Tendulkar/Hobbs vs Marshall/McGrath

[Coronis]

Batsmen like Tendulkar and Hobbs, while exceptional, rely on bowlers faltering or conditions favoring them at times. Their brilliance is reactive to bowling quality, whereas Marshall and McGrath dictated terms proactively.

I know this is AI but I found it very amusing since I’ve heard the same thing used here as an argument.

Because bowlers never rely on batsmen faltering or conditions favouring them…

 

[Coronis]

And yet when pre WWI Barnes gets put up against pre WWI Hobbs, Hobbs somehow comes out on top. Because of the bias associated with media and his name, I guess?

It's silly. You put Lara against any of the top 5 post 1970s pacers and everyone goes for the bowler, so what changed? One side of the ball simply didn't matter back in the early 1900s?

Um, what? You have seen the recently posted statistics where Hobbs was averaging more than double what other top order batsmen were averaging right?

 

[sayon basak]

I know this is AI but I found it very amusing since I’ve heard the same thing used here as an argument.

Who knows? The AI probably took that argument from CW.

 

[Thala_0710]

Who knows? The AI probably took that argument from CW.

We need AI to do a ranking of all cricketers based on every opinion on CW. A ranking of all the posters would be fun too.

 

[Coronis]

WOW!!! This whole post is bullshiting. Gotta love how the game wasn't same between 1912 and 62, but is between 62 and now

Ok I’m going to try and be completely fair and objective here. Obviously I think the whole earlier eras were **** argument is completely crap as you’d expect.

It is perfectly fair to have a cutoff off WWI imo. After WWI we emerged with a similar balance between bat and ball that has remained since.

Prior to WWI was a very different game balance wise between the two which makes it much harder to judge.

 

[sayon basak]

We need AI to do a ranking of all cricketers based on every opinion on CW. A ranking of all the posters would be fun too.

Here's ChatGPT's response.


Perfect — a Top 100 Test cricketers of all time, based on the blend of stats, impact, era dominance, and common forum debates (like those on CricketWeb). Here’s how I’ll structure it:

Methodology (inspired by CricketWeb-style arguments)

• Peak vs longevity: Some players burned bright for a short time (e.g., Michael Holding), others were consistent over decades (e.g., Kallis).
• Era-adjustment: Pre-WWII vs modern-day cricket isn’t directly comparable, so I'll consider relative dominance within their era.
• Batting, Bowling, All-round balance: Fair split, though bowlers are often underappreciated in popular rankings.
• Impact matches: Players who stepped up in crucial moments (e.g., Steve Waugh, Anil Kumble).
• Style points: Sometimes fans value aesthetics (e.g., Gower, VVS) — not weighted heavily but acknowledged.

Top 100 Test Cricketers of All Time
Tier 1: The Immortals (1–10)

1. Don Bradman – Obvious #1. Averaging 99.94 is still alien.
2. Muttiah Muralitharan – 800 wickets. Carried Sri Lanka’s bowling.
3. Shane Warne – Iconic leg-spinner who changed the game.
4. Jacques Kallis – The most complete Test all-rounder since Sobers.
5. Sachin Tendulkar – 100 centuries, 200 Tests, unbreakable aura.
6. Glenn McGrath – Consistent destroyer in all conditions.
7. Brian Lara – Style + record scores + clutch innings.
8. Kumar Sangakkara – Monster numbers, classy technique.
9. Wasim Akram – Artistry with reverse swing, game-changer.
10. Garfield Sobers – Batting + bowling + leadership.

Tier 2: All-Time Greats (11–30)

1. Ricky Ponting
2. Rahul Dravid
3. Dale Steyn
4. Allan Border
5. Steve Smith
6. Virat Kohli
7. Adam Gilchrist
8. Dennis Lillee
9. Imran Khan
10. Curtly Ambrose
11. Wally Hammond
12. Anil Kumble
13. Michael Holding
14. Javed Miandad
15. Graeme Smith
16. Greg Chappell
17. Richard Hadlee
18. Herbert Sutcliffe
19. George Headley
20. James Anderson

Tier 3: Icons & Matchwinners (31–60)

1. AB de Villiers
2. Kevin Pietersen
3. Clive Lloyd
4. Sunil Gavaskar
5. Andy Flower
6. R Ashwin
7. Shaun Pollock
8. Virender Sehwag
9. Ian Botham
10. Inzamam-ul-Haq
11. Mahela Jayawardene
12. David Gower
13. Joe Root
14. Mike Hussey
15. Neil Harvey
16. Steve Waugh
17. Kapil Dev
18. Zaheer Abbas
19. Nathan Lyon
20. Fred Trueman
21. Younis Khan
22. Aravinda de Silva
23. Hashim Amla
24. Alastair Cook
25. Waqar Younis
26. Ian Chappell
27. Ravindra Jadeja
28. Saeed Anwar
29. Peter May
30. Ken Barrington

