Sachin Tendulkar vs Malcolm Marshall

[ankitj]

What is this comparison smh

Truly checklists gone mad

 

[ankitj]

Tailend wickets are important or you can have them 150/7 and they end up posting 375.

You cam make that argument rhetorically and give isolated examples too. But there is less opportunity cost to a tailend wicket. A dropped catch of a tailender doesn't cost as much.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Time to do analysis by checklist for Marshall’s batting and Sachins bowling

 

[subshakerz]

It's not even that dude, I'm explained repeatedly how I rate players and it's consistent.

You're rated primarily on you primary skill. I have 7 players who are on the top tiers of their primary skills, then in that group they are graded on impact plus secondary skills.

Bradman, then I have Tendulkar, Sobers and Hobbs (Richards, Smith, Lara, Hutton right behind) basically indistinguishable as batsmen so I rate them by bowlers faced, and Marshall, McGrath and Hadlee as bowlers.

Behind that group I still weigh heavily on primary skills but secondary skills obviously come into play. It's not as rigid as the top 7 because the top 15 or so are really close, so it changes a lot.

I factor in lower order batting, relief bowling and slip fielding, but all must have been impactful to some level.

Some people just look for **** to harp on.

This isn't some consistent criteria. This is just how you justify rankings your favorites in an odd order. Otherwise you can't justify stopping specialists at top 7.

Most of the rest of us do actual consistent criteria, where we assume the overall value of the player and rank accordingly.

 

[Slifer]

England would definitely benefit with Sachin in middle order in place of Root or Barrington.... As a matter of fact, literally any All Time team, be it Aus, WI, SA, Pak, WI, or Bangladesh; would benefit significantly from either.

WI would not. Granted he's probably better than all our middle order batsmen but not by a significant enough amount for any competitive advantage. Same with Marshall in Australia. He's likely better than their opening bowlers but not by enough for a significant competitive advantage.

 

[Slifer]

I actually was thinking about this other day. Who would I choose to improve our atg. I'd go with 2 of the big 4 openers, Bradman and a world class spinner.

 

[Migara]

What would be more valuable for a team? A Marshall or one and half Tendulkars?

 

[ankitj]

What would be more valuable for a team? A Marshall or one and half Tendulkars?

And here I was thinking we will eventually run out of player comparisons.

 

[kyear2]

This isn't some consistent criteria. This is just how you justify rankings your favorites in an odd order. Otherwise you can't justify stopping specialists at top 7.

Most of the rest of us do actual consistent criteria, where we assume the overall value of the player and rank accordingly.

I'm actively doing my best to avoid responding to you. I really wish you would try to do the same.

You can't say what consistent based on how different people rate players, you can say it's different, but if it's how I've been doing something it is consistent.

I don't stop them at 7, that's my and most peoples top tiers. There's 3 batsmen that legitimately contend for the title best after Bradman, even you only include two more into that list, Richards and Smith.
For literally almost everyone on the the forum there's only 3 legit candidates for the best bowler ever, at most Murali and Steyn are included in that argument, but no one else.

Where's the conspiracy, should I push it up to 11 then?

As usual your argument is based solely on one player and is actually what is inconsistent.

If we assumed your "overall criteria" Sobers and Kallis are easily 1 and 2. Top 5 and borderline top 10 batsmen who were legitimate 4th bowlers for their teams and top 10 slip fielders. That doesn't even include Hammond, a top 10 batsman who was probably the greatest slip fielder ever and a more than useful 5th option.

But you nit pick Kallis who all but matched Sachin for longevity and beat him in average while covering him in two critical skills, and from basically the same era. All while playing on much more difficult home conditions mind you.

The accumulative way of "overall criteria" invariable fills the top 10 with all rounders and if "consistent" has guys like Pollock over bowling titans like McGrath and Steyn, where I wouldn't even select him over Donald.

But yes, I chose my favorites who happens to be two west indians (while leaving out Viv), two Australian's, an Englishman, an Indian and a guy from New Zealand.

Not to mention it's the same guys chosen by significant margins in our polls for our top 4 batsmen and top 3 bowler spots. Strange how that happened. You just don't like it, that doesn't make it inconsistent.

I have reasoning backed up by our own rankings and ratings.

I could answer further as per your specific concerns, but it's really not worth it.

 

[kyear2]

I actually was thinking about this other day. Who would I choose to improve our atg. I'd go with 2 of the big 4 openers, Bradman and a world class spinner.

But if only one?

 

[subshakerz]

I'm actively doing my best to avoid responding to you. I really wish you would try to do the same.

Aww you're no fun.

But yes, I chose my favorites

Exactly.

 

[kyear2]

I actually was thinking about this other day. Who would I choose to improve our atg. I'd go with 2 of the big 4 openers, Bradman and a world class spinner.

For me, the thing about the big 4 openers is that half was pre war and were great partially because they mastered conditions that are no longer applicable.

Bradman makes every team better, so would exclude him.

My choices would be Barry, Gilly or Warne.

Think with DRS and better conditions Gibbs does much better than he did in the '60's. Dujon was very decent with the bat and interesting to see how Gilly would have done in the 80's...... I'm going with Barry to join his county teammate.

 

[Slifer]

Y

For me, the thing about the big 4 openers is that half was pre war and were great partially because they mastered conditions that are no longer applicable.

Bradman makes every team better, so would exclude him.

My choices would be Barry, Gilly or Warne.

Think with DRS and better conditions Gibbs does much better than he did in the '60's. Dujon was very decent with the bat and interesting to see how Gilly would have done in the 80's...... I'm going with Barry to join his county teammate.

Yeah but someone like Hutton for me, was just so great against such a great variety of bowling I have to have him in my team.

 

[kyear2]

Y

Yeah but someone like Hutton for me, was just so great against such a great variety of bowling I have to have him in my team.

He was, he was also so very antithetical to what the team did..... Though may not be the worse thing, but yeah, one of those two.

Gilly is also so very tempting.

 

[CricketFan90s]

My All Time Test XI : 1) Jack Hobbs 2) Sunil Gavaskar 3) Don Bradman (c) 4) Jacques Kallis 5) Brian Lara 6) Gary Sobers 7) Adam Gilchrist 8) Imran Khan 9) Richard Hadlee 10) Malcolm Marshall 11) Shane Warne

 

[Coronis]

WI would not. Granted he's probably better than all our middle order batsmen but not by a significant enough amount for any competitive advantage. Same with Marshall in Australia. He's likely better than their opening bowlers but not by enough for a significant competitive advantage.

Respectfully disagree.

Tendulkar is significantly better than Richards and Headley for me, and slightly but clearly ahead of Lara, that would be a significant advantage for me. Marshall replacing anyone bar McGrath (whether it be Lillee, Lindwall, Davidson, Cummins, Miller or whoever you have) is definitely a significant upgrade and significant advantage for the team.

 

[CricketFan90s]

Tendulkar didn’t had the Stamina of Lara or Mental Toughness of Steve Waugh but he was technically superior to both that enabled him to be consistent for Long period of time in tests and Odis. Comparing him to Marshall cannot do justice to what he is good at.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

 

[CricketFan90s]

Fast Bowler of the Decade 40s Lindwall vs 50s Bedser vs 60s Trueman vs 70s Lillee vs 80s Marshall vs 90s Ambrose vs 2000s McGrath vs 2010s Steyn. Who is Most Lethal Bowler to get into an ATG Team ?

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Tendehar is a better batsman than Tendulkar (Not Arjun)