Better combo round II. Sobers & Marshall vs Sachin and Imran

[subshakerz]

You are saying that his production is up there with Sobers's and way ahead of Kallis's bowling.

It is relative to the RPI standards of his era. You never address that.

I'm saying that his overall production is how much runs he accounted for per match. Why do you refuse to look at it from that metric?
Is it because it destroys your argument?

I've never seen you use RPM for any other bat. RPI is the true measure and you know Imran does well in that so you ignore it.

I'm not saying he was horrible at no. 7, I'm saying he's the man and almost an outlier at 8 and offers more value there. The same way Kallis provides more value as the 5th option as well.

First you lied and said Imran batted more at 8. When that was exposed, you want to pretend he isn't good enough for 7. It's really pathetic.

I don't say 3 or 4. I specially said 4. Of the non spinner no. 4 bowlers in history, what do their numbers look like? Have there even been consistent non spinner 4th bowlers, imagine as the worst of the pavers, they didn't consistently hang around that much? I've no idea.

If you have no idea don't say Kallis is 4th bowler standard. We should assume he is below.

Have you ever looked at the matches where he pushed himself up the order? Especially in the earlier years?

Again, the majority of his career is 7 and above.

 

[subshakerz]

He played the same time as Marshall, staring 1 year later and finished 2 years after. Marshall played 81 tests and missed a series that I can think of. Thinking that number should be in the 80's. Not nearly going to check to verify.

Dude just admit you made an error that shows that Logie was good enough to appear in the vast majority of games. Which means Imran meets the standard.

 

[h_hurricane]

Logie scored 2 test hundreds, that too against India's pop gun attack. There wasn't a single bowler on either occasion averaging under 35 in tests, apart from Kapil. He isn't a better batsman than Imran who in spite of having a slightly misleading average at least scored hundreds in a variety of conditions against multiple teams.

 

[subshakerz]

Rest of it is noise.

Lol so you won't address the argument at all. If he bats at no.7 but promotes a nightwatchman, that doesn't mean he is playing in the side as a regular no.8.

This is just being intentionally dishonest.

 

[Coronis]

He played the same time as Marshall, staring 1 year later and finished 2 years after. Marshall played 81 tests and missed a series that I can think of. Thinking that number should be in the 80's. Not nearly going to check to verify.

Marshall played ~76 percent of available tests vs Logies ~66 percent

 

[subshakerz]

Marshall played ~76 percent of available tests vs Logies ~66 percent

Marshall was barely test standard as per Kyears reasoning then.

 

[Prince EWS]

I love Kallis but calling him a #4 bowler because he came on second change before the spinner is a bit cheeky. If he's bowling the fifth most overs when he's doing that then he's not really the fourth bowler.

 

[shortpitched713]

I love Kallis but calling him a #4 bowler because he came on second change before the spinner is a bit cheeky. If he's bowling the fifth most overs when he's doing that then he's not really the fourth bowler.

If it's an also ran SA spinner like Boje, then no it's not cheeky, but rather legitimate.

 

[Prince EWS]

If it's an also ran SA spinner like Boje, then no it's not cheeky, but rather legitimate.

In those cases he was probably bowling more overs and not just bowling a fifth bowler's quota at second change.

He would have usually been the second change bowler bowling for Australia too, ahead of Warne. But he still would have been the fifth bowler.

 

[shortpitched713]

In those cases he was probably bowling more overs and not just bowling a fifth bowler's quota at second change.

He would have usually been the second change bowler bowling for Australia too, ahead of Warne. But he still would have been the fifth bowler.

My point is look back at SA at that time. If Kallis was bowling with a spinner he was a 4th bowler. SA spin quality of the time was dire.

 

[Prince EWS]

My point is look back at SA at that time. If Kallis was bowling with a spinner he was a 4th bowler. SA spin quality of the time was dire.

Yeah no if you're picking a spinner to bat 9-10 and he's bowling heaps more overs than Kallis then Kallis is the fifth bowler. Even if the spinner isn't very good in the end, that's obviously not the plan if he bowls so many overs!

I can't believe the selective arguments here, and almost noone loves Kallis more than me ffs! But he was mostly picked as the fifth bowler who bowled second change.

