Marshall vs Hadlee (overall cricketers)

[kyear2]

Yeah, the higher you go up in level the more pronounced differences in primary skill become, and the less pronounced differences in secondary skill become.

Ronnie Irani was a better county cricketer than Andy Caddick. But Caddick was obviously way better a level up.

Marshall would be more useful in a hypothetical ATG World XI level than Hadlee but I'd prefer to have Hadlee in a normal Test side to play other normal Test sides.

All I've been saying. If someone skittles out Hobbs, Bradman, Sobers et al for next to nothing, do we see Imran or Hadlee really making a difference. Give me Marshall and McGrath. Though I've always admitted with Hadlee it's much closer as he as McGrath are so similar and close in ability.

 

[kyear2]

Meh, you guys care too much about how well the number 7 or 8 bats. Marshall for me. Also both are better than Kallis.

This, a thousand times this. Historically it's never moved the needle

And yes, I have both above Jacques as well.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Marshall would be more useful in a hypothetical ATG World XI level than Hadlee but I'd prefer to have Hadlee in a normal Test side to play other normal Test sides.

All I've been saying. If someone skittles out Hobbs, Bradman, Sobers et al for next to nothing, do we see Imran or Hadlee really making a difference. Give me Marshall and McGrath. Though I've always admitted with Hadlee it's much closer as he as McGrath are so similar and close in ability.

Value to a normal Test side to play other normal Test sides is actual, real value of what he actually contributed in his career. Value to some mythical ATG XI we've made up in our minds is fake nonsense that exists in our nerdy brains for an imaginary match that will never happen. It is not real world value.

 

[ankitj]

Value to a normal Test side to play other normal Test sides is actual, real value of what he actually contributed in his career. Value to some mythical ATG XI we've made up in our minds is fake nonsense that exists in our nerdy brains for an imaginary match that will never happen. It is not real world value.

Thanks for saying this with the right level of scorn. It was needed.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah, the higher you go up in level the more pronounced differences in primary skill become, and the less pronounced differences in secondary skill become.

Ronnie Irani was a better county cricketer than Andy Caddick. But Caddick was obviously way better a level up.

Marshall would be more useful in a hypothetical ATG World XI level than Hadlee but I'd prefer to have Hadlee in a normal Test side to play other normal Test sides.

This is precisely the reasoning why Marshall should be ahead of Hadlee.

 

[subshakerz]

Value to a normal Test side to play other normal Test sides is actual, real value of what he actually contributed in his career. Value to some mythical ATG XI we've made up in our minds is fake nonsense that exists in our nerdy brains for an imaginary match that will never happen. It is not real world value.

Yes but we can argue value versus strong or weak test sides.

 

[Coronis]

All I've been saying. If someone skittles out Hobbs, Bradman, Sobers et al for next to nothing, do we see Imran or Hadlee really making a difference. Give me Marshall and McGrath. Though I've always admitted with Hadlee it's much closer as he as McGrath are so similar and close in ability.

Yes. We’ve seen matches saved/won by lower order bats when the top order collapses. e.g Cummins

 

[subshakerz]

All I've been saying. If someone skittles out Hobbs, Bradman, Sobers et al for next to nothing, do we see Imran or Hadlee really making a difference. Give me Marshall and McGrath. Though I've always admitted with Hadlee it's much closer as he as McGrath are so similar and close in ability.

This is a bad argument for evaluating a player. Hadlee and Imran are the ATG equivalent for no.8 or so batting level compared to a regular side that has a tailender at no.8, since everything about the ATG side is amped up.

Against another ATG side with four worldclass bowlers every run would be precious and the idea that you would be stronger with four tailenders that can be skittled out is nonsense.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes. We’ve seen matches saved/won by lower order bats when the top order collapses. e.g Cummins

His argument is that lower order runs are irrelevant in these ATG contexts. I disagree.

 

[Prince EWS]

This is precisely the reasoning why Marshall should be ahead of Hadlee.

Marshall should be ahead of Hadlee if you value imaginary cricket played with the aid of time machines between the best players to have ever existed at their peaks.

He wasn't better at actual Tests though.

 

[subshakerz]

Marshall should be ahead of Hadlee if you value imaginary cricket played with the aid of time machines between the best players to have ever existed at their peaks.

He wasn't better at actual Tests though.

Funny I think the opposite. In real cricket, they are just going to look at Marshall and Hadlee as bowlers and say Marshall is clear faster and more of a threat everywhere plus handy with the bat without looking at batting average difference like stat nerds here.

 

[ankitj]

@subshakerz you got no chills? Earlier in the thread you were demanding explanation from anyone who voted Marshall. Now you have same level of passion for defending that position.

 

[subshakerz]

@subshakerz you got no chills? Earlier in the thread you were demanding explanation from anyone who voted Marshall. Now you have same level of passion for defending that position.

You got me bro. I get into inquisitor mode true.