Tier 4: Elite but Debated (61–100)

1. Mohammed Yousuf
2. Ross Taylor
3. Faf du Plessis
4. VVS Laxman
5. Shoaib Akhtar
6. Mark Waugh
7. Michael Clarke
8. Justin Langer
9. Mohammad Asif
10. Graham Gooch
11. Matthew Hayden
12. Andrew Flintoff
13. Tim Southee
14. Shakib Al Hasan
15. Andy Roberts
16. Vernon Philander
17. Pat Cummins
18. Ben Stokes
19. Joe Garner
20. Ted Dexter
21. Sid Barnes
22. Trevor Bailey
23. Colin Cowdrey
24. David Warner
25. Ian Healy
26. Mohammad Rafique
27. Monty Noble
28. Alec Stewart
29. Harbhajan Singh
30. Stuart Broad
31. Daryl Cullinan
32. Bruce Mitchell
33. Erapalli Prasanna
34. Doug Walters
35. Shubman Gill (future projection)
36. Cheteshwar Pujara
37. Darren Lehmann
38. Marnus Labuschagne
39. Chaminda Vaas
40. Rohan Kanhai

Started off decently, then fumbled a bit.

 

[Johan]

Just simply and quantitatively not true, not by any metric.

No one's saying that Hobbs isn't great, prbalt even the 2nd best as far as batsmen are concerned, but this argument is getting silly and going wayyy too far.

And dude, with all due respect, you don't make the rules.

that was literally the crux of the entire discussion

 

[Johan]

I mean, I’d much rather use Smith in this comparison than Root lol.

nah nah nah, Root feels more disrespectful

 

[Coronis]

Respectfully, why?

Change begets change. Those were the decades of massive global scale change, and the seeds of the globalization that has made the world what it is today. It was accelerated a few decades for sports, due to the ease of moving around some top players, as opposed to a whole modern labor force, but the concept is the same. There was a much more insulated pool of talent, that opened up towards the middle of the century, and saw little growth in scope (although yes, continuing improvement in total number of players and infrastructure) in the decades after.

How does this idea support your argument? Unless you think change somehow stops at a random point? Wouldn’t changes continually increase over a smaller period of time based on this philosphy?

 

[kyear2]

I get what you are saying, but not sure it really separates Marshall from SRT or especially Hobbs

And that's your opinion.

 

[Coronis]

Shubman Gill (future projection)

 

[sayon basak]

If Kallis is most complete all rounder since sober then sober should be place ahead of him

I mean, It's AI. We can't expect it to be flawless.

And Sobers is without a doubt rated as the 2nd greatest cricketer ever.

 

[Coronis]

nah nah nah, Root feels more disrespectful

I mean by talking about dominance in their eras and such Smith is the logical comparison, rather than just going for straight disrespect.

 

[Johan]

I mean by talking about dominance in their eras and such Smith is the logical comparison, rather than just going for straight disrespect.

I guess that's true.

 

[Coronis]

I accept... that your cutoff point is idiotic, illogical and completely falling on itself because you are not willing to commit to your argument at all.

see this is how you commit to this argument, "Viv Richards would not be a test standard Batsmen today and Zak Crawley is better than Viv Richards". Say that as an oath and believe it forever and that would be you being intellectually consistent and commited to your argument.

Oh I forgot.

Viv Richards would not be a test standard Batsmen today and Zak Crawley is better than Viv Richards.

And I say that with everyone knowing how much I loathe Zak Crawley.

 

[Johan]

Oh I forgot.

Viv Richards would not be a test standard Batsmen today and Zak Crawley is better than Viv Richards.

And I say that with everyone knowing how much I loathe Zak Crawley.

You gotta say the same thing with Garry!

 

[Coronis]

You gotta say the same thing with Garry!

Yeah but Garry was ATG

 

[subshakerz]

Ok I’m going to try and be completely fair and objective here. Obviously I think the whole earlier eras were **** argument is completely crap as you’d expect.

It is perfectly fair to have a cutoff off WWI imo. After WWI we emerged with a similar balance between bat and ball that has remained since.

Prior to WWI was a very different game balance wise between the two which makes it much harder to judge.

Sure why is it so hard for them to admit they had a cutoff?

 

[Johan]

Sure why is it so hard for them to admit they had a cutoff?

I do have a cut off point actually

2015

 

[Coronis]

I do have a cut off point actually

2015

Why you gotta do Sanga like that?