2nd greatest living cricketer

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Different format but Sachin took a while to figure out ODIs.

He was ATG for his age group

 

[TheJediBrah]

Fair call actually. Only averaged 30 in his first 5 years of ODI cricket, but averaged over 50 in Tests during the corresponding period

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Fair call actually. Only averaged 30 in his first 5 years of ODI cricket, but averaged over 50 in Tests during the corresponding period

After 4 years 31at 74 ( No Indian batsmen averaged higher with equal or better SR )

After 5 years 36 at 79

 

[Himannv]

Yeah I believe Murali was the better bowler but also agree with the Teja reasoning for picking Warne in a World XI. I may not necessarily go the same route (depends on who my other slip fielders and #8 options are) but I am not sure we have to belittle Warne's achievements. He was also very box office which helped the game overall as an entertainment commodity.

I'd take Warne ahead of Murali personally due to the Brian Lara logic. At some point Lara was asked how it was like to face these two and he said that Murali was harder to face in the first hour that he bowled to you, while Warne was harder to face in the second hour. I think that's a real testament of the man's mentality. The longer he bowled at the batsman, the more determined he was to get someone out. He used every trick in the book to get the batsman to play a rash shot and invented deliveries with fancy names to get them all overthinking their approach to playing him.

Murali was more of a freak of nature and had very natural skills, but Warne was skillful himself and just had that edge in mentality that made him harder to face. I agree that he was a better batsman, but that's not a very good reason for picking one bowler over another unless the batsmen in your team are absolute hacks and you're relied upon to contribute regularly in that aspect of the game. I'm biased in favour of specialists in most cases though, so maybe I'm looking at it differently.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I agree that he was a better batsman, but that's not a very good reason for picking one bowler over another unless the batsmen in your team are absolute hacks and you're relied upon to contribute regularly in that aspect of the game.

Agree. People think that picking a bowler that averages 10-15 more with the bat is the right option even if he's not quite as good a bowler. This logic fails in practice. The bowler being even 1% better can make a huge difference, like having a McGrath who gets out the best batsman in the opposition more than anyone, if that happens even once with a Lara or Tendulkar that can save you 100s of runs in a game. Worth so much more than having a bowler that can make 15 more runs an innings on the off chance that their batting is going to matter in a game.

 

[smash84]

Agree. People think that picking a bowler that averages 10-15 more with the bat is the right option even if he's not quite as good a bowler. This logic fails in practice. The bowler being even 1% better can make a huge difference, like having a McGrath who gets out the best batsman in the opposition more than anyone, if that happens even once with a Lara or Tendulkar that can save you 100s of runs in a game. Worth so much more than having a bowler that can make 15 more runs an innings on the off chance that their batting is going to matter in a game.

Yeah, but nobody is applying that logic to McGrath vs Mark Ealham.

But if it is to choose between McGrath and let's say Richard Hadlee, comparable bowlers, I'd go with Hadlee every day of the week and twice on a Sunday.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah, but nobody is applying that logic to McGrath vs Mark Ealham.

But if it is to choose between McGrath and let's say Richard Hadlee, comparable bowlers, I'd go with Hadlee every day of the week and twice on a Sunday.

You misunderstand me. No one's talking about Ealham. I'm saying that the slightest difference even between bowlers that are almost the same in quality can make a huge difference.

If McGrath was a 1% beter bowler than Hadlee (not saying that he is) that could still easily be enough to warrant his selection ahead of him, even if Hadlee averages 20 more with the bat. "Batdeep" is overrated af.

 

[srbhkshk]

If McGrath was a 1% beter bowler than Hadlee (not saying that he is) that could still easily be enough to warrant his selection ahead of him, even if Hadlee averages 20 more with the bat. "Batdeep" is overrated af.

How so? 1% better is basically 1 extra wicket in 20 tests (top tier bowlers ~5 wpm), 20 extra runs is 20 extra runs.

 

[TheJediBrah]

How so? 1% better is basically 1 extra wicket in 20 tests (top tier bowlers ~5 wpm), 20 extra runs is 20 extra runs.

This is exactly the kind of logic I'm talking about. It doesn't work that way in practise.

If this were true McGrath never would have played for Australia. And no bowler that averaged less than 15-20 with the bat would ever have been picked for a team because there will always be another option that is mathematically better using this logic.

 

[srbhkshk]

This is exactly the kind of logic I'm talking about. It doesn't work that way in practise.

If this were true McGrath never would have played for Australia. And no bowler that averaged less than 15-20 with the bat would ever have been picked for a team because there will always be another option that is mathematically better using this logic.

lmao what? How many 1% worse bowlers but +20 batting average bowlers compared to McGrath were Australia packing in the day?

