Shane Warne vs Dale Steyn

[subshakerz]

The eras thing doesn't make any sense.

When building ATG XIs we assume that players will carry their performances across eras. A great player in one era will be a great player in another era. Otherwise the whole exercise breaks down

It's not a rule per se. It's just that having it like that looks off.

 

[kyear2]

The eras thing doesn't make any sense.

When building ATG XIs we assume that players will carry their performances across eras. A great player in one era will be a great player in another era. Otherwise the whole exercise breaks down

Ahh, so basically we rate batsmen from the 80's / 90's the same as we do batsmen from the 2000's?

 

[Coronis]

My XI of absolute bests irrespective of 2nd skills:

Hobbs
Hutton
Bradman*
Sachin
Viv
Sobers
Gilchrist +
Hadlee
Marshall
Warne
Mcgrath

I believe the only change to mine would be Murali over Warne. Perhaps on a day to day basis you could convince me of Smith or Lara over Hammond.

I disagree.

Would you pick 3 batsmen from the 20's / 30's?

Mix the eras and conditions faced.

I would pick 4.

I know everyone thinks their XI is absolutely perfect, I certainly do. So I'll leave it be.

I don’t. I know mine ascribes to my personal values for a team and personal rankings of players, but there are reasonable reasons for people to take issue with it.

 

[smash84]

Ahh, so basically we rate batsmen from the 80's / 90's the same as we do batsmen from the 2000's?

What do you mean by that? I am not sure I understand your question.

 

[DrWolverine]

My XI of absolute bests irrespective of 2nd skills:

Hobbs
Hutton
Bradman*
Sachin
Viv
Sobers
Gilchrist +
Hadlee
Marshall
Warne
Mcgrath

If you are having Jack Hobbs, you should have Sydney Barnes as well.

 

[DrWolverine]

When building ATG XIs we assume that players will carry their performances across eras. A great player in one era will be a great player in another era. Otherwise the whole exercise breaks down

For some reason this applies to batsmen and not bowlers. Jack Hobbs gets picked whereas Barnes or Spofforth or Lohmann don’t get picked.

 

[smash84]

For some reason this applies to batsmen and not bowlers. Jack Hobbs gets picked whereas Barnes or Spofforth or Lohmann don’t get picked.

Barnes might be the only outlier. Weren't spofforth and Lohmann in an earlier era where bowling averages were very low across teams?

I think performance relative to peers matters as well. Absolute numbers + performance against peers. Also I think most people draw the line somewhere where they think that cricket changed significantly enough that they do not consider players before that line.

 

[Kirkut]

Not an apples to apples comparison here.

Atherton might find it easier to face Steyn than Warne and the vice versa holds true for Navjot Singh Sidhu who tonked Warne but might have struggled against Steyn.

 

[kyear2]

What do you mean by that? I am not sure I understand your question.

We don't rank a 50 average from the 80's the same way we do one from the 2000's.

Hammond didn't face the level of bowlers that Richards did.

You have to adjust for eras, just because someone batted well in the 30's or 40's doesn't mean they would have done as well in 2024.or the 90's.

So it's not as simple as a champion in one era would have done as well in another.

 

[subshakerz]

We don't rank a 50 average from the 80's the same way we do one from the 2000's.

Hammond didn't face the level of bowlers that Richards did.

You have to adjust for eras, just because someone batted well in the 30's or 40's doesn't mean they would have done as well in 2024.or the 90's.

So it's not as simple as a champion in one era would have done as well in another.

What's your adjusted average for Marshall in the 2000s?

 

[sayon basak]

If you are having Jack Hobbs, you should have Sydney Barnes as well.

Can you stop mindlessly repeating the same thing over and over again?

 

[subshakerz]

Can you stop mindlessly repeating the same thing over and over again?

Hey you are beginning to sound like me.

 

[Coronis]

We don't rank a 50 average from the 80's the same way we do one from the 2000's.

Hammond didn't face the level of bowlers that Richards did.

You have to adjust for eras, just because someone batted well in the 30's or 40's doesn't mean they would have done as well in 2024.or the 90's.

So it's not as simple as a champion in one era would have done as well in another.

Just because Marshall bowled well in the 80’s doesn’t mean he would have done as well in the 30’s. He certainly couldn’t handle the 70’s.

I believe he meant with regards to performance against peers rather than pure stats. But I could be wrong.

And if a champion in one era would have done well is not a valid premise, then neither is any premise which involes players from multiple eras. So lets shut down this forum, or only do comparisons between contemporaries.

 

[kyear2]

I believe the only change to mine would be Murali over Warne. Perhaps on a day to day basis you could convince me of Smith or Lara over Hammond.



I would pick 4.



I don’t. I know mine ascribes to my personal values for a team and personal rankings of players, but there are reasonable reasons for people to take issue with it.

But you believe in your personally rankings of players. You firmly believe Hammond was a better batsman than Viv Richards and you stand by that.

I would also think that you believe that if we had to win a test series to save the world and if you were in charge of the time machine, that your guys would give us the best chance to win.

All I meant.

I've spent wayy to much time trying to put together the players that were not only the best at what they did, compliments the players around them, and brings every aspect and skill set of the game into play. While covering all the auxiliary elements in the best way, within reason.

And while some people may take issue with two of my selections, I can justify them as the best possible options, and for multiple reasons.

With the exception of Hadlee I don't see any player that would have an undeniable argument to make my XI.

 

[DrWolverine]

Would Bradman average 99.94 if he played today?

 

[subshakerz]

Would Bradman average 99.94 if he played today?

No.

 

[Coronis]

Would Bradman average 99.94 if he played today?

Way out of the legside

 

[DrWolverine]

No.

Do you think he would have averaged less or more?

 

[sayon basak]

Would Bradman average 99.94 if he played today?

I don't think it's probable that the digits after the decimal point would match exactly.

 

[kyear2]

Just because Marshall bowled well in the 80’s doesn’t mean he would have done as well in the 30’s. He certainly couldn’t handle the 70’s.

I believe he meant with regards to performance against peers rather than pure stats. But I could be wrong.

And if a champion in one era would have done well is not a valid premise, then neither is any premise which involes players from multiple eras. So lets shut down this forum, or only do comparisons between contemporaries.

The argument started as a simple one.

Why would I select all 3 fast bowlers from the same era.

The comp was that I wouldn't select 4 batsmen from the 30's.

Why would one select the 3rd best bowler from a relatively bowler friendly era, I wouldn't. Same way I'm not choosing my entire batting lineup from the most friendly batting era either.

I've been talked down from Steyn, fine. I think that the 3 I select covers a bit more ground in time, McGrath is far enough from Marshall and faced more challenging conditions than Hadlee. Hence he gets that edge. My top 2 guys a d two greatest bowlers in my opinion with the most diverse skill sets makes it.

Even though Wasim was in between this two, he's here for multiple reasons.

But at the end of the day, there's still some variance and experience in different conditions.