Imran Khan vs Richard Hadlee

[subshakerz]

I agree McGrath was the better bowler, you don't need to keep telling me. I think McGrath is the GOAT.

Also stop claiming counter views love spreadsheets too much while typing spreadsheets.

But if you're going to call a 64 run difference per game (almost 200 runs per 3 test series) splitting hairs over tailend runs then I don't think that's an idea that will get any traction outside of ATG internet discussions. A real world selector picking a team to play tomorrow would give such ability obvious weight when comparing two excellent bowlers for very obvious reasons.

Just out of interest, do you consider Wasim a better cricketer than McGrath?

 

[ZK$]

There is a difference. Is it a Jadeja like 35 or a Stokes like 35?

It’s a Pollock like 35. Pollock’s RPM is 35.01.

 

[Prince EWS]

Just out of interest, do you consider Wasim a better cricketer than McGrath?

And what about Garner? Significantly better bat.

 

[subshakerz]

It’s a Pollock like 35. Pollock’s RPM is 35.01.

Oh per match. Yeah would go with Cummins I think.

 

[BazBall21]

And?

Even if you arbitrarily chonk off 7 runs, McGrath didn't even average 10 yet averaging 2 less with the ball is being presented as the distance from here to the moon.

The runs difference between their batting averages is over 12 times the gap between their bowling averages. That matters when assessing who the better cricketer was.

Mathematically I'm being very generous as well, because if my opinions weren't formed by watching both play then the bowling discrepancies could easily be explained as quirks if variation. People who watched cricket in the 00s (the batting boom no less) all agree McGrath was big dog and Pollock second though.

Pollock’s RPI is below 25. His average flatters his output.

 

[ZK$]

Oh per match. Yeah would go with Cummins I think.

It probably depends where the match is being played. I think it’s fine to pick Anderson(if he could bat)/Pollock over Cummins/McGrath in England/South Africa. You’d be crazy to pick them anywhere else though.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

It also depends which team they are joining. Pollock (batting at 7 instead of Jansen) would be far more useful for the current SA team than McGrath.

 

[Flem274*]

Since 2014, Anderson averages 21 with the ball which is what Cummins averages as well. If Anderson was scoring around 35 runs with the bat per match like Pollock, would you pick him over Cummins during this period?

**** yes you'd be brain damaged not to.

Edit - ah per match not innings. Hmm nah that's not a bowling allrounder that's a tailender who can slog.

 

[Flem274*]

And what about Garner? Significantly better bat.

Never really considered this before now but probably not. I think the difference between a tailender who can hold the bat a bit vs one of the greatest true bowling allrounders ever is quite a wide margin.

I don't really consider Broad's batting at all when comparing him with Anderson but give him say Sam Curran's batting and it's relevant. Curran has already ruined people's experiences with the stick.

In this specific case Garner also gets points for being a very rare player - an ATG change bowler. Scarcity and role should be discussed more in ATG threads imo rather than just listing performances or averages by country.

I'm taking McGrath rather than Garner.

 

[Prince EWS]

Never really considered this before now but probably not. I think the difference between a tailender who can hold the bat a bit vs one of the greatest true bowling allrounders ever is quite a wide margin.

I don't really consider Broad's batting at all when comparing him with Anderson but give him say Sam Curran's batting and it's relevant. Curran has already ruined people's experiences with the stick.

In this specific case Garner also gets points for being a very rare player - an ATG change bowler. Scarcity and role should be discussed more in ATG threads imo rather than just listing performances or averages by country.

I'm taking McGrath rather than Garner.

Haha Garner over McGrath for batting is a meme, don't take it seriously.

 

[ankitj]

I've cracked the code actually. Here's all you have to do, to adjust your opinions for players to be higher or lower than what their average indicates, if you want to conform to CW Cricket Chat concensus.

Tier 1
Australia
India
England

Tier 2
West Indies
New Zealand
Pakistan

Tier 3
South Africa
Sri Lanka

If you know which of these major cricketing countries the player is from, you can adjust them by tier value. Always adjust tier 1 averages favorably, and tier 3 averages unfavorably. This is because Tier 1 countries have the most deluded fan support on this site, who insist their countries players experienced some special circumstance or other to elevate the significance of their positive performance and mitigate the negative performance, and will argue you to the tooth to. It is useless to argue against such a deluge, regardless of the existence of facts or evidence supporting your negative argument against any such player.

Tier 2 countries have just about enough support on the forum, or value attributed to undeniable historical achievement, that you can't get away with lowering their averages, but at the same time were rivals to Tier 1 countries so you can't increase their averages either, so don't do either.

Tier 3 countries are from countries who were both in recent history very tough opponents and rivals of tier 1 countries, and also have the least amount of support on this forum. For this reason just make up whatever spurious arguments you can to bash their players and lower/increase their averages unfavorably. No one's going to challenge you on those arguments anyway, so eventually your takes will become part of the consensus.

With this simple guide, you too can help build "historical consensus" on the Cricket Web Cricket Chat forum. Have fun! And excuse me while I vomit somewhere...

I have bookmarked this post.

 

[honestbharani]

Guys, as the ultimate proponent of #batterswhocanbowl and #bowlersehocanbat, I can tell you even I am not picking Pollock before McGrath in a draft. And we seem to forget that we are rating careers and achievements here, not a hypothetical utility value to a side, which really depends more on the other 10 folks in the team than on these 2.

 

[StephenZA]

We need @StephenZA to weigh in on Pollock.

No.

 

[Nas207]

Hadlee. If only because I rate him as a better bowler while Imran Khan was probably a better bat, he benefited from batting on many totally dead pitches in the 80s. Very close though

 

[trundler]

Hadlee. If only because I rate him as a better bowler while Imran Khan was probably a better bat, he benefited from batting on many totally dead pitches in the 80s. Very close though

Bowled on the same pitches though and Hadlee had much easier conditions to bowl in at home. The dodgy umpiring cancels out too.

 

[Nas207]

Bowled on the same pitches though and Hadlee had much easier conditions to bowl in at home. The dodgy umpiring cancels out too.

Basically the only way to take wickets on some of those pitches in Pakistan during that period as a pacer was through reverse swing, and we all know what that required. Seriously, people were complaining about the recent pitch in the Eng/Pak series, but if you check the record that was actually sometimes the norm.

As an example, just take a look at the games in the 1989 series.

 

[trundler]

Basically the only way to take wickets on some of those pitches in Pakistan during that period as a pacer was through reverse swing, and we all know what that required. Seriously, people were complaining about the recent pitch in the Eng/Pak series, but if you check the record that was actually sometimes the norm.

Especially when India toured (or vice versa) and a 0-0 scoreline had to be ensured

 

[subshakerz]

Basically the only way to take wickets on some of those pitches in Pakistan during that period as a pacer was through reverse swing, and we all know what that required. Seriously, people were complaining about the recent pitch in the Eng/Pak series, but if you check the record that was actually sometimes the norm.

As an example, just take a look at the games in the 1989 series.

Even for reverse swing to be a factor, you have to wait a few sessions for the ball to get rough.

Compare that to a green pitch which seams from the get go and Hadlee clearly had better conditions to bowl in. And his own share of umpire support too.

 

[CricAddict]

There is a difference. Is it a Jadeja like 35 or a Stokes like 35?

What is a Jadeja like 35 as per you?

 

[subshakerz]

What is a Jadeja like 35 as per you?

My mistake, I didn't read the post as he was saying 35 runs per match, not averaging 35.