Malcolm Marshall vs. Sachin Tendulkar

[Migara]

Reread what I wrote. I already said just automatically rating great bowlers over great batsmen as cricketers wrong. I do still think they're more valuable though.

You are not getting what I am at. We already know bowlers are more impactful and valuable due to the number issue. To get around the number issue we have to ask the question is bowler A as twice as valuable than batsman B? If the answer is yes, I would say A > B.

 

[kyear2]

No it's useful because a lot of us here make that assumption sometimes.

It's just a tie breaker, same way secondary and tertiary skills can be

 

[subshakerz]

This is bit of a flawed argument/ You cannot compare bowlers vs batsman head to head. There are 3 fast bowlers and six batsmen. Ideally impact of a fast bowler should be compared with the impact of two batsmen. Here Marshall vs Lara + Tendulkar.

And Still I think Marshall has more impact.

Where to start with this level of bowler bias?

It's just a tie breaker, same way secondary and tertiary skills can be

It's arbitrary because you don't apply the valuing consistently. Look above to see where this line of thinking ends up.

 

[honestbharani]

You are correct sir.

Didnt realize my word had so much value that it has to be distorted, huh?

 

[shortpitched713]

Unfortunately there is this tendency to say bowlers are more valuable than bats hence better, yet they don't apply this logic to all ATG bowlers.

Here's how this should work, in practice. In a given game a bowler is more important than a batsman. Duh, there's only 4 of them, vs 6 or 7 proper batsmen + tailend contribution which you might add as another 1 or 2 proper batsmen in value. This extends out to a series, in which even a given seamer ( Shoaib Akhtar types excluded ), is likely to remain fit for the duration of, so a bowler is more valuable in a given series than a batsman as well.

Once you get out to a course of a year though, it 's really touch and go between batsmen and bowlers though, due to the impact of bowler injuries. A seamer is probably about 50/50 to take a knock putting him out of commission for one or more Tests. For some bowlers this has a greater impact than others, but I'd hazard it could be 70-80% of matches that a bowler ends up taking part in during his career that he is available for. A Test team's "player of the year" is more likely to be a batsman, as compared to a MOTM or MOTS being more likely to be a bowler. And once you get over the course of a career, seamers simply will break down much quicker than batsmen, just due to the accumulation of injuries. Unless they take some freak knocks, better batsmen should really be able to go on for as long as their reflexes and visual processing allow them to, which for most ends up being mid 30s, but some are luckier/unluckier in this regard.

Spin bowlers tend to be something in between in this attritional factor, but generally I think a good length seamer career (7 years +) ends up being about equal in impact to a decadish long batsman career (assuming they play a typical amount of matches for a bowler / batsman respectively in those years). If you get more longevity than that, the value is higher for the seamers than for the batsmen, imo. McGrath/Anderson get a huge boost as the almost never miss a match sort, and combined with McGrath's obvious quality and consistency when he did play it's so, so hard to match McGrath in my opinion for the GOAT bowler conversation.

If Steve Smith plays maybe 20% more matches, without any further performance drop, I think I could compare him to McGrath in value. I don't think there are any other comparable modern batsmen when it comes to value to compare to McGrath as a bowler, even Lara or Tendulkar.

 

[subshakerz]

Here's how this should work, in practice. In a given game a bowler is more important than a batsman. Duh, there's only 4 of them, vs 6 or 7 proper batsmen + tailend contribution which you might add as another 1 or 2 proper batsmen in value. This extends out to a series, in which even a given seamer ( Shoaib Akhtar types excluded ), is likely to remain fit for the duration of, so a bowler is more valuable in a given series than a batsman as well.

Once you get out to a course of a year though, it 's really touch and go between batsmen and bowlers though, due to the impact of bowler injuries. A seamer is probably about 50/50 to take a knock putting him out of commission for one or more Tests. For some bowlers this has a greater impact than others, but I'd hazard it could be 70-80% of matches that a bowler ends up taking part in during his career that he is available for. A Test team's "player of the year" is more likely to be a batsman, as compared to a MOTM or MOTS being more likely to be a bowler. And once you get over the course of a career, seamers simply will break down much quicker than batsmen, just due to the accumulation of injuries. Unless they take some freak knocks, better batsmen should really be able to go on for as long as their reflexes and visual processing allow them to, which for most ends up being mid 30s, but some are luckier/unluckier in this regard.

Spin bowlers tend to be something in between in this attritional factor, but generally I think a good length seamer career (7 years +) ends up being about equal in impact to a decadish long batsman career (assuming they play a typical amount of matches for a bowler / batsman respectively in those years). If you get more longevity than that, the value is higher for the seamers than for the batsmen, imo. McGrath/Anderson get a huge boost as the almost never miss a match sort, and combined with McGrath's obvious quality and consistency when he did play it's so, so hard to match McGrath in my opinion for the GOAT bowler conversation.