 

[TheJediBrah]

lmao what? How many 1% worse bowlers but +20 batting average bowlers compared to McGrath were Australia packing in the day?

I didnt say that did I? I said using that mathematical logic another bowler would come out a superior option, because they wouldn't need to be only 1% worse if they averaged 20 more with the bat using that sort of calculation.

Say McGrath gets Lara out one game when Gillespie wouldn't. Could potentially save you 150+ runs. That difference is not going to show up calculating wpm and averages. Obviously it's not going to happen every game, but all it needs is to happen once every so often and it waaaay outweighs an extra 15 runs with the bat a game which 9/10 times is going to be meaningless to the outcome of the game anyway

 

[srbhkshk]

I didnt say that did I? I said using that mathematical logic another bowler would come out a superior option, because they wouldn't need to be only 1% worse if they averaged 20 more with the bat using that sort of calculation.

Say McGrath gets Lara out one game when Gillespie wouldn't. Could potentially save you 150+ runs. That difference is not going to show up calculating wpm and averages. Obviously it's not going to happen every game, but all it needs is to happen once every so often and it waaaay outweighs an extra 15 runs with the bat a game which 9/10 times is going to be meaningless to the outcome of the game anyway

It could also potentially save zero? What actual calculations are you using to check that 1 extra wicket in however many games is worth more than 15 extra runs per game? Because it seems like you are just guessing randomly and trying to claim that that's how it works in practice without any actual backing.

 

[smash84]

I didnt say that did I? I said using that mathematical logic another bowler would come out a superior option, because they wouldn't need to be only 1% worse if they averaged 20 more with the bat using that sort of calculation.

Say McGrath gets Lara out one game when Gillespie wouldn't. Could potentially save you 150+ runs. That difference is not going to show up calculating wpm and averages. Obviously it's not going to happen every game, but all it needs is to happen once every so often and it waaaay outweighs an extra 15 runs with the bat a game which 9/10 times is going to be meaningless to the outcome of the game anyway

Yeah, and Hadlee can get you Lara as well. What's your point?

 

[TheJediBrah]

It could also potentially save zero?

Obviously, as I said.

Because it seems like you are just guessing randomly and trying to claim that that's how it works in practice without any actual backing.

Well, yes.

Yeah, and Hadlee can get you Lara as well. What's your point?

If you read what I said more closely, you'll see it was based on the hypothetical that the guy worse at batting could get you slightly more with the ball. If Hadlee is just as likely to get Lara as McGrath then it's an irrelevant comparison.

 

[srbhkshk]

Well, yes.

color me surprised.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Basically my contention is that you should always go with the better bowler, and a slightly higher batting average is overrated and most of the time irrelevant to the outcome of a game.

If you think Murali is a better bowler than Warne he should be picked regardless of batting. Now fielding is another matter, I think if anything fielding is underrated in these comparisons. But Warne wasn't even a good fielder so doesn't matter there either.

Also as I said earlier, well aware that a lot of people don't think this way. I used to not either. So not surprised at all that many will disagree

color me surprised.

what were you expecting? cricket can't be predicted and analysed purely by mathematical formula

 

[srbhkshk]

what were you expecting? cricket can't be predicted and analysed purely by mathematical formula

Generally when people say "it doesn't work that way in practice" they tend to have at least some sort of semi-proof or decent examples or whatever, not some sort of assume 150 runs ignore 15 runs kinda nonsense.

Not trying to attack you here, was just genuinely hoping for a bit more of a justification and was disappointed.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Generally when people say "it doesn't work that way in practice" they tend to have at least some sort of semi-proof or decent examples or whatever, not some sort of assume 150 runs ignore 15 runs kinda nonsense.

Not trying to attack you here, was just genuinely hoping for a bit more of a justification and was disappointed.

I respect and understand your viewpoint completely, 10 years ago I would have said the exact same thing. So trust me, your logic is not lost on me.

Anyway I thought the stopping Lara making 150 was a decent example. Again you're obviously not going to get some complex mathematical analysis to prove this. Cricket doesn't work like that.

 

[Slifer]

Honestly, given a choice of Marshall, Hadlee, McGrath (and maybe Imran), I'm picking the 80s greats because they were just as universally effective as as Glenn but those extra 15+ runs or so do make a different

 

[Gob]

No but Warne did do absolute diddly squat against any actual great player of spin - Indian or not.

Dravid, Kallis, Lara, Inzimam, Jayawardena, Sangakkara, Thorpe, KP, Chanderpaul hahaha idiot