PlayerComparisons
International Vice-Captain
Two top 5 Asian ATGs
Last edited:
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Wasim Akram vs Sunil Gavaskar
- Thread starter PlayerComparisons
- Start date
shortpitched713
International Captain
Lefty quick not as important a role as openers, so I'll take the greatest opener Gavaskar over the greatest lefty quick.
kyear2
International Coach
At least one of those statements are objectively not true
kyear2
International Coach
This one is exceptionally close. Both undisputed ATGs who makes it into various ATG XI's but neither are in that absolute top tier of their disciplines, but hovering just inside or around the top 10 as batsmen and bowlers.
Both however adds value in different ways.
Wasim being one of the greatest ever old ball bowlers, also bringing lh variety to the table (through not sure if that's a measurable advantage), and to a lesser extent his batting.
Sunil adds value as one of only three top tier openers as well as his slip fielding.
Top 3 or so proponent of reverse swing or top 3 opener. One could bat a bit and the other was very good in the cordon.
Both however adds value in different ways.
Wasim being one of the greatest ever old ball bowlers, also bringing lh variety to the table (through not sure if that's a measurable advantage), and to a lesser extent his batting.
Sunil adds value as one of only three top tier openers as well as his slip fielding.
Top 3 or so proponent of reverse swing or top 3 opener. One could bat a bit and the other was very good in the cordon.
Coronis
International Coach
You’re right, Wasim wasn’t the greatest left arm quick.
shortpitched713
International Captain
No offense @kyear2 , but I feel like it's become a tic of yours to bring up slip fielding with specialist bats to make them seem more comparable for a secondary skill to all-rounders. But I don't think specialist bats need to be propped up in this way to demonstrate value. Without an order of composed of good specialist bats you're not making totals with any consistency regardless of your bowling quality ( I say as a Pakistan fan, so I have the experience of seeing this ).
Generally good specialist bats have the skills and talent required (hand eye / reflexes) to be great slip fielders, if they put in the practice, so in a way it's a bit redundant when you mention their slip catching attributes, because like duh, of course they should be able to. Even Inzamam had good reflexes for slip catching, he just clearly never practiced the **** so his technique was poor.
And ultimately, most of them are going to be fine slip fielders, but how do we evaluate who's adding the extra value? Something like catch percentage when hits one or both hands could be used over the course of a career, but who actually studies it this much to go beyond the anecdotes and actually say something like "Player X's catch percentage of 80 (13% over the average of 67%), demonstrates exceptional slip fielding consistency, giving his skill more value". Numbers are out my ass, but obviously we simply don't have the data, we just have anecdotes. And this doesn't even take into effect the Steve Smith factor, where a player could make up for less consistency by having a greater "catching range" than average.
So yeah, generally I think slip fielding, while important, is extremely difficult to judge. And I don't think you can just easily chalk up all their catches as being up to an individual slip fielder's ability, because that can likely be replaced by the next fielder's ability in the vast majority of cases.
Generally good specialist bats have the skills and talent required (hand eye / reflexes) to be great slip fielders, if they put in the practice, so in a way it's a bit redundant when you mention their slip catching attributes, because like duh, of course they should be able to. Even Inzamam had good reflexes for slip catching, he just clearly never practiced the **** so his technique was poor.
And ultimately, most of them are going to be fine slip fielders, but how do we evaluate who's adding the extra value? Something like catch percentage when hits one or both hands could be used over the course of a career, but who actually studies it this much to go beyond the anecdotes and actually say something like "Player X's catch percentage of 80 (13% over the average of 67%), demonstrates exceptional slip fielding consistency, giving his skill more value". Numbers are out my ass, but obviously we simply don't have the data, we just have anecdotes. And this doesn't even take into effect the Steve Smith factor, where a player could make up for less consistency by having a greater "catching range" than average.
So yeah, generally I think slip fielding, while important, is extremely difficult to judge. And I don't think you can just easily chalk up all their catches as being up to an individual slip fielder's ability, because that can likely be replaced by the next fielder's ability in the vast majority of cases.
kyear2
International Coach
Yes, it is a "tic" or a particular fascination of mine, I've made no secret of that. I think that it's the most underrated aspect of the game and should be an integral part of the selection process.
To say that all batsmen can catch because they have good hand eye co-ordination is a lazy analysis and an incorrect one, especially being a Pakistani fan (not sure of what age) and experiencing what Imran and especially Wasim was subject to in that regard.
Also to reference Inzi and to add that he just needed to work on his technique is like saying McGrath and Walsh had the requisite skills to be good batsmen, they just needed to practice more and work on their technique.
How can we see who added value? You watch the game, anyone who watched cricket, let's say Australian cricket in the 90's into the 2000's know how much value Waugh and Ponting brought to that team, the low half chances, the sharp flyers that they routinely took. I will forever contend that Ponting offers as much to a tem with his catching than even a (S)Pollock did with his batting. Mahaela for Murali, Dravid for Kumble and others, look at the impact and volume of those partnerships. Kallis made the most ridiculous catches look absolutely simple and having that support behind (especially keeper and the crucial 2nd slip) further encourages bowlers to pitch the ball up. I've constantly said that Sobers brings more value to an ATG XI with his catching than his bowling, if it were up to me as captain he would hardly roll over his arm.
