Best of the best - pacers vs bats vs spinners

[subshakerz]

Who would rank as the greatest cricketer of the below:

A top 3 pacer of all time?

A top 5 bat of all time, aside from Bradman?

A top 1-2 spinner of all-time?

 

[ataraxia]

Spinner >= pacer >>> batter

 

[Slifer]

Pacer bowler>Batsman >/=spinner

 

[kyear2]

Pacer bowler>Batsman >/=spinner

This.

 

[Slifer]

This.

It's logical because you think about all the great teams in our lifetime: WI 80s, Aus 2000s, RSA and Kohli's India the backbone of those great teams were their fast bowlers. The only one that had an atg batting lineup imo was Australia. WI batting was great but wasn't atg. They had stragglers like Logie and Gomes in the team at various times.

Coincidentally, Australia was also the only one with an atg spinner. No doubt Ashwin and Jadeja are great, but they weren't a worldwide threat like Shane. India's fast bowlers performing outside India are what made them a great team. Imo, even without Warne, Australia would've still beaten the likes of England, NZ, Pakistan etc. They needed both vs RSA and SL (late 90s) but they needed McGrath, Gillespie, and Fleming to beat the Indias and WI. Don't believe me, see the 1995, 96-97, 99 Frank Worrell series. McGrath and to a lesser extent S Waugh (in the WI only) was the difference maker.

 

[ankitj]

Who would rank as the greatest cricketer of the below:

A top 3 pacer of all time?

A top 5 bat of all time, aside from Bradman?

A top 1-2 spinner of all-time?

#3 pacer of all time: McGrath
#5 batsman of all time (besides Bradman): Lara
Top 1-2 spinners: Murali-Warne

Fortunately none of them are all rounders so it doesn't complicate it. My ranking of these players is:

Murali > McGrath > Warne > Lara

So only if you are specific about top 1 or top 2 spinner, I can answer it. It's clear though that top 3 pacer > top 5 batsman.

 

[shortpitched713]

I'm picking Ambrose over Lara and Warne I guess.

If I wanted to be an ass I would pick Sanga over both bowlers above because of his wicketkeeping, but whatever. Generally the better bowlers win out, regardless of if they are seam or spin ( Generally outside of Murali, Warne, Ashwin no spinners can compete with the roughly top 20 seamers) compared to a non Bradman batsman.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

I tend to rate Bill O’Reilly real highly and view him as the best bowler to ever walk on earth. But excluding Tiger, I would go with -

Pacers > Batsman > Spinners

 

[reyrey]

Lets say you have Warne, McGrath and Tendulkar. Put one them in an average team (the current Sri Lanka test team) and which one would improve the them=m the most?

Spinner > Pacer > Bat

You can get twice as many quality overs a day from a spinner than you can from a pacer.

 

[Slifer]

Lets say you have Warne, McGrath and Tendulkar. Put one them in an average team (the current Sri Lanka test team) and which one would improve the them=m the most?

Spinner > Pacer > Bat

You can get twice as many quality overs a day from a spinner than you can from a pacer.

Yeah but McGrath would get you wickets everywhere vs everyone. Murali not so much. Ditto Warne. Would you rather have McGrath or Murali/Warne bowling to a well set Sachin/Lara? Thank you.

 

[Migara]

Yeah but McGrath would get you wickets everywhere vs everyone. Murali not so much. Ditto Warne. Would you rather have McGrath or Murali/Warne bowling to a well set Sachin/Lara? Thank you.

Well, look at this way. McGrath has replacements as well as peers. Marshall and Hadlee would be his peers on bowling ability alone. Replacing him with Ambrose, Steyn or Imran in the presence of Marshall and Hadlee won't cause much harm.

On other hand spinner is lonely unless you have ARs or play in SC. Just because spinners are the least numerous they'd be the most difficult to find and to match the quality of the rest of the attack.

 

[Slifer]

Well, look at this way. McGrath has replacements as well as peers. Marshall and Hadlee would be his peers on bowling ability alone. Replacing him with Ambrose, Steyn or Imran in the presence of Marshall and Hadlee won't cause much harm.

On other hand spinner is lonely unless you have ARs or play in SC. Just because spinners are the least numerous they'd be the most difficult to find and to match the quality of the rest of the attack.

Well yeah a quality spinners are few and far between but given a choice, I'd rather have a top shelf fast bowler over a top shelf spinner. No atg great team is going to have more than 2 spinners unless the wicket is an absolute dust bowl. But atg teams almost exclusively have 3 fast bowlers plus a spinner.

