2nd greatest living cricketer

[subshakerz]

Warne is also a great natural slip fielder which is the most important fielding position in test cricket. Seeing Virat field in the slip over the last decade has reemphasised how important that position is.

Yeah, thats why I now side with Warne over Murali in the debate. Not just a slightly better bowler, but as a cricketer he brings a bit of an extra level of competitiveness to a team.

 

[kyear2]

You misunderstand me. No one's talking about Ealham. I'm saying that the slightest difference even between bowlers that are almost the same in quality can make a huge difference.

If McGrath was a 1% beter bowler than Hadlee (not saying that he is) that could still easily be enough to warrant his selection ahead of him, even if Hadlee averages 20 more with the bat. "Batdeep" is overrated af.

While I fully agree with you here, I think the only exception to that would be Hadlee vs McGrath.

They are somewhat similar in style and effectiveness and while I have McGrath either 2nd or 3rd all time, Hadlee is 4th and just a half tier behind. And he does offer somewhat more with the bat.

I also agree with your premise of being even 1% better, and that's not something that's mathematically quantifiable. But a bowlers that's even a smidge better could make a breakthrough when someone else wouldn't.

And not to prolong the point, but as you said, to pick a guy who averages 10 runs more, doesn't factor in if it would even be needed or if they perform that one time when actually needed.

It could be argued that extra batting should only really factor in when looking at that no. 8 spot and only at the expense of the 4th bowler?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Warne wasn't even that good in the slips. He fielded there out of necessity because he was a fat ****

 

[kyear2]

If its McGrath vs Imran, I would give it to Imran since I think they are in the same ballpark bowling wise but Imran's better batting would have an actual match impact late in the order at no. 7 or 8.

With Hadlee, it is borderline IMO. If its a no. 10 or 11 position might as well go with McGrath.

Is McGrath and Imran really in the same ballpark as bowlers though?

McGrath is seen by all as top 3 at absolute lowest. Imran isn't seen in that same regard and isn't in everyone's top 10 and not in most persons top 5.

If looking for a no. 8, Hadlee is a better bowling option and even Wasim.

Why field a team with bowlers, whose no 1 job is to bowl out the opposition, when you're skipping a top 3 bowler for an arguable top 8 one.

 

[kyear2]

Warne is also a great natural slip fielder which is the most important fielding position in test cricket. Seeing Virat field in the slip over the last decade has reemphasised how important that position is.

While I agree on the importance of slip fielding. I wouldn't say Warne was great. Good, but not great.

But the overall point still stands.

 

[Gob]

Batting deep is important but there are more important things and I would not want to compromise an iota of my bowling potential so my number 11 could add few runs. Hadlee/ McGrath is bit complicated since they are very close but McGrath vs Wasim/Pollock less so.

Any who if I'm picking an AT attack, first thing I'd do is cover all the basis there are. I'd first pick the very best MM first who is skidding and swinging both ways so I would not pick Steyn or Donald afterwards as I have both of them covered. Then I'll be looking at corridor/extra bounce bowlers who could utilize the pitch to the maximum and then someone who is good at reverse/on flat wickets and has X Factor so the Pakistani guys comes and Steyn also gets back in the discussion. If they bat well so be it but that is the absolute last deal breaker. I mean you already have Bradman, Tendulkar, Richards, Sobers, Smith, Lara etc to make runs and I don't think anyone would factor in their bowling credentials when they pick the batting line up

 

[kyear2]

So I've stopped picking these teams as honorary sections, but if I was actually selecting a side to take the field.

You want a decent no 8, but not at the expense of any drop off with regards to bowling effectiveness.
After all, if everything goes well, you're not relying on the lower tail that much. And if Bradman and co failed, what chance does the no 10 have. Additionally if you're relying on the no. 11 to regularly bail you out, you have bigger problems.

So for a ATG XI, well at least the automatic (well at least mine) selections, of.

Sir Leonard Hutton

Sir Donald Bradman


Sir Garfield Sobers
Adam Gilchrist

Malcolm Marshall
Shane Warne (is he still seen as an automatic)


You want to not only have the best bowlers but the best combinations.

But going by the preference of having a decent no 8. There are 2 options, and all hinges on McGrath. If indeed he's the clear cut no 2 and a non negotiable.

Akram
Marshall
Warne
McGrath

Or if Hadlee is seen as an equal with the ball to McGrath, or at least close enough to make the batting part of it a factor.

