Marshall vs Hadlee (overall cricketers)

[Bolo.]

My cutoff for batting as secondary discipline is around the level of Davidson or Benaud. So anyone under ~24 average are just tailender warriors.

You are sticking Wasim and Martin in one category, and Philander in a completely different one?

 

[trundler]

You are sticking Wasim and Martin in one category, and Philander in a completely different one?

This is your reminder that summing individual disciplines leads to Holder being a better cricketer than McGrath.

 

[Bolo.]

This is your reminder that summing individual disciplines leads to Holder being a better cricketer than McGrath.

It doesn't.

But If you have a better way of rating players that doesn't involve ignoring ARs, I'm listening. We can just ignore value added bya secondary discipline.

 

[ankitj]

You are sticking Wasim and Martin in one category, and Philander in a completely different one?

That's right. Wasim's batting is not a factor at all when rating him as a cricketer. Neither is Steve Waugh's bowling.

 

[ankitj]

They're close enough there tbh and I'll take Marshall's record vs Pakistan over Hadlee’s vs SL. Also, imo the Indian batting that Marshall destroyed in '83 was better than the one Hadlee faced in '88.

From memory this is down the phase of career that Hadlee toured Pakistan in. It was when he was very young and had yet to become a world class bowler.

 

[subshakerz]

Misleading. Quoting Hadlee’s stats in that one series against Pakistan before he was a good bowler would be like me trying to use Marshall’s first 3 tests in India against him lol

Ignoring SL, Hadlee has one good series in India in the SC and two ordinary ones early career. Not much to judge on.

 

[Bolo.]

That's right. Wasim's batting is not a factor at all when rating him as a cricketer. Neither is Steve Waugh's bowling.

Eh. A player being 99% as good as another but getting 0% of the credit doesn't work for me.

 

[subshakerz]

You have no idea what you are talking about

The same folks who will find every excuse in the book to downplay Imran's batting are taking umbrage because of Hadlee's batting. I see no reason why we shouldn't treat Hadlee as a slightly better version of Wasim.

 

[trundler]

It doesn't.

But If you have a better way of rating players that doesn't involve ignoring ARs, I'm listening. We can just ignore value added bya secondary discipline.

Sure it does. Holder was a 6/10 bowler, 5/10 batsman and 8/10 fielder. McGrath was 10/10, 1/10 and 5/10. 11 Holders beat 11 McGraths every single time.

 

[smash84]

The same folks who will find every excuse in the book to downplay Imran's batting are taking umbrage because of Hadlee's batting. I see no reason why we shouldn't treat Hadlee as a slightly better version of Wasim.

There is a reason that Marshall has a little over half the amount of runs that Hadlee does. And it has a lot to with their respective abilities with the bad.

 

[Bolo.]

Sure it does. Holder was a 6/10 bowler, 5/10 batsman and 8/10 fielder. McGrath was 10/10, 1/10 and 5/10. 11 Holders beat 11 McGraths every single time.

That's not much of a comparison. A team can't function without batting and bowling. Holders would lose to 4 Mcgraths and some specialist bats of even iffy quality.

 

[Sunil1z]

That's not much of a comparison. A team can't function without batting and bowling. Holders would lose to 4 Mcgraths and some specialist bats of even iffy quality.

No . 11 McGrath will struggle to score 150 each inning.

 

[smash84]

No . 11 McGrath will struggle to score 150 each inning.

Yes, but 11 Holders, conditional on facing McGrath will fare even worse.

 

[Sunil1z]

Yes, but 11 Holders, conditional on facing McGrath will fare even worse.

Nah . All it takes is 1 or 2 Holders to counterattack and the game would be nearly over in 1 hr .

 

[smash84]

Nah . All it takes is 1 or 2 Holders to counterattack and the game would be nearly over in 1 hr .

McGrath was extremely difficult to counter attack though. You would need someone like Lara to do it consistently. Holder would be his bunny.

 

[Sunil1z]

McGrath was extremely difficult to counter attack though. You would need someone like Lara to do it consistently. Holder would be his bunny.

Even bunnies average 20 ( same as Athers ) . That batting average is enough to beat McGrath.

 

[ankitj]

McGrath was extremely difficult to counter attack though. You would need someone like Lara to do it consistently. Holder would be his bunny.

The reasoning being put here is not that Holder is actually better than McGrath even if 11 of the former can defeat 11 of the latter.

Cricket is a team sport and value of cricketers should be judged on what they bring to a typical team at the highest level. In that respect McGrath is clearly better than an all-round Holder. This is why reductive batting + bowling method of ranking doesn't work. And I think we are on the same side of this argument anyway.

 

[Sunil1z]

Yeah , I also believe McGrath is a better cricketer than Holder . But I would expect a team of 11 Holder to beat 11 McGrath.

 

[smash84]

The reasoning being put here is not that Holder is actually better than McGrath even if 11 of the former can defeat 11 of the latter.

Cricket is a team sport and value of cricketers should be judged on what they bring to a typical team at the highest level. In that respect McGrath is clearly better than an all-round Holder. This is why reductive batting + bowling method of ranking doesn't work. And I think we are on the same side of this argument anyway.

I agree with you. My point was that I believe that holder's batting is not really good enough to beat an all McGrath team.

 

[smash84]

Yeah , I also believe McGrath is a better cricketer than Holder . But I would expect a team of 11 Holder to beat 11 McGrath.

I would not expect holder to. I don't really rate Holder's ability to hold against McGrath at all.