Yeah spinners can bowl longer but fast bowlers will either get you out faster. And absolutely no one is afraid to face spinners, but fast bowlers are downright scary and intimidating.

 

[kyear2]

Lets say you have Warne, McGrath and Tendulkar. Put one them in an average team (the current Sri Lanka test team) and which one would improve the them=m the most?

Spinner > Pacer > Bat

You can get twice as many quality overs a day from a spinner than you can from a pacer.

They generally are also more pitch dependent, less efficient, can't open the attack and more likely to be taken on.
You want a chance to win anywhere, you get McGrath

 

[kyear2]

I tend to rate Bill O’Reilly real highly and view him as the best bowler to ever walk on earth. But excluding Tiger, I would go with -

Pacers > Batsman > Spinners

Not sure if I've asked, or if you've shared before... But would you mind sharing why you rank O'Reilly as the greatest bowler ever?

 

[ataraxia]

Yeah but McGrath would get you wickets everywhere vs everyone. Murali not so much. Ditto Warne. Would you rather have McGrath or Murali/Warne bowling to a well set Sachin/Lara? Thank you.

The premise is an average test team. In that sort of scenario you're not often bowling to a well-set Sachin/Lara.

 

[kyear2]

The premise is an average test team. In that sort of scenario you're not often bowling to a well-set Sachin/Lara.

Bowling to a well set someone though.

Plus the top 2 spinners (and spinners in general) are more conditions dependent and these two have much more glaring holes than the top two pacers for example.

 

[bagapath]

Who would rank as the greatest cricketer of the below:
A top 3 pacer of all time?

My rankings: Marshall - Hadlee - McGrath

A top 5 bat of all time, aside from Bradman?

Sobers-Richards-Tendulkar-Lara-Hutton

A top 1-2 spinner of all-time?

Warne-O'Reilley


Hutton>O'Reilley>McGrath

 

[reyrey]

Bowling to a well set someone though.

Plus the top 2 spinners (and spinners in general) are more conditions dependent and these two have much more glaring holes than the top two pacers for example.

Spinners who can get a lot of revs on the ball and overspin are not as conditions dependent as a more traditional spinner.

Also what happens when your world class pacer is taken out of the attack? 3/4 of the overs in a day needs to be filled in by other bowlers. A world class spinner can give you far more overs which means more opportunities to influence the course of a game.

 

[Burgey]

Spinners who can get a lot of revs on the ball and overspin are not as conditions dependent as a more traditional spinner.

Also what happens when your world class pacer is taken out of the attack? 3/4 of the overs in a day needs to be filled in by other bowlers. A world class spinner can give you far more overs which means more opportunities to influence the course of a game.

2/3s of the 3/4s of the remaining overs are usually bowled by other quicks though.

@kyear2 is correct. All the best sides since basically WW2 who have dominated test cricket have had at least very good pace attacks. An attack like that gives you stability across different conditions because it's less conditions-reliant. If you have to rank these skills in importance, as the OP asked, how can it not be the skill set which is generally the most adaptable across all conditions which is the most important?

A great pacer will do a job on any type of surface. You only have to look at the records of guys like Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee etc to see that's the case. The same can't be said for even the greatest post-war spinners. Murali and Warne each have pretty big flaws in their records compared with the top pace bowlers.

As for top batsmen, obviously they're really important too, but at best in this sort of contest I'd have them on par with a spinner, or even a bit behind.

Welcome to the forum btw. Hope you enjoy it here

 

[Coronis]

2/3s of the 3/4s of the remaining overs are usually bowled by other quicks though.

@kyear2 is correct. All the best sides since basically WW2 who have dominated test cricket have had at least very good pace attacks. An attack like that gives you stability across different conditions because it's less conditions-reliant. If you have to rank these skills in importance, as the OP asked, how can it not be the skill set which is generally the most adaptable across all conditions which is the most important?

A great pacer will do a job on any type of surface. You only have to look at the records of guys like Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee etc to see that's the case. The same can't be said for even the greatest post-war spinners. Murali and Warne each have pretty big flaws in their records compared with the top pace bowlers.

As for top batsmen, obviously they're really important too, but at best in this sort of contest I'd have them on par with a spinner, or even a bit behind.

Welcome to the forum btw. Hope you enjoy it here

Who are you and what have you done with @Burgey?