

At least we've actually seen the players making up the dead XI play, not just saying some random alien XI. What a stupid post that was.

 

[Jarquis]

At least we've actually seen the players making up the dead XI play, not just saying some random alien XI. What a stupid post that was.

Why? All you need to know is that the alien XI is 'better' that the human AT XI. If I was picking a team to play a team where the top 6 averaged 70 and the 4 bowlers averaged 20 I'd rather have Wasim than McGrath.
Obviously if you're playing a team that is worse than you then you can afford the relative luxury of having an absolute bunny in your team to have a marginally better bowler.

 

[vcs]

Why? All you need to know is that the alien XI is 'better' that the human AT XI. If I was picking a team to play a team where the top 6 averaged 70 and the 4 bowlers averaged 20 I'd rather have Wasim than McGrath.
Obviously if you're playing a team that is worse than you then you can afford the relative luxury of having an absolute bunny in your team to have a marginally better bowler.

It just doesn't work that way in reality. McGrath would be much likelier to get the star Martian batsman out than Akram. He'd be likelier to raise his game against the top opposition, regardless of conditions, as he has done time and time again. Similar arguments apply to McGrath vs. Pollock. For me, it's just not as simple as saying "if A's a negligibly worse bowler than B statistically, and can bat a bit, I'd pick him without a second thought". Cricket just doesn't work like that. Otherwise SA would have won a couple of World Cups with the excellent ODI allrounders they had in their team.

 

[benchmark00]

It just doesn't work that way in reality. McGrath would be much likelier to get the star Martian batsman out than Akram. He'd be likelier to raise his game against the top opposition, regardless of conditions, as he has done time and time again. Similar arguments apply to McGrath vs. Pollock. For me, it's just not as simple as saying "if A's a negligibly worse bowler than B statistically, and can bat a bit, I'd pick him without a second thought". Cricket just doesn't work like that. Otherwise SA would have won a couple of World Cups with the excellent ODI allrounders they had in their team.

Post of the year.

People are so hell bent on relying on statistical theories making up the basis of their cricketing opinions. The human resource element of cricket is what makes the game so intriguing. The best pundits out there are the people who are in tune with more than mathematical theories.

 

[Borges]

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".

+1

And because of that reason, the difference that a great left-arm quick can make would induce me to pick Wasim (or maybe Alan Davidson) ahead of McGrath every time. In comparison, great right-arm quicks are a dime a dozen; it is not even certain that McGrath would be picked at all.

Though in isolation, without any context, of the two McGrath was the greater bowler. And therefore the greater cricketer. To me, batting would not enter the equation at all.

 

[salman85]

Wasim.

Nothing to choose between him and McGrath in terms of bowling.

Wasim was the better batsman.

Wasim was also very good captain,and great at rallying the team.For all his ability and talent,i'm not sure if McGrath had the same charisma as Wasim did.

 

[salman85]

It just doesn't work that way in reality. McGrath would be much likelier to get the star Martian batsman out than Akram. He'd be likelier to raise his game against the top opposition, regardless of conditions, as he has done time and time again. Similar arguments apply to McGrath vs. Pollock. For me, it's just not as simple as saying "if A's a negligibly worse bowler than B statistically, and can bat a bit, I'd pick him without a second thought". Cricket just doesn't work like that. Otherwise SA would have won a couple of World Cups with the excellent ODI allrounders they had in their team.

Don't really agree with that.Wasim was a better big match player than McGrath.

 

[Jarquis]

It just doesn't work that way in reality. McGrath would be much likelier to get the star Martian batsman out than Akram. He'd be likelier to raise his game against the top opposition, regardless of conditions, as he has done time and time again. Similar arguments apply to McGrath vs. Pollock. For me, it's just not as simple as saying "if A's a negligibly worse bowler than B statistically, and can bat a bit, I'd pick him without a second thought". Cricket just doesn't work like that. Otherwise SA would have won a couple of World Cups with the excellent ODI allrounders they had in their team.

Of course it's not as simple as that but it's not like Akram is like Pollock or any of the South Africans and had a history of bottling is it? Think you're doing him a disservice by suggesting that McGrath was far more likely to raise his game, Akram won/saved plenty of games for Pakistan. Including games against Australia.
I mean his first Test hundred came when Pakistan were effectively 0/5 in the second innings against Australia, he managed to put on 200 with Imran and save the game basically. Meaning Pakistan still had a chance at levelling the series.

 

[marc71178]

Don't really agree with that.Wasim was a better big match player than McGrath.

Yes, if you ignore all McGrath's big match performances then you're undoubtedly correct, but since you say there's nothing to choose between them bowling-wise, I'd question your objectivity.

For me the difference between their bowling is pretty significant and more than counters the batting difference.

 

[salman85]

Yes, if you ignore all Wasim's big match performances then you're undoubtedly correct, but since you say McGrath is significantly better than Wasim, I'd question your objectivity.

For me the difference between their bowling is negligible and doesn't counter the batting and influence on the pitch.

 

[marc71178]

McGrath's influence was rubbish wasn't it...

 

[Uppercut]

That is such a flawed definition/criteria.

A team of Scott Styris/Paul Collingwood/Another random bits and pieces player clones would beat a team of Glenn McGrath clones, despite McGrath being the better cricketer.

How does that discredit the definition? Scott Styris wouldn't increase the likelihood of any test team winning any match more than McGrath would. McGrath comes out well on top of bits-and-pieces junk using that criteria.

 

[ankitj]

Still going for McGrath. Wasim wasn't a consistent enough batsman to qualify as an all-rounder. I will rate Imran, Hadlee, Miller and Botham above McGrath though.

 

[smash84]

This is a contradiction, in my framework. Unless you're just being racist and want the white guy .

I would say the better cricketer is the cricketer that most increases the probability of his team winning or, failing that, not losing a match. That's a truism, the goal of cricket is to win. The best cricketers are the ones that increase the likelihood of their team winning by the most.

But obviously we can't compare the effect of McGrath on Australia to the effect of Wasim on Pakistan, we need our point of reference to remain constant. Benchy uses the idea of an All-Time XI playing against some random team, but I think that's problematic. It screws up the weighting given to different skills in cricket- most obviously, lower order batting isn't much use to such an XI but it was enormously useful to Pakistan. It makes much more sense to consider a distribution of all test teams (or if you hate distributions, the "average" test cricket team) and consider how much effect they would have on that team's likelihood of success.

Which sounds overly complicated, but I suspect it's really just a breakdown of what we do intuitively anyway.

I was thinking along these lines tbh hence there seemed to be a contradiction in what Benchy was saying. I think you do a fine job of separating the arguments that benchy and spark have been making.

At an absolute level will a better cricketer not add more value to an average team?