Hadlee
Marshall
Warne
Steyn

Doesn't make sense having both McGrath and Hadlee as they are too similar as bowlers. So which is the better combination?

 

[subshakerz]

Is McGrath and Imran really in the same ballpark as bowlers though?

McGrath is seen by all as top 3 at absolute lowest. Imran isn't seen in that same regard and isn't in everyone's top 10 and not in most persons top 5.

If looking for a no. 8, Hadlee is a better bowling option and even Wasim.

Why field a team with bowlers, whose no 1 job is to bowl out the opposition, when you're skipping a top 3 bowler for an arguable top 8 one.

McGrath and Imran are both ATG bowlers. Agreed, McGrath is a lock for top 3 and Imran isn't, but the differences progressively between top 10 bowlers is relatively marginal (plus Imran at peak level is better than all of them arguably), compared to the value-add of having Imran as a proper lower order batsman at 7-8.

Hadlee and Wasim to me are more handy batsmen than full all-rounders.

 

[subshakerz]

So I've stopped picking these teams as honorary sections, but if I was actually selecting a side to take the field.

You want a decent no 8, but not at the expense of any drop off with regards to bowling effectiveness.
After all, if everything goes well, you're not relying on the lower tail that much. And if Bradman and co failed, what chance does the no 10 have. Additionally if you're relying on the no. 11 to regularly bail you out, you have bigger problems.

So for a ATG XI, well at least the automatic (well at least mine) selections, of.

Sir Leonard Hutton

Sir Donald Bradman


Sir Garfield Sobers
Adam Gilchrist

Malcolm Marshall
Shane Warne (is he still seen as an automatic)


You want to not only have the best bowlers but the best combinations.

But going by the preference of having a decent no 8. There are 2 options, and all hinges on McGrath. If indeed he's the clear cut no 2 and a non negotiable.

Akram
Marshall
Warne
McGrath

Or if Hadlee is seen as an equal with the ball to McGrath, or at least close enough to make the batting part of it a factor.

Hadlee
Marshall
Warne
Steyn

Doesn't make sense having both McGrath and Hadlee as they are too similar as bowlers. So which is the better combination?

McGrath over Hadlee as a bowler by the slightest degree.

But I can't understand Akram over Imran who is superior both as a bowler and bat, especially as you already have left arm variety with Sobers in the team.

 

[Gob]

McGrath over Hadlee as a bowler by the slightest degree.

But I can't understand Akram over Imran who is superior both as a bowler and bat, especially as you already have left arm variety with Sobers in the team.

Left arm variety Wasim brings is in an all new level to Sobers though. Is it justifiable for me to think that at best Sobers would be as good a bowler as Nathan Lyon? Obviously being probably the 2nd greatest batsman in addition to his fielding makes him the player that he is but I don't want to rely on his bowling more than what you required from your 5th bowler to bare the workload

 

[Teja.]

Left arm variety Wasim brings is in an all new level to Sobers though. Is it justifiable for me to think that at best Sobers would be as good a bowler as Nathan Lyon? Obviously being probably the 2nd greatest batsman in addition to his fielding makes him the player that he is but I don't want to rely on his bowling more than what you required from your 5th bowler to bare the workload

Sobers was about as good a fast bowler as Hazelwood or Morkel (nearly 4 wpm @ 27 average with high workload) for 8 whole years in a very flat era and a 40 average holding bowler like Shastri or Steve Waugh with barely 2 wpm for the remaining 12-13 years of his career. He was never quite in that Vetttori/Lyon range for an extended period as he was way better or way worse.

He was a batting prodigy from a young age and was highly productive for two decades. His bowling was borderline world class for a very respectable 8 years but he operated mostly as a decent holding bowler outside that period because he was in the side for batting anyway - which affects his overall bowling record negatively.




Also worth noting that the reason Sobers is easily the second best cricketer of all time is that along with the heavy burden of being a 4 wpm spearhead pacer he was carrying for the above eight years of 1961-1968, he also was Steve Smith level with the bat in the same period:

 

[Gob]

S/R is interesting though even at the peak period its unusually high. Need to look at it with other bowlers at the time for context

 

[Lillian Thomson]

S/R is interesting though even at the peak period its unusually high. Need to look at it with other bowlers at the time for context

He bowled quite a bit of spin as a holding bowler quite negatively that affects his strike rate. I can’t remember what year it was but on a flat wicket in one Test he bowled 40 overs and took 0-43.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Hadlee
Warne
Marshall
McGrath

would be my choice. No issue playing McGrath & Hadlee together. That would be unbeatable combination on a wicket offering anything. Maybe sub in a Wasim or Steyn if playing on a real road. Keep in mind would also have an Imran, Sobers and/or Miller as a 4th seamer too.

