Marshall vs Hadlee (overall cricketers)

[kyear2]

You didn't address his point at all.

He said value to a test side is made up by what they did, I'm explaing what he did and how that's more valuable than that for most cricketers in history.

I took away the "mythical stuff" that was so condescendingly refered to, despite that's half of what is discussed on this site by all, because this site is made up of people with "nerdy brains", but I'm an easy target.
And the entire post is hypocritical as the mere notion of comparing players is hypothetical. Differing eras, teams, circumstances, pitches, opposition..... What of this is real?

 

[kyear2]

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.

How would they compete in similar situations, against the best opposition, and that post was much more a response to another thread, and all I said was I agreed.

Did you go after the person who made said post, no, you came after me because I'm a favorite target here, we have like what 4 west Indian posters? No push back.

I subsequently gave you my reasons as to why Maco was the best bowler and why that's enough to place him, for me, above most other players in the history of the game.

You can agree or disagree, I think Hadlee is closer than most and I have no issue with any who disagrees, Hadlee for me is a top 6 test player of all time, no disrespect to him at all.

And these discussions always revolves around bowling all rounders as if that's the only secondary skill that counts.

 

[howitzer]

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

If you think Marshall is clearly a greater bowler than Hadlee then I can definitely understand why you'd go Marshall here. I don't though so voted Hadlee. Also, I'm a big fan of Kallis but would definitely agree both of these are greater players than him.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I took away the "mythical stuff" that was so condescendingly refered to, despite that's half of what is discussed on this site by all, because this site is made up of people with "nerdy brains", but I'm an easy target.

That wasn't a shot at you at all. I said "our nerdy brains" referring to posters who obsess over ATG XIs on this website, which is a lot of people including myself.

However, discussing which player would be more valuable in a hypothetical ATG XI match is literally just that, a hypothetical. It may be fun to spectate, but it is not the answer to "Who is the better player" which should be judged on their actual performances in matches they played.

So when you say:

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

then it doesn't make any sense to me. It does not matter what runs Imran and Hadlee would make in an imaginary ATG XI game. What matters is the runs they made or didn't make in test matches they actually played. You should use that to justify your choice, instead of the ATG stuff.

 

[ataraxia]

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.

Ok but, um, unlike hypothetical ATG planetary XIs, that's the question.

 

[_00_deathscar]

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.

Yes.

 

[OverratedSanity]

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.

None of these comparisons are hypothetical in the sense I was talking about. Even if the players happened to play in different eras, their performances happened. They were real Test matches. Comparing them across eras may be tough but it is still a comparison of real world performances.

"How would a bowler do in an atg xi game when faced with a batting lineup of Hobbs - Bradman - Tendulkar -Sobers? " on the other hand is a question that is entirely based on something that has never and will never happen.

Those discussions are fun, but they are essentially cricket fanfiction for us nerds and should be treated as such.

 

[kyear2]

That wasn't a shot at you at all. I said "our nerdy brains" referring to posters who obsess over ATG XIs on this website, which is a lot of people including myself.

However, discussing which player would be more valuable in a hypothetical ATG XI match is literally just that, a hypothetical. It may be fun to spectate, but it is not the answer to "Who is the better player" which should be judged on their actual performances in matches they played.

So when you say:



then it doesn't make any sense to me. It does not matter what runs Imran and Hadlee would make in an imaginary ATG XI game. What matters is the runs they made or didn't make in test matches they actually played. You should use that to justify your choice, instead of the ATG stuff.

And I'm sure I made i believe 2.posts justifying my position.

 

[kyear2]

If you think Marshall is clearly a greater bowler than Hadlee then I can definitely understand why you'd go Marshall here. I don't though so voted Hadlee. Also, I'm a big fan of Kallis but would definitely agree both of these are greater players than him.

As I said, Hadlee isn't a wrong answer, but to believe Marshall is automatically one because of lower order batting, when they both bat at 8, is one of the great mysteries of this site to me.

Hadlee scored two test hundreds, one against SL, and the other in the most contentiously umpired and contested match in history. Both were high scoring draws.

Of his fifties I found two that heavily contributed to victories, one of which on that contentious series vs WI, rest were mainly high scoring draws (6), losses (4) or a couple.matxhes where the opposition collapsed (one match England didn't pass 93 in either innings).