 

[shortpitched713]

Yeah no if you're picking a spinner to bat 9-10 and he's bowling heaps more overs than Kallis then Kallis is the fifth bowler. Even if the spinner isn't very good in the end, that's obviously not the plan if he bowls so many overs!

I can't believe the selective arguments here, and almost noone loves Kallis more than me ffs! But he was mostly picked as the fifth bowler who bowled second change.

IIRC South Africa sometimes ran 5 pacers too, that's how dire their spin was. In those case yeah Kallis is almost always 5th bowler. But the spin bowler thing was very situational, imho.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah no if you're picking a spinner to bat 9-10 and he's bowling heaps more overs than Kallis then Kallis is the fifth bowler. Even if the spinner isn't very good in the end, that's obviously not the plan if he bowls so many overs!

I can't believe the selective arguments here, and almost noone loves Kallis more than me ffs! But he was mostly picked as the fifth bowler who bowled second change.

I think you make sense. Fifth bowler role is defined by load more than anything.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think you make sense. Fifth bowler role is defined by load more than anything.

Yeah, Ganguly and Gavaskar opened the bowling at times - as fifth bowler.

Kaliis was seriously the fourth of even third bowler at times in a lineup, especially earlier in his career. But bowling second change with the newer ball before the specialist spinner and then only bowling 15% of the overs in the innings as he often did doesn't actually make him the fourth bowler any more than Gavaskar was the second bowler in those games. Come on now.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah, Ganguly and Gavaskar opened the bowling at times - as fifth bowler.

Kaliis was seriously the fourth of even third bowler at times in a lineup, especially earlier in his career. But bowling second change with the newer ball before the specialist spinner and then only bowling 15% of the overs in the innings as he often did doesn't actually make him the fourth bowler any more than Gavaskar was the second bowler in those games. Come on now.

I mean yeah it makes complete sense to put in your fifth bowler as second change if they bowl pace and your fourth is a spinner. Far more often than not, it will be better to bowl a pacer at that stage of the innings.

If we are defining bowlers by workload tho its fair to say Lyon is the spearhead of the Aussie attack

 

[debraj72]

Garfield sobers and Malcom marshall probably.one thing is always surprising for me,how much little marshall played at home,out of his 81 tests he just played 31 matches at home.(To compare, McGrath 66-58 home, Ambrose 52-46 home,hadlee 43-43)Also,with due respect ,i don't get the comparison with hadlee.l mean,I know hadlee was the lone genius in that mediocre NZ team.But against Pakistan, hadlee took 51 wickets from 20 innings@28.3 and marshall took 50 wickets from 23 innings @20.7.Also hadlee played just 3 tests in Pakistan, whereas marshall played 10 tests in Pakistan.You can say, marshall was a part of the more potent bowling attack,hence his job was easier.But,this stat is quite decisive for me.

 

[subshakerz]

If we are defining bowlers by workload tho its fair to say Lyon is the spearhead of the Aussie attack

He may be in those situations when he bowls the most.

 

[Thala_0710]

Garfield sobers and Malcom marshall probably.one thing is always surprising for me,how much little marshall played at home,out of his 81 tests he just played 31 matches at home.(To compare, McGrath 66-58 home, Ambrose 52-46 home,hadlee 43-43)Also,with due respect ,i don't get the comparison with hadlee.l mean,I know hadlee was the lone genius in that mediocre NZ team.But against Pakistan, hadlee took 51 wickets from 20 innings@28.3 and marshall took 50 wickets from 23 innings @20.7.Also hadlee played just 3 tests in Pakistan, whereas marshall played 10 tests in Pakistan.You can say, marshall was a part of the more potent bowling attack,hence his job was easier.But,this stat is quite decisive for me.

So matches only against Pakistan matter?

 

[debraj72]

So matches only against Pakistan matter?

No,but Pakistan was the strongest team after the West Indies,and again this is just my opinion,you can differ

 

[capt_Luffy]

No,but Pakistan was the strongest team after the West Indies,and again this is just my opinion,you can differ

Were they though?? And even if they were, surely WI was a couple of tiers ahead so Hadlee's WI record holds more weight as well.