 

[ankitj]

You got me bro. I get into inquisitor mode true.

In a way you are being consistent. You demanded explanation for Marshall vote and now you are explaining the hell out of it.

 

[kyear2]

Value to a normal Test side to play other normal Test sides is actual, real value of what he actually contributed in his career. Value to some mythical ATG XI we've made up in our minds is fake nonsense that exists in our nerdy brains for an imaginary match that will never happen. It is not real world value.

What the **** in any of this is real world stuff.

In terms of what really happened, I think Marshall was better and meant more to his team than near anyone in history. He is in my opinion the greatest bowler who's ever played and was the one indispensable player and the key player that made the west indies of the '80's the greatest ever. That counts for something for me, it doesn't have to for you. Similarly for McGrath, without him, even with the rest, they aren't the one of the two greatest teams ever. Period.

Marshall succeeded in every condition vs every team and had unparalleled ability and adaptability to do so. These things count, we never played minnows to boost away or overall numbers. When everyone was on the decline or retiring, he kept us at the top and when he missed games, we lost.

That's why for me he's no. 3, but jump on one statement to make a sanctimonious one when all we do is project and play make believe.

He was amazing home and away, he dominated the SC like no one else, he was never a liability and the key to a dynasty who scared the **** out of everyone who faced him and had every skill in his toolbox, from swing, express pace, and uncomfortable bounce that caused batsman to fear not only their wicket but safety.

No other bowler in the history of the game both combined his resume and skill set.

Are those enough reasons?

 

[subshakerz]

What the **** in any of this is real world stuff.

In terms of what really happened, I think Marshall was better and meant more to his team than near anyone in history. He is in my opinion the greatest bowler who's ever played and was the one indispensable player and the key player that made the west indies of the '80's the greatest ever. That counts for something for me, it doesn't have to for you. Similarly for McGrath, without him, even with the rest, they aren't the one of the two greatest teams ever. Period.

Marshall succeeded in every condition vs every team and had unparalleled ability and adaptability to do so. These things count, we never played minnows to boost away or overall numbers. When everyone was on the decline or retiring, he kept us at the top and when he missed games, we lost.

That's why for me he's no. 3, but jump on one statement to make a sanctimonious one when all we do is project and play make believe.

He was amazing home and away, he dominated the SC like no one else, he was never a liability and the key to a dynasty who scared the **** out of everyone who faced him and had every skill in his toolbox, from swing, express pace, and uncomfortable bounce that caused batsman to fear not only their wicket but safety.

No other bowler in the history of the game both combined his resume and skill set.

Are those enough reasons?

You didn't address his point at all.

 

[centurymaker]

Value to a normal Test side to play other normal Test sides is actual, real value of what he actually contributed in his career. Value to some mythical ATG XI we've made up in our minds is fake nonsense that exists in our nerdy brains for an imaginary match that will never happen. It is not real world value.

In that case the whole discussion about 'past' players is fake nonsense that exists only in our nerdy minds.

In reality, all these past players are now confined to the history books and add zero value to any side in the present or future. All discussion about past players is completely hypothetical in the first place.

 

[OverratedSanity]

In that case the whole discussion about 'past' players is fake nonsense that exists only in our nerdy minds.

In reality, all these past players are now confined to the history books and add zero value to any side in the present or future. All discussion about past players is completely hypothetical in the first place.

Why? They played real Test matches.

 

[centurymaker]

All past comparisons are hypothetical as there is no proper way to compare any player ....as each played his own set of matches in his own era/time in different conditions in different match situations against different set of players each and every match. So all such comparisons are hypothetical in the first place.

 

[OverratedSanity]

What the **** in any of this is real world stuff.

In terms of what really happened, I think Marshall was better and meant more to his team than near anyone in history. He is in my opinion the greatest bowler who's ever played and was the one indispensable player and the key player that made the west indies of the '80's the greatest ever. That counts for something for me, it doesn't have to for you. Similarly for McGrath, without him, even with the rest, they aren't the one of the two greatest teams ever. Period.

Marshall succeeded in every condition vs every team and had unparalleled ability and adaptability to do so. These things count, we never played minnows to boost away or overall numbers. When everyone was on the decline or retiring, he kept us at the top and when he missed games, we lost.

That's why for me he's no. 3, but jump on one statement to make a sanctimonious one when all we do is project and play make believe.

He was amazing home and away, he dominated the SC like no one else, he was never a liability and the key to a dynasty who scared the **** out of everyone who faced him and had every skill in his toolbox, from swing, express pace, and uncomfortable bounce that caused batsman to fear not only their wicket but safety.

No other bowler in the history of the game both combined his resume and skill set.

Are those enough reasons?

I genuinely don't know what you're talking about.

One of the points I was getting at is that "Who was the better cricketer?" and "Who is a better choice for an ATG XI game?" are different questions but you often treat them as the same thing.