The greatest cricketers from the subcontinent - how would you rank them?

[Migara]

Some posters have this weird notion that great bowler > great batsman automatically.

Doesn’t work that way. How are bowlers going to win the games if they have nothing to bowl at?

Great bowler is worth about 1.75 great batsmen. There are only 4 bowlers, but 7 batsmen.

 

[Migara]

When people say bowlers are more important, they mean individuals. A whole team bats, typically only a few bowl. Murali picked up 38% of his teams wickets, and it's it's not uncommon for a bowler to get over 25%, which no bat has managed over a reasonable length career.

This should be compared with a grain of salt. There are only four bowlers, and with all part timers we can assume as five. There are 7 batters and with tailenders we could assume there is only eight of them. Usefulness of the bowlers should be compared with ratio to 20% while batsmen to 12.5% for a meaningful comparison.

 

[Chrish]

Great bowler is worth about 1.75 great batsmen. There are only 4 bowlers, but 7 batsmen.

Not set in stone and depends vastly on a team make up. 5 bowlers aren’t uncommon these days and WK is someone who is WK first and batsman second..

 

[Fuller Pilch]

The one thing about batting is that you can get better at it even if you are hopeless initially.

Definitely. Daniel Vettori scored his 1st 1000 test runs at about 18, and his 2nd 1000 at about 40.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

There are only 4 bowlers, but 7 batsmen.

Depends who is picking the team. If it is @honestbharani there are usually 8 or 9 allrounders.

 

[honestbharani]

Depends who is picking the team. If it is @honestbharani there are usually 8 or 9 allrounders.

See how Namibia got it done?

 

[Xix2565]

See how Namibia got it done?

So do you open with Kallis and Jadeja?

 

[honestbharani]

So do you open with Kallis and Jadeja?

Nah... Watson and Katich

 

[Xix2565]

Nah... Watson and Katich

Disappointing.