Malcolm Marshall vs Kapil Dev (with a tweak)

[Prince EWS]

Marshall vs Kapil with one tweak - whoever is picked has to bat #7 with a fairly mid standard top 6 ahead of them, and four fairly mid standard bowlers who bat worse than Marshall at 8-11.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Doesn't matters if the team has 10 Chris Martins really when the gap in primary is this big. Would take Imran ahead though. Had the last 4 being something like Steyn, Ambrose, Murali and Donald might had given KD a thought.

 

[Prince EWS]

Doesn't matters if the team has 10 Chris Martins really when the gap in primary is this big. Would take Imran ahead though. Had the last 4 being something like Steyn, Ambrose, Murali and Donald might had given KD a thought.

What if you have to bat one at 6 and 7-11 was a keeper averaging less than Marshall and mid-standard attack of four bowlers who batted worse than Marshall?

My contention here is that you'd rather play Marshall even when forced to play him as a genuine all-rounder, then he's actually a better all-rounder than Kapil, which is something we wouldn't necessarily think intuitively.

 

[capt_Luffy]

What if you have to bat one at 6 and 7-11 was a keeper averaging less than Marshall and mid-standard attack of four bowlers who batted worse than Marshall?

My contention here is that you'd rather play Marshall even when forced to play him as a genuine all-rounder, then he's actually a better all-rounder than Kapil, which is something we wouldn't necessarily think intuitively.

I get that. I would play Kapil in such a team only when I will have a bowling attack of ATG level. Or else, I would bet on Marshall to restrict the opposition for the lowest he can and hope my top 5 can get atleast that

 

[DrWolverine]

I see Marshall’s name in a discussion
I pick him as the bowler
It is as simple as that

 

[kyear2]

What if you have to bat one at 6 and 7-11 was a keeper averaging less than Marshall and mid-standard attack of four bowlers who batted worse than Marshall?

My contention here is that you'd rather play Marshall even when forced to play him as a genuine all-rounder, then he's actually a better all-rounder than Kapil, which is something we wouldn't necessarily think intuitively.

Which is why the notion of all rounder is such a restrictive and misleading one.

One high profile, but for me, obvious example.

Imran is a better all rounder than Hadlee, there's little argument there. But in my, and I'm sure others opinion, Hadlee is the better cricketer.

Having a more even balance isn't necessarily the better balance, it's who gives you the better opportunity to win.

 

[Prince EWS]

Which is why the notion of all rounder is such a restrictive and misleading one.

One high profile, but for me, obvious example.

Imran is a better all rounder than Hadlee, there's little argument there. But in my, and I'm sure others opinion, Hadlee is the better cricketer.

Having a more even balance isn't necessarily the better balance, it's who gives you the better opportunity to win.

If I had to bat either Imran or Hadlee at 6 or 7 followed by a tail of bowlers/keeper with batting worse than Hadlee to follow I'd definitely pick Imran, so I think it's clear to me at least he's a better all-rounder.

How I'd determine who the better cricketer was would be to imagine I'm giving a random side of random quality that I don't know the structure of yet and then offered either Hadlee or Imran to improve it, and see who I'd pick. For me that's still Imran, but it could totally feasibly be Hadlee for you or others while still agreeing with me on the former scenario about batting someone in the top 7.

 

[sayon basak]

Jadeja

 

[kyear2]

If I had to bat either Imran or Hadlee at 6 or 7 followed by a tail of bowlers/keeper with batting worse than Hadlee to follow I'd definitely pick Imran, so I think it's clear to me at least he's a better all-rounder.

How I'd determine who the better cricketer was would be to imagine I'm giving a random side of random quality that I don't know the structure of yet and then offered either Hadlee or Imran to improve it, and see who I'd pick. For me that's still Imran, but it could totally feasibly be Hadlee for you or others while still agreeing with me on the former scenario about batting someone in the top 7.

Yeah, Imran had an output of about 30 runs over innings (and that's including the post opening bowling career bump), Hadlee around 23, while I consider Hadlee to be objectively the better bowler.

I understand what you're saying, I just disagree. And why rating players as per their all rounder ratings doesn't work for me.

Kallis is also the 3rd best all rounder, and easily so. Doesn't mean he's a top 5 player, or even top 10.

And your point about batting in the top 7 is kinda irrelevant when decide who would be best for your team?

 

[nick-o]

I think it depends entirely on who the other 10 players are -- you can't look at it in isolation.

If you are talking about selecting the all-time greatest team ever, you know you already have amazing batting with Bradman, Sobers, Hobbs etc., and picking Marshall means you can field the five greatest bowlers (3 quicks, 2 spinners) as well

But if you have a much narrower set of criteria (to accomdate Imran and Marshall, let's say: test cricketers active in the 1980s from nations accredited as test nations as of 1980 whose country name begins with a consonant) you look at your batting options and decide you need to pick the best possible batting allrounder to bolster things.

I know I don't engage much in these debates, but it's a bugbear of mine: the stronger the team, the smaller the importance of an allrounder. There must be some mathematical index that the value of an allrounder rises in inverse proportion to the overall strength of the team.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

M I K E P R O C T E R

 

[capt_Luffy]

Nah, give me Garry Sobers Don Bradman Chris Woakes

 

[kyear2]

I think it depends entirely on who the other 10 players are -- you can't look at it in isolation.

If you are talking about selecting the all-time greatest team ever, you know you already have amazing batting with Bradman, Sobers, Hobbs etc., and picking Marshall means you can field the five greatest bowlers (3 quicks, 2 spinners) as well

But if you have a much narrower set of criteria (to accomdate Imran and Marshall, let's say: test cricketers active in the 1980s from nations accredited as test nations as of 1980 whose country name begins with a consonant) you look at your batting options and decide you need to pick the best possible batting allrounder to bolster things.

I know I don't engage much in these debates, but it's a bugbear of mine: the stronger the team, the smaller the importance of an allrounder. There must be some mathematical index that the value of an allrounder rises in inverse proportion to the overall strength of the team.

Some good points.

My main thing though is I rate primary skills, from the perspective that I want consistent contributors and game changers, bat or ball doesn't matter, but to me that's where games are more consistently won and lost.

This is an overly simplistic way of phrasing it, but the jack of all trades but master of none saying somewhat applies and it's just not my preference.