Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Okay, I have time to reply to this properly now.
Firstly, I was greatly amused to read the debate descend into an argument over what I thought rather than what actually was right, even though I hadn't made a single post in the thread yet. I'm not quite narcissistic enough to infer that any of you think those are the same thing, but I'll take it as a compliment none the less.
To clear up the debate, I think it's important to explain how and why I view all-time teams different from ranking the best Test cricketers, or even the best cricketers overall. When I rate someone's quality as a cricketer at any level (be it park cricket or anything through right up to and including Test cricket) I evaluate his theoretical average value to all the teams at that level during his era. However - and this is where it gets a bit blurry - one's value compared to another as they both go up through the levels is not linear. Albie Morkel would probably be a better grade cricketer than Rahul Dravid, what with his ability to bully poor attacks, clear short boundaries and double as an awesome opening bowler at that level, but he's certainly not a better Test cricketer than Dravid because he's below magic line of equilibrium in both main skillsets. To use another example, the difference between McGrath's batting and Martin's batting is basically irrelevant at Test level but in a park cricket match where McGrath would probably be a middle order batsman and Martin would still be a tailender, it'd be significant. Ponting's bowling is far better than Laxman's but this isn't relevant at Test level either - etc etc. There's a "magic line" at each level of cricket where skill differences north of it are stretched out and skill differences south of it are contracted. If my maths wasn't so rusty I'd graph the theory; in a nutshull though it basically suggests that with the higher the quality, the less relevance secondary skills have and the greater seemingly tiny differences in specialist skills become.
When I select an all-time XI - be it an all-time World XI or an all-time XI of a specific nation - I don't just pick the best Test players or pick the team I think would do the best at Test level, because you could pick a thousand and one different teams who would all never lose a game against real Test opposition. I pick a team I think would do well at a level above Test cricket against a team of similar quality - be it another country's all-time team, another person's selection of an all-time World team or an entirely theoretical team representing another world. Many would say that's all a bit fantastical and I'd honestly agree, but I'm not the one asking people to pick all-time teams; it's a popular exercise that I can only really reconcile logically in one way. I see no reason to not assume the level jump would be similar to all the level jumps below it, in that it wouldn't be linear and the value of players comparatively would change.
As such you get instances like the Pollock/McGrath comparison with me. I, perhaps controversially, regard Pollock as the better Test cricketer of the two because I don't think the difference between the bowling of the two at that level of cricket was practically significant - they are comparable - and I think Pollock's lower order batting brought something significant to the table at that level. I'd be far more likely to pick McGrath in a 1990s representative side to take on another era, though, or a World XI to play against another civilisation, unless I had a tail like a rat and it was really costing me. I think the (tiny, at Test level) difference between their bowling would be exaggerated a level above (no longer really comparable) and the difference between their batting would close right in, with McGrath still being useless with the blade and Pollock dropping from bowling allrounder status to "handy with the bat" status. I think it'd work in much the same way to how Andrew McDonald is a better Sheffield Shield cricketer than James Pattinson but how Pattinson has more value at Test level.
So, in essence, I agree with smalishah when I'm rating Test cricketers but I agree with weldone when I'm picking all-time type teams. Whilst I think Imran is the best ever Test cricketer, I'd sooner drop him from my all-time eleven than several others; I don't think he'd be the best cricketer at a level above.
Firstly, I was greatly amused to read the debate descend into an argument over what I thought rather than what actually was right, even though I hadn't made a single post in the thread yet. I'm not quite narcissistic enough to infer that any of you think those are the same thing, but I'll take it as a compliment none the less.
To clear up the debate, I think it's important to explain how and why I view all-time teams different from ranking the best Test cricketers, or even the best cricketers overall. When I rate someone's quality as a cricketer at any level (be it park cricket or anything through right up to and including Test cricket) I evaluate his theoretical average value to all the teams at that level during his era. However - and this is where it gets a bit blurry - one's value compared to another as they both go up through the levels is not linear. Albie Morkel would probably be a better grade cricketer than Rahul Dravid, what with his ability to bully poor attacks, clear short boundaries and double as an awesome opening bowler at that level, but he's certainly not a better Test cricketer than Dravid because he's below magic line of equilibrium in both main skillsets. To use another example, the difference between McGrath's batting and Martin's batting is basically irrelevant at Test level but in a park cricket match where McGrath would probably be a middle order batsman and Martin would still be a tailender, it'd be significant. Ponting's bowling is far better than Laxman's but this isn't relevant at Test level either - etc etc. There's a "magic line" at each level of cricket where skill differences north of it are stretched out and skill differences south of it are contracted. If my maths wasn't so rusty I'd graph the theory; in a nutshull though it basically suggests that with the higher the quality, the less relevance secondary skills have and the greater seemingly tiny differences in specialist skills become.
When I select an all-time XI - be it an all-time World XI or an all-time XI of a specific nation - I don't just pick the best Test players or pick the team I think would do the best at Test level, because you could pick a thousand and one different teams who would all never lose a game against real Test opposition. I pick a team I think would do well at a level above Test cricket against a team of similar quality - be it another country's all-time team, another person's selection of an all-time World team or an entirely theoretical team representing another world. Many would say that's all a bit fantastical and I'd honestly agree, but I'm not the one asking people to pick all-time teams; it's a popular exercise that I can only really reconcile logically in one way. I see no reason to not assume the level jump would be similar to all the level jumps below it, in that it wouldn't be linear and the value of players comparatively would change.
As such you get instances like the Pollock/McGrath comparison with me. I, perhaps controversially, regard Pollock as the better Test cricketer of the two because I don't think the difference between the bowling of the two at that level of cricket was practically significant - they are comparable - and I think Pollock's lower order batting brought something significant to the table at that level. I'd be far more likely to pick McGrath in a 1990s representative side to take on another era, though, or a World XI to play against another civilisation, unless I had a tail like a rat and it was really costing me. I think the (tiny, at Test level) difference between their bowling would be exaggerated a level above (no longer really comparable) and the difference between their batting would close right in, with McGrath still being useless with the blade and Pollock dropping from bowling allrounder status to "handy with the bat" status. I think it'd work in much the same way to how Andrew McDonald is a better Sheffield Shield cricketer than James Pattinson but how Pattinson has more value at Test level.
So, in essence, I agree with smalishah when I'm rating Test cricketers but I agree with weldone when I'm picking all-time type teams. Whilst I think Imran is the best ever Test cricketer, I'd sooner drop him from my all-time eleven than several others; I don't think he'd be the best cricketer at a level above.
Last edited:
