Only 3

[subshakerz]

That's actually a very logical assumption to make and it's not just restricted to India and SA

Look at West Indies. Holder at home averages 24, (away closer to 40). Gabriel H27 and A38, Roach 22 and 38

England. Chris Woakes H22 and A52. Robinson 20 and 28

Same story with Bangladeshi spinners at Home vs Away. Mehdi 26 and 46, Taijul 28 and 47

Average and even below average bowlers who end up with a lot of Test caps regularly perform better and put up more match winning (world beating) performances at home. This has been the case for at least the 35 years I've watched cricket.

Seems like cherrypicking. Broad and Wood for example. I'm not denying that players perform better in home conditions but that doesn't make them automatically worldclass.

 

[reyrey]

Seems like cherrypicking. Broad and Wood for example. I'm not denying that players perform better in home conditions but that doesn't make them automatically worldclass.

Yeah I cherry picked a current crop of average players which was the mandate from the OP.

Your counter examples of Broad and Wood are not average players so your examples are flawed. They are far better than average.

And again you throw around the word "worldclass" despite me not saying it and after I explained what I meant. Your point has no meaning to what I said.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Yeah I cherry picked a current crop of average players which was the mandate from the OP.

Your counter examples of Broad and Wood are not average players so your examples are flawed. They are far better than average.

I know Wood is fast, but he is also average. He's clearly worse than Robinson and Roach.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Robinson is not average

 

[kyear2]

If this was select the best three players of all time, would anyone's vote had been different?

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Robinson is not average

Agree. He might be a bit unfit but he's a quality bowler.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

If this was select the best three players of all time, would anyone's vote had been different?

Yes.

I would've still picked Bradman and Sobers, but would've picked Grace (although not in the list) instead of Hadlee.

 

[reyrey]

I know Wood is fast, but he is also average. He's clearly worse than Robinson and Roach.

First 1/3 of his career he was very average, but since then he's been one of the better bowlers (when fit)

 

[reyrey]

Agree. He might be a bit unfit but he's a quality bowler.

He's a liability in away tests. Played the same number of home and away tests and has twice as many wickets at home.

 

[subshakerz]

If this was select the best three players of all time, would anyone's vote had been different?

Of course. I would have Sobers then.

 

[subshakerz]

He's a liability in away tests. Played the same number of home and away tests and has twice as many wickets at home.

Point is you don't really need to exclude him in this comparison.

 

[subshakerz]

And again you throw around the word "worldclass" despite me not saying it and after I explained what I meant. Your point has no meaning to what I said.

I meant worldclass level at home.

 

[ma1978]

Surprise Tendulkar not getting more votes because you get two decaudes plus out of him. Longevity matters in this specific debate

 

[capt_Luffy]

Surprise Tendulkar not getting more votes because you get two decaudes plus out of him. Longevity matters in this specific debate

Yeah, but with Bradman being practically an automatic choice; it leaves little room to fit another top tier batsman only; especially given you have Sobers, around equal bat and very versatile bowler, and need bowlers as well.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Surprise Tendulkar not getting more votes because you get two decaudes plus out of him. Longevity matters in this specific debate

OP says you get the player for a decade, so I was counting his longevity for less than normal here.

 

[ma1978]

OP says you get the player for a decade, so I was counting his longevity for less than normal here.

makes sense

then Bradman, Sobers and Hadlee

excluding Bradman - Sobers, Hadlee and Marshall

 

[ankitj]

If this was select the best three players of all time, would anyone's vote had been different?

Of course

 

[howitzer]

makes sense

then Bradman, Sobers and Hadlee

excluding Bradman - Sobers, Hadlee and Marshall

Precisely my picks on both counts there tbh.

 

[shortpitched713]

If this was select the best three players of all time, would anyone's vote had been different?

Would have gone 3 proper bowlers in place of the Sobers/Bradman slot.

Because yes, bowlers are the real alphas of Test cricket, like it or not.

 

[kyear2]

Would have gone 3 proper bowlers in place of the Sobers/Bradman slot.

Because yes, bowlers are the real alphas of Test cricket, like it or not.

Not to that extreme though