Even looking at his career vs India, he played 14 matches having 0 impact with the bat before scoring 87* in his final innings that improved his numbers.

Averaging 27 is a failed test batsman, and similarly Hadlee wasn't a consistent or reliable scorer. Lots of single digits and the odd score mostly in favorable conditions. It's not the reliable lower order scoring that's depicted by the comments and sentiments that's expressed.

If you have a poor team, a 30 odd lower order batting average isn't winning you games, or even saving that many. If you have a great team, it doesn't require the lower order to bail you out that often. I don't understand when we decided that bowling all-rounders were the alphas of the sport and we're critical to success or impactful.

This isn't about Hadlee by the way, he was a tremendous bowler, top tier ATG, but his batting didn't move the needle that we like to believe, just didn't.

What was ideal was any guy who wasn't a rabbit who could handle a bat and hold down an end when required, and so many of those innings were played by guys who didn't nearly fall into the "all rounder" category.

 

[howitzer]

As I said, Hadlee isn't a wrong answer, but to believe Marshall is automatically one because of lower order batting, when they both bat at 8, is one of the great mysteries of this site to me.

Hadlee scored two test hundreds, one against SL, and the other in the most contentiously umpired and contested match in history. Both were high scoring draws.

Of his fifties I found two that heavily contributed to victories, one of which on that contentious series vs WI, rest were mainly high scoring draws (6), losses (4) or a couple.matxhes where the opposition collapsed (one match England didn't pass 93 in either innings).

Even looking at his career vs India, he played 14 matches having 0 impact with the bat before scoring 87* in his final innings that improved his numbers.

Averaging 27 is a failed test batsman, and similarly Hadlee wasn't a consistent or reliable scorer. Lots of single digits and the odd score mostly in favorable conditions. It's not the reliable lower order scoring that's depicted by the comments and sentiments that's expressed.

If you have a poor team, a 30 odd lower order batting average isn't winning you games, or even saving that many. If you have a great team, it doesn't require the lower order to bail you out that often. I don't understand when we decided that bowling all-rounders were the alphas of the sport and we're critical to success or impactful.

This isn't about Hadlee by the way, he was a tremendous bowler, top tier ATG, but his batting didn't move the needle that we like to believe, just didn't.

What was ideal was any guy who wasn't a rabbit who could handle a bat and hold down an end when required, and so many of those innings were played by guys who didn't nearly fall into the "all rounder" category.

Agree with this. It's more of a tie-breaker for me though here as I basically rate them as equals.

 

[subshakerz]

If you have a poor team, a 30 odd lower order batting average isn't winning you games, or even saving that many. If you have a great team, it doesn't require the lower order to bail you out that often. I don't understand when we decided that bowling all-rounders were the alphas of the sport and we're critical to success or impactful.

This isn't about Hadlee by the way, he was a tremendous bowler, top tier ATG, but his batting didn't move the needle that we like to believe, just didn't.

What was ideal was any guy who wasn't a rabbit who could handle a bat and hold down an end when required, and so many of those innings were played by guys who didn't nearly fall into the "all rounder" category.

I think the point here is that it isn't as dramatic a jump between the match impact of a very handy no.8 like Warne or Marshall to Ashwin or Hadlee as it is being made out to be.

But you then go to the extreme by dismissing any impact of his batting altogether. A 30 average bat at no.8 isn't going to win games on his own but contribute steadily to much bigger scores over the long run. He does the occasional bailout, the odd cameo and for poor/average teams at least this is important.

Everything we have seen in cricket indicates that a stronger tail is a plus. Your are oddly dismissive of this.

 

[subshakerz]

He said value to a test side is made up by what they did, I'm explaing what he did and how that's more valuable than that for most cricketers in history.

I took away the "mythical stuff" that was so condescendingly refered to, despite that's half of what is discussed on this site by all, because this site is made up of people with "nerdy brains", but I'm an easy target.
And the entire post is hypocritical as the mere notion of comparing players is hypothetical. Differing eras, teams, circumstances, pitches, opposition..... What of this is real?

He was targeting your idea that we evaluate players based on how they do in a mythical ATG XI.

 

[kyear2]

I think the point here is that it isn't as dramatic a jump between the match impact of a very handy no.8 like Warne or Marshall to Ashwin or Hadlee as it is being made out to be.