 

[kyear2]

McGrath and Imran are both ATG bowlers. Agreed, McGrath is a lock for top 3 and Imran isn't, but the differences progressively between top 10 bowlers is relatively marginal (plus Imran at peak level is better than all of them arguably), compared to the value-add of having Imran as a proper lower order batsman at 7-8.

Hadlee and Wasim to me are more handy batsmen than full all-rounders.

Sobers was about as good a fast bowler as Hazelwood or Morkel (nearly 4 wpm @ 27 average with high workload) for 8 whole years in a very flat era and a 40 average holding bowler like Shastri or Steve Waugh with barely 2 wpm for the remaining 12-13 years of his career. He was never quite in that Vetttori/Lyon range for an extended period as he was way better or way worse.

He was a batting prodigy from a young age and was highly productive for two decades. His bowling was borderline world class for a very respectable 8 years but he operated mostly as a decent holding bowler outside that period because he was in the side for batting anyway - which affects his overall bowling record negatively.


View attachment 29532

Also worth noting that the reason Sobers is easily the second best cricketer of all time is that along with the heavy burden of being a 4 wpm spearhead pacer he was carrying for the above eight years of 1961-1968, he also was Steve Smith level with the bat in the same period:

View attachment 29533

He was very good as a pacer, his numbers were initially poor because he started out as a spinner and no 8 batsman.

Once he went into the top order and started bowling fast medium, he was a totally different beast. He was also became an elite atg slip fielder.

 

[Teja.]

S/R is interesting though even at the peak period its unusually high. Need to look at it with other bowlers at the time for context

SR fairly normal compared to other top specialist wicket takers of the era apart from Trueman who was a freak. It's worse than the best pacers but better than the best spinners which fits the type of bowler Sobers was. He was the fifth highest taker over such a long period where also averaged 63 with the bat in the middle order and there are plenty of great specialist bowlers with worse strike rates among bowlers who've taken 50+ wickets in the period.

 

[kyear2]

McGrath and Imran are both ATG bowlers. Agreed, McGrath is a lock for top 3 and Imran isn't, but the differences progressively between top 10 bowlers is relatively marginal (plus Imran at peak level is better than all of them arguably), compared to the value-add of having Imran as a proper lower order batsman at 7-8.

Hadlee and Wasim to me are more handy batsmen than full all-rounders.

But why do you need a full time all rounder? Why skip the top 6 or 7 bowlers to get a better batsman at 8. We are omitting possibly the 2nd best bowler because he couldn't bat? Makes no sense to me. He was a better bowler than Imran, period. And so were Hadlee and Steyn.

 

[kyear2]

Hadlee
Warne
Marshall
McGrath

would be my choice. No issue playing McGrath & Hadlee together. That would be unbeatable combination on a wicket offering anything. Maybe sub in a Wasim or Steyn if playing on a real road. Keep in mind would also have an Imran, Sobers and/or Miller as a 4th seamer too.

That attack is just missing something. As Gob was saying earlier it needs that xfactor bowler, a Steyn or Wasim who can make things happen on same aforementioned roads or in the SC.

Remember this is an attack for all occasions and conditions

 

[TheJediBrah]

That attack is just missing something. As Gob was saying earlier it needs that xfactor bowler, a Steyn or Wasim who can make things happen on same aforementioned roads or in the SC.

Remember this is an attack for all occasions and conditions

Marshall and Warne not enough X-factor?

If it's a team for all conditions, anything but a road will suit Hadlee & McGrath more than a Wasim or Steyn. Keep in mind McGrath is the guy who averaged low-20s supposedly playing on some of the flattest home pitches in cricket so it's not like he's useless on a road.

 

[kyear2]

Marshall and Warne not enough X-factor?

If it's a team for all conditions, anything but a road will suit Hadlee & McGrath more than a Wasim or Steyn. Keep in mind McGrath is the guy who averaged low-20s supposedly playing on some of the flattest home pitches in cricket so it's not like he's useless on a road.

Just a bit too samey for me. Would like Steyn in there somewhere. Even at the expense of Hadlee and his batting, and Marshall and Warne can make up for the batting loss there