If Steve Smith plays maybe 20% more matches, without any further performance drop, I think I could compare him to McGrath in value. I don't think there are any other comparable modern batsmen when it comes to value to compare to McGrath as a bowler, even Lara or Tendulkar.

You are overcomplicating things. Better to treat batting and bowling as sister disciplines.

 

[shortpitched713]

You are overcomplicating things. Better to treat batting and bowling as sister disciplines.

Well, we're already doing the whole incomparable batsmen to bowlers comparisons here, so might as well go with a somewhat consistent criteria.

Also, I think even I confused myself a bit there on my criteria. I think Steve Smith is the best bat since Bradman, but he certainly doesn't have the longevity yet for this kind of comparison with McGrath. I would say value over replacement can be a good way to measure quality longevity, and if you do a simple value over replacement X number of games played, I'd have Kallis and Tendulkar vying for the very highest value players of all time (after Bradman).

However, most people (myself included) don't only evaluate players on this basis of longevity value, and they will apply peak value (i.e. can you be the very, very best over a smaller sub-sample of games, to presumably be picked for something like an all time match). And the extent to which they go with one or the other is all on personal preference, and some are even really inconsistent on that.

 

[subshakerz]

Well, we're already doing the whole incomparable batsmen to bowlers comparisons here, so might as well go with a somewhat consistent criteria.

Also, I think even I confused myself a bit there on my criteria. I think Steve Smith is the best bat since Bradman, but he certainly doesn't have the longevity yet for this kind of comparison with McGrath. I would say value over replacement can be a good way to measure quality longevity, and if you do a simple value over replacement X number of games played, I'd have Kallis and Tendulkar vying for the very highest value players of all time (after Bradman).

However, most people (myself included) don't only evaluate players on this basis of longevity value, and they will apply peak value (i.e. can you be the very, very best over a smaller sub-sample of games, to presumably be picked for something like an all time match). And the extent to which they go with one or the other is all on personal preference, and some are even really inconsistent on that.

Need a separate thread for this.

 

[Slifer]

Yeah because of the amount of great fast bowler during the time and not because the pitches were tough. Pitches were tougher in 80s plus the rules were more in the bowler's favour. Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Pollock, McGrath, Wasim, Waqar, Kapil, Bishop, Merv Hughes, Javagal, Vaas, and the list goes on. I have not seen this amount of great fast bowler in any decade. And rules were equal for everyone. If sachin can average 60 in that decade playing agaisnt the likes of everyone why can't lara. He averaged 48 at the end of the decade. His average increased in the 2000s due to less amount of great bolwers. He averaged 60 in that decade. He averaged 40 in the second half of 90s which can be classified as the toughest phase of cricket as all teams were competitive and great bowlers in everyteam. Sachin averaged more than 60 during that phase. The best thing about lara was his great peaks and daddy hundreds but the worst thing about him was he wasn't consistent enough for an ATG.

Also:

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Lara actually averaged 50+ in the 90s not 48. Don't know where you pulled that figure from. 1990s = Jan 1st 1990 to Dec 31st 1999.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Sachin averaged 58. Both struggled vs Pakistan and RSA but Sachin was much much better away.

 

[BazBall21]

The batting era actually began in 2001. Not 2000. Unknown fact.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

It actually ended when Ambrose announced his retirement

 

[Slifer]

The batting era actually began in 2001. Not 2000. Unknown fact.

Probably....

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

The batting era actually began in 2001. Not 2000. Unknown fact.

A few years later Mohammad Yousuf would go on to break Sir ViV Richards for the most runs in a calendar year.

A lesson learned

 

[Prince EWS]

Kallis is better than McGrath as cricketer. I'm not big Kallis fan but he is getting underrated hard here.

What about Garner, considering his batting?

 

[Adorable Asshole]

What about Garner, considering his batting?

He is a tier above the Don. His name should not be taken along with these mere mortals.

 

[Prince EWS]

He is a tier above the Don. His name should not be taken along with these mere mortals.

G*rner.

 

[BazBall21]

Garner has a Test 60 at Brisbane

 

[Prince EWS]

Garner has a Test 60 at Brisbane

Fair superior batting.

 

[BazBall21]

McGrath can't do this.

 

[ma1978]

For all those people who value great bowling over great batting; explain this. South Africa today has excellent bowling but is a mediocre team since their batting declined. West Indies bowling has been more than decent but their batting makes them weak. Teams with good batting and mediocre bowling can be competitive (India mid 2000s) but not vice versa. Marshall wouldn’t help todays SA be a more competitive team, Tendulkar would go a long way.