Marshall vs Hadlee (overall cricketers)

[trundler]

stephen definitely thought so, especially in ODI cricket. lol

He also thought Jackson Bird > Anderson

 

[smash84]

I actually pick Warne in my team over Murali for his better batting ability. Bowling wise I find them extremely hard to separate

 

[trundler]

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.

Applying it in the same tier but not to cricketers who are in marginally different tiers is arbitrary. The difference between Marshall and Hadlee is 1% whereas the difference between McGrath and Pollock is 5%. Why doesn't it apply to the latter case? The difference in batting between McGrath and Pollock is much greater than any arbitrarily assigned percentage difference in bowling. I'm pulling numbers out of my ass to make a point.

 

[smash84]

Applying it in the same tier but not to cricketers who are in marginally different tiers is arbitrary. The difference between Marshall and Hadlee is 1% whereas the difference between McGrath and Pollock is 5%. Why doesn't it apply to the latter case? The difference in batting between McGrath and Pollock is much greater than any arbitrarily assigned percentage difference in bowling. I'm pulling numbers out of my ass to make a point.

Because the margin of statistical significance is 5%. Anything beyond that doesn't matter

It's totally up to you if you think Pollock and McGrath belong in the same tier. It definitely helps if you've seen them play.

 

[trundler]

Because the margin of statistical significance is 5%. Anything beyond that doesn't matter

It's totally up to you if you think Pollock and McGrath belong in the same tier. It definitely helps if you've seen them play.

No, I definitely don't think they're in the same tier and I think it's bonkers to suggest Pollock is a better cricketer than McGrath but I just don't like the logic of summing up batting and bowling separately, especially when comparing a specialist and an AR. It leads to erroneous results IMO. The AR is going to win by default in most cases.

 

[ankitj]

Pollock's batting definitely takes him past several better bowlers. Just doesn't take him past McGrath because we aren't doing simple addition. If we did, he would go past McGrath.

 

[trundler]

Pollock's batting definitely takes him past several better bowlers. Just doesn't take him past McGrath because we aren't doing simple addition. If we did, he would go past McGrath.

.. which you are basing on feels. Logically it should take him past McGrath and maybe Marshall too.

 

[ankitj]

.. which you are basing on feels. Logically it should take him past McGrath and maybe Marshall too.

It's based on perceived replacement value in a typical test team. Replacing McGrath with Pollock will weaken a test team imo. You can call it feels, I don't have a formula for this.

As an aside, in a neighborhood plays neighborhood xi though, Pollock in place of McGrath will improve the team because their batting + bowling will actually be approximate value they'd add.

 

[smash84]

No, I definitely don't think they're in the same tier and I think it's bonkers to suggest Pollock is a better cricketer than McGrath but I just don't like the logic of summing up batting and bowling separately, especially when comparing a specialist and an AR. It leads to erroneous results IMO. The AR is going to win by default in most cases.

You can think of it as assigning different weights to primary and secondary skills. It doesn't work as a straight addition with both disciplines getting equal weight, but once you weigh out the primary and secondary skills. It should make sense. Do I have an exact formula? No. But tinkering around the weights within and across tiers should help in many cases.

 

[trundler]

I mean, yeah that assignment is broadly just gut feeling, no?

 

[ankitj]

I mean, yeah that assignment is broadly just gut feeling, no?

Don't ignore my post. I made a profound point.

 

[smash84]

I mean, yeah that assignment is broadly just gut feeling, no?

Are you asking for a perfect model?

 

[trundler]

Don't ignore my post. I made a profound point.

My post succinctly covered both previous posts.

Are you asking for a perfect model?

It's not really a model if we're assigning assumed values beyond averages a la PFK lol. More broadly, I think we have come to a point where bowling all rounders are getting overrated here. I just philosophically disagree with this way of ranking players.

 

[smash84]

My post succinctly covered both previous posts.

It's not really a model if we're assigning assumed values beyond averages a la PFK lol. More broadly, I think we have come to a point where bowling all rounders are getting overrated here. I just philosophically disagree with this way of ranking players.

I think you're missing the main point. If two bowlers are equal in their bowling, would you prefer the one who is significantly better in the secondary skill? It's a simple yes or no question.

 

[kyear2]

Marshall was simply the greatest bowler that I have watched in my lifetime. Hadlee was brilliant but Macko simply had the ability to overcome any surface in his absolute pomp in a way that Hadlee couldn't. I take that over the notably better batting of paddles.

This is all I'm saying, I'm not over-rating Maco's batting as at the end of the day his nor Hadlee's was that impactful, useful sure, impactful, hardly.

Somehow we believe that almost every all rounder trumps every single skill specialists bar Bradman and we just add stats together.

As is nothing new nor a secret, I personally don't rate lower order batting that highly. Yes, there's the odd innings or match where a tailender stands up and saves a match, but that doesn't require the all rounder level. As I've said in the past I'll bet that a Kallis has contributed to more victories with his catching, far less bowling than Hadlee, Pollock etc has with their batting, combined.

I'm looking at skill and impact, and not taking a soul in the history of cricket over him except for Bradman and Sobers. No one has to agree. But amusing that this went 4 pages.

 

[Coronis]

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.

Unsure of how exact this is but… Murali has been rated above Warne in all the recent bowler polls. Yet the large majority of people here pick Warne over Murali in their ATG XI’s.

So yes.

 

[trundler]

I think you're missing the main point. If two bowlers are equal in their bowling, would you prefer the one who is significantly better in the secondary skill? It's a simple yes or no question.

Not necessarily.

Unsure of how exact this is but… Murali has been rated above Warne in all the recent bowler polls. Yet the large majority of people here pick Warne over Murali in their ATG XI’s.

So yes.

Most ATG discourse on this site comes from a handful of people. Murali would make the XI for most people who rate him ahead of Warne. Making more hypothetical all time XIs isn't a useful measure anyway.

 

[trundler]

not taking a soul in the history of cricket over him except for Bradman and Sobers.

We all know why

 

[subshakerz]

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.

It's not a hairs breadth difference between Marshall and Hadlee as bowlers. This is where CW consensus is just wrong. Marshall is notably just better across conditions than Hadlee is. Not saying Marshall is a tier ahead but as much ahead as McGrath/Hadlee are from Steyn and the rest. Enough to make meaningful difference on game outcomes, not just first among equals.

@kyear2 do you agree?

 

[Slifer]

It's not a hairs breadth difference between Marshall and Hadlee as bowlers. This is where CW consensus is just wrong. Marshall is notably just better across conditions than Hadlee is. Not saying Marshall is a tier ahead but as much ahead as McGrath/Hadlee are from Steyn and the rest. Enough to make meaningful difference on game outcomes, not just first among equals.

@kyear2 do you agree?

Lol lol I'm as biased as they come but imo, it's really a toss up between Hadlee, Marshall and McGrath. Then the same for the next few: Imran, Ambrose and Steyn. I usually favor Steyn. As a matter of fact, there's no huge gulf between the top ten or so fast bowlers imo.

There is however, a gulf amongst the spinners where it's: Warne/Murali then O'Reilly (imo) then the rest.