• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Unpopular Cricket Opinions

HouHsiaoHsien

International Debutant
Marshall also had a career much shorter in practicality than the others. He pretty much played all of his career in a peak, but it could be argued that Imran, Hadlee and Murali were better for longer stretches. His lows aren't much low, that's basically what gives him the edge here; but so was the argument of his career being realistically shorter. Also re WPM, a line-up with great bowling does let's the opposition to all out more often. Not a dig, just a bit of contextualisation.

Murali did had a good series in India in the mid 2000s. And for reasons I stated previously, I really don't count his Australia record much.
But a competitive attack can lead to bowlers having lower WPMs individually- more competition among the bowlers. Marshall losing out on longevity vis a vis others agreed, and perhaps that’s why I favour Tendulkar or Hobbs over him in a comparison. But Murali’s overall record in India and Australia are hindering me for having him as a candidate for GOAT. But can definitely understand if others have him as a candidate, and understand where you are coming from. Even I used to rate him outside the top 5(around top 8), but now have: Marshall, Mcgrath, Hadlee, Steyn, Murali/Imran, Ambrose, Donald, Warne, Lillee
 

sayon basak

International Debutant
I guess we've all heard the story of the batsman (found it now, Albert Trott) who was purported to have hit a straight six over the Member's stand at Lord's in 1899.


As the Poms would say, I'm not 'avin that. Looks like an extravagant backlift, but with a light bat, and hasn't gone close to being replicated since (that I know of...) it's fanciful.
Interesting story this. Even claims to have eye witness accounts. How big would that six be measured at if taken seriously?

Also makes me wonder how believable Shahid Afridi hitting 153 meter six is. Heard it was actually measured at somewhere around 120m? Does Brett lee's 130 (or maybe 135) meter six stand first on the list?
 

SteveNZ

Cricketer Of The Year
Interesting story this. Even claims to have eye witness accounts. How big would that six be measured at if taken seriously?

Also makes me wonder how believable Shahid Afridi hitting 153 meter six is. Heard it was actually measured at somewhere around 120m? Does Brett lee's 130 (or maybe 135) meter six stand first on the list?
Yeah, it's got to be mid 100s, like 150m at least if it's gone as far, with the right trajectory to go over the Pavilion? That's only guess work.

I watch a lot of cricket, modern-day cricket with ridiculous bats, big strong guys, biomechanics, bowlers hitting 140+ etc and I haven't seen a six go over 110m or so. Although yeah, there is this one from Brett Lee -
which they reckon is 130 or so. With that one, it's over mid wicket - biomechanically, that's likely to go further if you're hitting that way as you clear your body and hit with more force summation. Hitting straight, without clearing the hip as much, I'd reckon that's harder to hit long.

Was some conjecture about the carbon tape on the back of Lee's bat, too, although I think it was proven to be a marketing jip.
 

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
Not the science I was seeking...



OK, I get that. But I suppose you're only able to 'rate them' in the sense of how strong their record was against their peers. It's impossible to rate their actual ability. And you get some wildly exaggerated stories...I guess we've all heard the story of the batsman (found it now, Albert Trott) who was purported to have hit a straight six over the Member's stand at Lord's in 1899.


As the Poms would say, I'm not 'avin that. Looks like an extravagant backlift, but with a light bat, and hasn't gone close to being replicated since (that I know of...) it's fanciful.
I will be honest, rating players in respect to their peers and what they actually achieve sounds the most scientific to me. Ofcourse some adjustments need to be made when comparing across eras, Trumper and Grace were much better batsmen than their averages raw might suggest trying to take them 101 for eg and vice versa for bowlers. And when it comes to such extravagant stories, I just take them as such, stories. Be it Grace setting up his stump again after getting out or Nayudu hitting a six across a country, these events are highly exaggerated over years, like myths. Though I don't think that means we should ignore contemporary writers, since they provide valuable context from records missing otherwise.
 

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
But a competitive attack can lead to bowlers having lower WPMs individually- more competition among the bowlers. Marshall losing out on longevity vis a vis others agreed, and perhaps that’s why I favour Tendulkar or Hobbs over him in a comparison. But Murali’s overall record in India and Australia are hindering me for having him as a candidate for GOAT. But can definitely understand if others have him as a candidate, and understand where you are coming from. Even I used to rate him outside the top 5(around top 8), but now have: Marshall, Mcgrath, Hadlee, Steyn, Murali/Imran, Ambrose, Donald, Warne, Lillee
I mostly ignore Murali's Aussie record. In '97, he toured Australia before he had doosra in his arsenal and was unsuccessful in some very flat pitches in his two matches. In the '07, the Aussie created enormous mental pressure over him with all the chucking fiasco. He was mentally too much broken down to lead a very below average bowling line-up, and was again unsuccessful in his two matches. Between that, in the '05 World XI game, he took 5 wickets. Now, the main reason I have gripe over his Australia record much more, in the 4 matches there, he bowled in the Australian 2nd innings ONCE, that too in a 200 odd chase Australia managed by losing 4 wickets only. A spinner never getting to ball in the 2nd innings is a HUGE handicap imo. That, alongside the immaturity of the first and mental situation of the second, I just mostly ignore his record in Australia. I am not saying you should also ignore it, but don't think you should really penalise him heavily for that. India is a very valid criticism, though unlike Warne, Murali actually had a good albeit high averaging series in the mid 2000s. I mostly rate him as a genuine contender for his mammoth wicket tally, WPM, home record, peak and playing for a severely bad bowling line-up. But don't think there's anything wrong with rating him equal to Steyn/Imran.
 

Coronis

International Coach
iirc one of my favpurite stories I read as a kid was someone… I think it was George Bonnor? Apparently hit a ball so high that the batsmen were completing their third run before it was caught.
 

wellAlbidarned

International Coach
Actually, I've got an opinion that's considered tantamount to treason in Australia. All but the very best leg spinners suck and will lose you matches far more often than they'll win them, and you're almost always better off with a decent finger spinner.
The tough thing about selecting and captaining spinners in lower levels of cricket is that it needs to be done with a somewhat altruistic bigger picture viewpoint. Proper spin bowling (even moreso legspin) is very high variance and lower return on average than medium pace. Even spinners with real potential will have plenty of days where they get smashed. To find the good ones you need to be prepared to take a hit to immediate results.
 

kyear2

International Coach
For me Marshall having a WPM of 6 for a good stretch of matches despite bowling in some of the competitive attacks ever puts as a definite one. He is in the same tier as Mcgrath and Hadlee, but a bit better. Mcgrath and Hadlee are more or less neck to neck, with Mcgrath very very very marginally ahead. I rate Steyn ahead of Murali very marginally. Barnes I don’t factor into those discussions as I’m not sure or convinced to interpret his record in any definite way.
Marshalls wpm during his peak is one factor, his unmatched skill set is another. He was legitimately express, could swing it, was economical and was, when the mood struck him the enforcer, he could and would hit you. He excelled vs everyone and in all conditions, home and away. Don't think any one else combined those traits and that resume.
I have McGrath over Hadlee because one primarily plied his trade in more or less helpful conditions and 3 countries, while the other went from the live to dead era of pitches with no noticable drop off in quality or production.
Him and Marshall were also the primary reasons and the x factors that propelled their teams to the two greatest of all time.
So yeah, Hadlee, easily the 3rd member of that top tier, but also clearly 3rd. Also played a bit vs minnows which no doubt helped his numbers a bit.

Steyn averaged over 27 vs 3 countries with double digit sample sizes and was often noted not to have a plan B. Not saying he isn't elite, but not in the upper top tier for me.

Barnes, first off don't rate players from that era. Second, he played vs only two teams where he was basically Ambrose was Australia, and then demolished a minnow to supercharge his numbers.

Murali’s case for GOAT is stronger than Warne’s but his lack of a good series in Aus or Ind is a notable problem
Two massive holes in his record, he's definitely in my 7 man top tier (anywhere from 5th to 6th), but can't be in the top 3 discussion for the goat in my humble opinion.
 

Coronis

International Coach
Marshalls wpm during his peak is one factor, his unmatched skill set is another. He was legitimately express, could swing it, was economical and was, when the mood struck him the enforcer, he could and would hit you. He excelled vs everyone and in all conditions, home and away. Don't think any one else combined those traits and that resume.
I have McGrath over Hadlee because one primarily plied his trade in more or less helpful conditions and 3 countries, while the other went from the live to dead era of pitches with no noticable drop off in quality or production.
Him and Marshall were also the primary reasons and the x factors that propelled their teams to the two greatest of all time.
So yeah, Hadlee, easily the 3rd member of that top tier, but also clearly 3rd. Also played a bit vs minnows which no doubt helped his numbers a bit.

Steyn averaged over 27 vs 3 countries with double digit sample sizes and was often noted not to have a plan B. Not saying he isn't elite, but not in the upper top tier for me.

Barnes, first off don't rate players from that era. Second, he played vs only two teams where he was basically Ambrose was Australia, and then demolished a minnow to supercharge his numbers.



Two massive holes in his record, he's definitely in my 7 man top tier (anywhere from 5th to 6th), but can't be in the top 3 discussion for the goat in my humble opinion.
Actually, throughout his career touring pacers only had an harder time in Pakistan or the West Indies, which is surprising considering New Zealand easily had the worse batting. If you include home pacers it becomes India and Pakistan.

Seems to be a bit of a disconnect between the perception of the ease of bowling there. Likely due to Hadlee himself.
 

SteveNZ

Cricketer Of The Year
I will be honest, rating players in respect to their peers and what they actually achieve sounds the most scientific to me. Ofcourse some adjustments need to be made when comparing across eras, Trumper and Grace were much better batsmen than their averages raw might suggest trying to take them 101 for eg and vice versa for bowlers. And when it comes to such extravagant stories, I just take them as such, stories. Be it Grace setting up his stump again after getting out or Nayudu hitting a six across a country, these events are highly exaggerated over years, like myths. Though I don't think that means we should ignore contemporary writers, since they provide valuable context from records missing otherwise.
And hey that's cool, I probably find it hard to rate anyone I didn't see...but I'm not a historian of the game like a lot of people on here are. Obviously you have the contexts of uncovered wickets, lack of protective gear, long tours, only playing certain opponents etc.

Like when best NZ XIs come up, and inevitably Martin Donnelly's name comes up. He made it into the NZ Hall of Fame, in playing 7 Tests. Shane Bond played 18 but quite often gets an * next to his name when best XIs come up. I understand Donnelly had the war to contend with, and there's other reasons he didn't play more for NZ, but I just find it hard to say 'yep that guy is in our best XI' when I didn't see him, and there's not a huge body of work to rate him on.
 

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
And hey that's cool, I probably find it hard to rate anyone I didn't see...but I'm not a historian of the game like a lot of people on here are. Obviously you have the contexts of uncovered wickets, lack of protective gear, long tours, only playing certain opponents etc.

Like when best NZ XIs come up, and inevitably Martin Donnelly's name comes up. He made it into the NZ Hall of Fame, in playing 7 Tests. Shane Bond played 18 but quite often gets an * next to his name when best XIs come up. I understand Donnelly had the war to contend with, and there's other reasons he didn't play more for NZ, but I just find it hard to say 'yep that guy is in our best XI' when I didn't see him, and there's not a huge body of work to rate him on.
I think before Donnelly used to pop up so often was largely because NZ batting was quite weak. It was him or Fleming for a majority. Once Williamson and Taylor truly came along, I think it will be hard to find anyone include him in their NZ XI. Though unlike Bond, whom still many includes, his career was cut short largely by war (and business ventures) and not due to fitness problems. And ofcourse, for such low sample sizes, you kinda have to take the word of his peers and writers.
 

shortpitched713

International Captain
The frequency of batting all-rounders who contribute meaningfully with the ball while maintaining a close to specialist average is exceedingly small.

Some of the subset of them who have prettier averages don't really have the adequate bowling workloads, and hence impacts that stand up to scrutiny.
 

shortpitched713

International Captain
The frequency of batting all-rounders who contribute meaningfully with the ball while maintaining a close to specialist average is exceedingly small.

Some of the subset of them who have prettier averages don't really have the adequate bowling workloads, and hence impacts that stand up to scrutiny.
No one bit on this hot take, so I'll put some names:

Greig over Mushtaq Mohammed
Imran over Keith Miller
Sober over Kallis (Kallis was a full time all-rounder, contrary to many peoples' belief, but damn was Sobers was a workhorse)
Shakib over Faulkner (this one more stretch, but similar principle)

Lowering the workload really should be more of a penalty to some of these batting all-rounders in how they're rated, and also give us an appreciation of maybe how unrealistic it is to find real quality batting all-rounders.
 

Qlder

International Debutant
No one bit on this hot take, so I'll put some names:

Greig over Mushtaq Mohammed
Imran over Keith Miller
Sober over Kallis (Kallis was a full time all-rounder, contrary to many peoples' belief, but damn was Sobers was a workhorse)
Shakib over Faulkner (this one more stretch, but similar principle)

Lowering the workload really should be more of a penalty to some of these batting all-rounders in how they're rated, and also give us an appreciation of maybe how unrealistic it is to find real quality batting all-rounders.
But Imran wasnt a batting allrounder, he was a bowling allrounder which is why he bowled more than Miller. Imran inflated his batting stats later in his career when playing as a pure batsman when injured. He was a good #7 or #8 when fit to bowl
 

ataraxia

International Coach
But Imran wasnt a batting allrounder, he was a bowling allrounder which is why he bowled more than Miller. Imran inflated his batting stats later in his career when playing as a pure batsman when injured. He was a good #7 or #8 when fit to bowl
Hahahahahahahaha.

Imran averaged 44 at 4.75 WPM during the 1980s.
 

Qlder

International Debutant
Hahahahahahahaha.

Imran averaged 44 at 4.75 WPM during the 1980s.
Good thing thread is "unpopular opinions" then and not "accurate opinions" 😀

Imran still rarely batted higher than 7 so just don't see him as a batting allrounder
 

Top