But you then go to the extreme by dismissing any impact of his batting altogether. A 30 average bat at no.8 isn't going to win games on his own but contribute steadily to much bigger scores over the long run. He does the occasional bailout, the odd cameo and for poor/average teams at least this is important.

Everything we have seen in cricket indicates that a stronger tail is a plus. Your are oddly dismissive of this.

This isn't new. Let's use names that causes less contention.

There's no scenario where I'm chosing Pollock over McGrath. Absolutely none, Hadlee? 50 /50, but that's because of how close they are, despite I believe Glenn is the better bowler, if ever so slightly.

It's seriously overplayed and only a benefit if they are tied or really close on bowling skill.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I don't understand when we decided that bowling all-rounders were the alphas of the sport and we're critical to success or impactful.

Tbf, they're the alphas of the sport because fast bowlers are the alphas of the sport. Their secondary skill is in most cases slightly less valuable than the fifth bowler skill of batting all rounders. But their primary skill of top tier pace bowling >>> the primary skill of top tier batting provided by great batting ARs.

Hadlee was definitely not a hugely impactful test batsman, but still provided useful depth.

 

[OverratedSanity]

This isn't new. Let's use names that causes less contention.

There's no scenario where I'm chosing Pollock over McGrath. Absolutely none, Hadlee? 50 /50, but that's because of how close they are, despite I believe Glenn is the better bowler, if ever so slightly.

It's seriously overplayed and only a benefit if they are tied or really close on bowling skill.

Yeah but Marshall and Hadlee are tied or really close, so it's fair to say the extra batting is a benefit, however small.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah but Marshall and Hadlee are tied or really close, so it's fair to say the extra batting is a benefit, however small.

And if you believe that, then I have no issue. I've said that from the beginning.

 

[kyear2]

Tbf, they're the alphas of the sport because fast bowlers are the alphas of the sport. Their secondary skill is in most cases slightly less valuable than the fifth bowler skill of batting all rounders. But their primary skill of top tier pace bowling >>> the primary skill of top tier batting provided by great batting ARs.

Hadlee was definitely not a hugely impactful test batsman, but still provided useful depth.

I agree with almost all of this. Bowlers are more impactful than batsmen.

I also think batting all rounders secondary skills are a little more than slightly more valuable, but that's neither here nor there, not massively either, I would say clearly, but again semantics.


here I know we disagree is the other secondary skill, so wouldn't even go there, but I think it's just as if not more important as well.

But I don't see anyone rating Kallis or Hammond above Sachin or Hobbs.

Enjoying the discourse btw

 

[subshakerz]

This isn't new. Let's use names that causes less contention.

There's no scenario where I'm chosing Pollock over McGrath. Absolutely none, Hadlee? 50 /50, but that's because of how close they are, despite I believe Glenn is the better bowler, if ever so slightly.

It's seriously overplayed and only a benefit if they are tied or really close on bowling skill.

Honestly, if you think Hadlee is 50/50 with McGrath including batting, thats just so disconnected from cricket reality I find it hard to take seriously. They have a 20 run difference in batting while being very hard to separate as bowlers, unlike Marshall IMO. This isn't close. Hadlee is obviously a better cricketer.

It's almost like you never watched a game where lower order batting played a role.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Went with Marshall as I think he is a better bowler by not so big but noticeable margin ahead of Hadlee’s secondary margin. But could easily go with Hadlee the other day.

 

[kyear2]

Honestly, if you think Hadlee is 50/50 with McGrath including batting, thats just so disconnected from cricket reality I find it hard to take seriously. They have a 20 run difference in batting while being very hard to separate as bowlers, unlike Marshall IMO. This isn't close. Hadlee is obviously a better cricketer.

It's almost like you never watched a game where lower order batting played a role.

But you're thinking I'm putting down one or the other. I have one 5th and one 6th all time, and the last I typed it out Hadlee was ahead.

But McGrath, just had those little nuances as a bowler that's enough to be ahead of Paddles for me, and yes there is a huge difference in batting, and I have no way to prove this...

But if I had to pick two guys to play for me for a decade I'm going with Maco and Pidgeon, I can't make it make sense to you I just think they are winning more games with the ball for me than Hadlee is with the extra batting and I just want those two bowling together.

But yes, to be clear, as cricketers, Hadlee would likely have to be ahead.