Better combo : Sobers & Marshall vs Sachin & Hadlee

[Bolo.]

er, the 90s England and Pre Murali Sri Lanka sides were weak as well, doesn't mean we can discard those performances imo

There are poor teams in any era.

In Sobers' era, it was very much a two tier system. Pak, India, and NZ were getting crushed by everyone except each other. In relation to the top bats from other teams in his era, Sobers played a huge amount vs the weak teams. I don't think this is the case with Sachin, or that his era was as weak in general.

 

[capt_Luffy]

And Marshall didn't.

Not as many and for as many years, no.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Overall, Sobers kill Sachin harder as a player than Hadlee beats Marshall.

on average, Hadlee outputs 6.4 more runs than Marshall, while Sobers is about equal to Sachin in batting and has two different levels of bowling output.

I mean, yeah. I agree to that.

 

[Johan]

There are poor teams in any era.

In Sobers' era, it was very much a two tier system. Pak, India, and NZ were getting crushed by everyone except each other. In relation to the top bats from other teams in his era, Sobers played a huge amount vs the weak teams. I don't think this is the case with Sachin, or that his era was as weak in general.

I've disagreements with this, While I agree that New Zealand/Pakistan/India lost most games, imo that is mostly on the batting, people like Bruce Taylor/Richard Collinge/Richard Motz/Headley Howarth were good bowlers really, so were Gupte/Mankad and especially the spin quaret Sobers faced in 67 and 71, and ofcourse Fazal Mahmood/Khan Mohammad were also good pacers, their batting was fragile but I don't think bowling was weak enough to be completely overlooked

 

[capt_Luffy]

I've disagreements with this, While I agree that New Zealand/Pakistan/India lost most games, imo that is mostly on the batting, people like Bruce Taylor/Richard Collinge/Richard Motz/Headley Howarth were good bowlers really, so were Gupte/Mankad and especially the spin quaret Sobers faced in 67 and 71, and ofcourse Fazal Mahmood/Khan Mohammad were also good pacers, their batting was fragile but I don't think bowling was weak enough to be completely overlooked

I am not saying completely overlook (his NZ record is famously really poor and he didn't had the best time in Pakistan) but contextualization is important here imo. They were not Bangladesh poor, but overall sufficiently poor (especially Pak post 60 and pre Quartet India without a pace attack). Pre Murali SL is fair but 90s England wasn't that poor overall.

 

[Johan]

I am not saying completely overlook (his NZ record is famously really poor and he didn't had the best time in Pakistan) but contextualization is important here imo. They were not Bangladesh poor, but overall sufficiently poor (especially Pak post 60 and pre Quartet India without a pace attack). Pre Murali SL is fair but 90s England wasn't that poor overall.

True

Sobers against 60s/Post Fazal Pakistan

0 matches, 0 runs @ 0.00, 0 RPI, 0 hundreds.

Sobers against Quaret era India

8 matches, 939 runs @ 85.3, 62.6 RPI and 3 hundreds.

 

[capt_Luffy]

True

Sobers against 60s/Post Fazal Pakistan

0 matches, 0 runs @ 0.00, 0 RPI, 0 hundreds.

Sobers against Quaret era India

8 matches, 939 runs @ 85.3, 62.6 RPI and 3 hundreds.

6 matches was in the 71 home series though. And re Pakistan, I will point out to the lack of other Test standard Pak bowlers except Mahmood and Khan, like really poor mostly. But fair ig.

Edit: Scratch the Pak critic. It was fair attack.

 

[Johan]

6 matches was in the 71 home series though. And re Pakistan, I will point out to the lack of other Test standard Pak bowlers except Mahmood and Khan, like really poor mostly. But fair ig

Windies isn't enough of a spinner graveyard for me to discount those runs imo. Plus, in his 365*, Khan and Fazal bowled like 130 overs in together

 

[capt_Luffy]

Windies isn't enough of a spinner graveyard for me to discount those runs imo. Plus, in his 365*, Khan and Fazal bowled like 130 overs in together

Yeah but WI scored what, 790/3. Also Hanif had 300 in the same series. It was really flat.

 

[Johan]

Yeah but WI scored what, 790/3. Also Hanif had 300 in the same series. It was really flat.

Yeah but this can be attributed to Hunte and Sobers just going ballistic, and the Hanif performance is often rated as one of the greatests in Cricket

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yeah but this can be attributed to Hunte and Sobers just going ballistic, and the Hanif performance is often rated as one of the greatests in Cricket

The overall series was very flat though, anyways you put it. Fazal averaged 38.

 

[Johan]

The overall series was very flat though, anyways you put it. Fazal averaged 38.

great batting imo, it was probably flat, but Sachin also did get flat wickets enough

 

[capt_Luffy]

great batting imo, it was probably flat, but Sachin also did get flat wickets enough

Like got plenty of flat beds, but Sobers Era WI overall was considerably flat. Hanif's innings is also so highly rated not for the runs he scored but the time he batted to save the game really.

 

[Johan]

Like got plenty of flat beds, but Sobers Era WI overall was considerably flat. Hanif's innings is also so highly rated not for the runs he scored but the time he batted to save the game really.

Everyone gets flat beds, bar Hutton and especially Trumper.

and Viv

 

[capt_Luffy]

Everyone gets flat beds, bar Hutton.

and Viv

*Add Trumper and I might just let it slide, especially if you add "especially" before his name*

 

[Johan]

tbh Hutton as #3 is a fine stance

 

[capt_Luffy]

tbh Hutton as #3 is a fine stance

*Haven't added "especially Trumper" yet. Do that and I will agree*

 

[Johan]

*Haven't added "especially Trumper" yet. Do that and I will agree*

done.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Sachin is a better batsman than Sobers. Him and Hobbs are the top 2 after Bradman.
Other than Bradman of course, the only guy that could have had the career of Sachin ever would be Hobbs. I don’t think anyone else in history could have matched his longevity for such a long period of time.

Hadlee has his case over Marshall. Marshall probably the better bowler quality wise but Hadlee did it for far longer.

I would put it this way, if you were asking me I can have 2 of these players in my team for what they did in their career I would go with Sachin and Hadlee everytime.

 

[Johan]

Sachin is a better batsman than Sobers. Him and Hobbs are the top 2 after Bradman.
Other than Bradman of course, the only guy that could have had the career of Sachin ever would be Hobbs. I don’t think anyone else in history could have matched his longevity for such a long period of time.

Sachin career length = 24 years

Sobers career length = 20 years

Sobers is one of the guys who doesn't get Longetivity diffed imo