Even for the subject of this comparison, it's been consistently mentioned that he suffered from poor catching support and his numbers and team success would be somewhat improved by having better specialists behind the batsmen, that doesn't happen by accident. Richie Richardson for example was invaluable in the mid '80s team for his catching as much as his batting.
How do we quantify it, that's part of the problem, just because we can't put a statistical marker to it, doesn't mean it isn't valuable. But that's part of the reason it's mostly ignored on CW, the spread sheet analysts can't put a number to it. But I want to ask you a question, which team would be impacted by which loss more. New Zealand by loosing Hadlee's batting or Australia by loosing Waugh or Ponting in the slips. We can switch Hadlee for Pollock of you like and the question remains the same.
Even sans the bowling contributions, I would argue that the Sobers, Waugh, Kallis, Chappell, Ponting with their dual skills were just as valuable to their teams and even contributed more to wins, than the bowling all rounder's with their batting.
And again, in an ATG matchup with a batting line up including the Don, Sachin, the master blaster etc, and a bowling attacks of Maco, Pigeon and Steyn, whose skill do you anticipate would factor more heavily, Wasim's batting or Sobers and the cordon's catching.
So to somewhat answer the original question, when asking who was the greater cricketer, the game has 3 disciplines not 2. They all factor into the equation.
shortpitched713
International Captain
I knew Pakistani fielders would come up. They were at their absolute worst after the early 90s (still not great even before, but generally not to the horrible lows of later). They didn't give a **** to practice that aspect because they knew they would only be judged on their run production / bowling numbers, in something of a self-fulfilling prophesy. Doesn't change the fact that if they worked harder on this aspect of the game, they had what it took to improve significantly. Unfortunately professionalism wasn't exactly a watchword of Pakistani cricket in the post Imran / Miandad era.
Inzamam is a pretty good example, he was a decent reflex catcher in the slips early on, but instead of honing that, he just got worse as his career went on. So I do think that fielding can be improved much more than most other skills, and is also a bit more replaceable than most also. Doesn't change the fact that unprofessional outfits ( like Pakistan in most of their incarnations, unfortunately ) , will not take the proper measures to take advantage of that fact.
Last edited:
shortpitched713
International Captain
As for the rest of your post kyear2, I think there could and even should be statistical values put on catch percentage, even if they could be a bit subjective, but it's not really considered in cricket.
Ultimately though I don't think the flying highlight catches are that common, mostly in catching positions it will come down to consistency, which I believe can be quantifiable. We just don't have the numbers.
I'd also argue that it's not only the slip positions that provide maximum value. There often has been a "middle field" sort of go to fielding position for traps or plans set by captains. It's usually a fast, young, athletic fielder playing a position like point or even square leg, who can just be a menace, and put pressure on the batsmen, yes even in Tests. Think Ponting, Jonty, or even I've heard Bradman. I think their value tends to be worth about a catch or two per match, and so maybe as much as a good slip fielder as well. Most outfield players will of course not make as much impact though.
Anyway, the thing is right now we have a lot of hard to quantify gray area in measuring fielding output. I think it's good to mark plus or minus for good / bad fielding respectively, but within context. There is only so much a good fielder can do (but a Kamran Akmal can ruin everything).
Ultimately though I don't think the flying highlight catches are that common, mostly in catching positions it will come down to consistency, which I believe can be quantifiable. We just don't have the numbers.
I'd also argue that it's not only the slip positions that provide maximum value. There often has been a "middle field" sort of go to fielding position for traps or plans set by captains. It's usually a fast, young, athletic fielder playing a position like point or even square leg, who can just be a menace, and put pressure on the batsmen, yes even in Tests. Think Ponting, Jonty, or even I've heard Bradman. I think their value tends to be worth about a catch or two per match, and so maybe as much as a good slip fielder as well. Most outfield players will of course not make as much impact though.
Anyway, the thing is right now we have a lot of hard to quantify gray area in measuring fielding output. I think it's good to mark plus or minus for good / bad fielding respectively, but within context. There is only so much a good fielder can do (but a Kamran Akmal can ruin everything).
PlayerComparisons
International Vice-Captain
Interesting result. Thought Akram would have been leading this
kyear2
International Coach
The fact that you believe that believe that's is purely a matter of practice rather than natural ability and like batting and bowling, practice just hones those already present skills. Practice doesn't turn Inzi into Ponting.
But we can agree to disagree, both on the importance and the inherent skill set required.
But yes, if we are comparing cricketers, fielding should be factored in as well.
Pap Finn Keighl
International Debutant
Greatest Batsman after Bradman
Vs
Greatest Bowler after Barnes
Vs
Greatest Bowler after Barnes
shortpitched713
International Captain
Never said the bolded part. Just think there's a much bigger practice component compared to a skill like say fast bowling, where if you're not naturally gifted to some extent you simply cannot be useful at the Test or even FC level.
kyear2
International Coach
Marshall and Tendulkar, but close enough
Pap Finn Keighl
International Debutant
4th greatest batsman vs 8th greatest bowler
Don't mind that. Could also entertain Hadlee there too. Prefer McGrath due to his playing a large portion of his career in a high scoring era though.
Edit: Steyn close too but i feel like he could go missing just a little too often. Magnificent on his good days though
kyear2
International Coach
Yes, most of the names from my top tier.
Three legit contenders for the best ever (in my opinion and order)
Marshall
McGrath
Hadlee
With
Steyn
Ambrose
Right behind, Imran next in line.