Marshall vs Hadlee (overall cricketers)

[Sunil1z]

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

He needs to average 15. Think he will do fine .

 

[smash84]

He needs to average 15. Think he will do fine .

McGrath averaged 21 and has a disproportionately high percentage of top order and middle order wickets. There's no way holder makes 15 against him each time.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

Not suggesting that Hadlee isn't much better than Marshall. I am just suggesting in the context of an actual game that big difference between a no.8 like Marshall and no.7/8 like Hadlee isn't going to overrule their bowling difference.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

McGrath averaged 21 and has a disproportionately high percentage of top order and middle order wickets. There's no way holder makes 15 against him each time.

Yes he would when McGrath is also keeping (too tall and gangly to get down), the slips are all McGraths (would miss quite a few chances the Aussie cordons of the 90s/00s took easily), and with McGraths in the field there'd be more singles on offer than normal.

 

[smash84]

Not suggesting that Hadlee isn't much better than Marshall. I am just suggesting in the context of an actual game that big difference between a no.8 like Marshall and no.7/8 like Hadlee isn't going to overrule their bowling difference.

Assuming that they face a hypothetical XI equal in strength, Hadlee's lower order runs would be far more valuable than Marshall's hair breadth advantage in bowling. There is hardly anything between them as bowlers.

 

[OverratedSanity]

God looking at people trying to big brain the batting difference between Marshall and Hadlee is ****ing hilarious. There's a pretty huge gulf and Marshall is not better enough (is that grammatically correct?) with the ball, if at all, to say he's a better cricketer.

 

[ankitj]

McGrath averaged 21 and has a disproportionately high percentage of top order and middle order wickets. There's no way holder makes 15 against him each time.

I calculated this. McGrath reduces batting average to 69.8% of a batsman's test average. Holder will average 20.54 against McGrath.

 

[Sunil1z]

I calculated this. McGrath reduces batting average to 69.8% of a batsman's test average. Holder will average 20.54 against McGrath.

Which should be good enough for a win . What do you think ?

 

[ankitj]

Which should be good enough for a win . What do you think ?

Yes. 11 Holders will score 205 runs. 11 McGraths even assuming unchanged average score 74. Innings defeat for McGrath xi

 

[trundler]

God looking at people trying to big brain the batting difference between Marshall and Hadlee is ****ing hilarious. There's a pretty huge gulf and Marshall is not better enough (is that grammatically correct?) with the ball, if at all, to say he's a better cricketer.

Yeah but, playing devil's advocate here, that merely proves that Hadlee is the better all rounder. Is the better all rounder always the better cricketer? If so, we're back to Holder > McGrath.

 

[smash84]

Which should be good enough for a win . What do you think ?

Fair point then. I thought McGrath reduces a batsman's average by 69.8% which would have brought him down to 8.8 runs per match and McGrath wins

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah but, playing devil's advocate here, that merely proves that Hadlee is the better all rounder. Is the better all rounder always the better cricketer? If so, we're back to Holder > McGrath.

I mean the whole point of my post was that Marshall and Hadlee are basically equals as bowlers ( I think a strong argument can be made Hadlee is better even as just a bowler but most people disagree). So the better all around player is definitely better as a cricketer in this case.

 

[smash84]

exactly, it is being made out like there is some big ass difference between Marshall and Hadlee in their bowling when there is hardly any.

 

[trundler]

There isn't but I don't think it's useful to judge both as if they're all rounders. This is more of a meta point but surely the logic should hold up even when the 2 aren't dead even in their primary discipline. It just seems like an arbitrary distinction. Why isn't Pollock a better cricketer than McGrath by default then? The gulf in batting is vastly greater than any gulf in bowling. Judging two close bowlers on their batting seems like a boundary countback adjacent tie breaker. Is Warne a better cricketer than Murali too because of his batting? That seems nonsensical to me.

 

[Kenneth Viljoen]

exactly, it is being made out like there is some big ass difference between Marshall and Hadlee in their bowling when there is hardly any.

But even if there was a big bowling difference between cricketers fact is 11 Flintoff's will beat 11 Jasprit Bumrah's , 11 Chris Woakes will beat 11 Glenn McGrath's, but is this a true reflection of who is a better cricketer ? I think there is a fundamental flaw in judging who is better by second skill..

 

[smash84]

But even if there was a big bowling difference between cricketers fact is 11 Flintoff's will beat 11 Jasprit Bumrah's , 11 Chris Woakes will beat 11 Glenn McGrath's, but is this a true reflection of who is a better cricketer ? I think there is a fundamental flaw in judging who is better by second skill..

Point being, that if Hadlee would be substituted in place of Marshall in any team, will he bring in more value or not?

The Chris woakes analogy doesn't hold because they're not anywhere near the same quality in their primary skill. Hadlee and Marshall are pretty much equal in bowling. Hadlee just brings more to the side with his batting.

 

[smash84]

There isn't but I don't think it's useful to judge both as if they're all rounders. This is more of a meta point but surely the logic should hold up even when the 2 aren't dead even in their primary discipline. It just seems like an arbitrary distinction. Why isn't Pollock a better cricketer than McGrath by default then? The gulf in batting is vastly greater than any gulf in bowling. Judging two close bowlers on their batting seems like a boundary countback adjacent tie breaker. Is Warne a better cricketer than Murali too because of his batting? That seems nonsensical to me.

But the point is, if you're getting an all rounder who is as good as the bowler he's competing with, why will he not be a better cricketer. It is fine to use secondary skills as tie breakers when primary skills are pretty much equal.

It doesn't hold when primary skills are not a close match.

 

[trundler]

But the point is, if you're getting an all rounder who is as good as the bowler he's competing with, why will he not be a better cricketer. It is fine to use secondary skills as tie breakers when primary skills are pretty much equal.

It doesn't hold when primary skills are not a close match.

You're saying it is true but I don't think it necessarily is. Why doesn't it also hold for the Pollock v McGrath case? The mathematical logic is the same in both cases. Only applying it to cricketers in the same 'tier' is completely arbitrary in my view.

 

[ankitj]

Is Warne a better cricketer than Murali too because of his batting?

stephen definitely thought so, especially in ODI cricket. lol

 

[smash84]

You're saying it is true but I don't think it necessarily is. Why doesn't it also hold for the Pollock v McGrath case? The mathematical logic is the same in both cases. Only applying it to cricketers in the same 'tier' is completely arbitrary in my view.

Players are in the team for their primary discipline. Applying in the same tier isn't really arbitrary. It means you can do an apples to apples comparison.