I'd do the same, pick these guys over McGrath if it was only to pick one player.
How about Dale Steyn?
No I meant would you prefer Hadlee and Imran over Steyn too due to their batting since Steyn is not a complete rabbit
2.7 runs in tests and lower in ODIs. Where are you pulling these figures from?
I am talking about their batting average.
They are averaging about the same if you disregard Zim, Ban
Ian Bell is a better bat than Stokes, and Zaheer Khan a better bowler. Who do you rate the better player, and seeing as the answer is going to be Stokes, why is it any different to Hadlee being better even if you rate his bowling lower?Hadlee or McGrath is a slightly loaded question because they're both such great bowlers. I would pick McGrath because I think he's the better bowler. I would assume (or perhaps guess) that most people picking Hadlee either think he's a better bowler or they're equal. In both those instances picking Hadlee would be logical. But if anyone thinks McGrath is the better bowler but picks Hadlee because of his batting, that would seem slightly bonkers - but each to their own.
People think (well i think they think) that if one is better, its by a negligible margin hence they go for the guy who adds more with the bat. I think thats a bit robotic and also both having similar corridor style makes it even harder to pick both. I personally think, if he is the only rabbit, you can afford him at 11 without being too greedyHadlee or McGrath is a slightly loaded question because they're both such great bowlers. I would pick McGrath because I think he's the better bowler. I would assume (or perhaps guess) that most people picking Hadlee either think he's a better bowler or they're equal. In both those instances picking Hadlee would be logical. But if anyone thinks McGrath is the better bowler but picks Hadlee because of his batting, that would seem slightly bonkers - but each to their own.
We were talking about who you would pick for a team if you could only have one as a bowler, not who is the better all round cricketer.
This is LOs logic. It doesnt matter much in tests where you carry the weakness. Lower order parnerships change a huge proportion of tests. But FTR, playing a bunny at 11 doesnt only mean playing a bunny at 11, but weakening the lower order by batting everyone one up, unless you are comparing them to another number 11.
Picking Miandad over Dravid would be perfectly logical though so not sure what you're on about.
If its McGrath vs Imran, I would give it to Imran since I think they are in the same ballpark bowling wise but Imran's better batting would have an actual match impact late in the order at no. 7 or 8.Hadlee or McGrath is a slightly loaded question because they're both such great bowlers. I would pick McGrath because I think he's the better bowler. I would assume (or perhaps guess) that most people picking Hadlee either think he's a better bowler or they're equal. In both those instances picking Hadlee would be logical. But if anyone thinks McGrath is the better bowler but picks Hadlee because of his batting, that would seem slightly bonkers - but each to their own.
If its an ATG side, Murali or Warnes batting doesnt matter really because you can assume the rest of the batting till 8 or 9 is so fortified.
Warne is also a great natural slip fielder which is the most important fielding position in test cricket. Seeing Virat field in the slip over the last decade has reemphasised how important that position is.
