Better combo : Sobers & Marshall vs Sachin & Hadlee

[capt_Luffy]

No flatter than the previous era's wickets that everyone got, everywhere. With less good bowlers previously as well.

And you literally can't rate Hanif's effort and not rate Sobers's.

They were either both useless or they count for something.

I personally don't particularly rate either as great efforts.

I never said I don't rate Sobers' runs that series at all. I said I don't rate them particularly very highly given how high scoring the series was and Pak attack was alright at best. The reason I rate Hanif's 337 as ATG isn't how tough the going was (hardly it ever is, if ever, when a 300 is scored); but how long he batted diligently to save the match from a certain defeat.

 

[Johan]

https://stats.acscricket.com/Archive/Scorecards/27/27294.html

Great spell by a Legend and great batting by a GOAT

 

[kyear2]

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.

Sobers played 4 less years while bowling 40 overs a match and going full mercenary and that at full work load on the FC arena.

And no one could have matched the extra 4 years Sachin had?

Really?

 

[kyear2]

4 years is still significantly more imo, especially given he began at 16. No longevity dif, but definitely an advantage.

Sobers started as a teen as well, and bowled.

There has to be some point where you just get max points for longevity.

And those 4 years weren't like Punter's where it was for the team.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Sobers started as a teen as well, and bowled.

There has to be some point where you just get max points for longevity.

And those 4 years weren't like Punter's where it was for the team.

Yeah but not as a 16 year old.

There is absolutely no such by point by definition lol.

And what do you know mean not for the team?? Sachin absolutely ruled till 2011 and later that year Dravid retired. The idea he played for some kind of personal record detrimental to team is stupid honestly.

 

[subshakerz]

Sobers started as a teen as well, and bowled.

There has to be some point where you just get max points for longevity.

And those 4 years weren't like Punter's where it was for the team.

Correct me, but don't you rate Tendulkar ahead of Sobers?

 

[subshakerz]

didn't perform well enough to really get much points for it. If he averaged 50 atleast atleast 3 of them, maybe.

Which great bowlers did Sobers average plus 50 against?

 

[Johan]

Which great bowlers did Sobers average plus 50 against?

Trueman, Davidson, Fazal if you wanna count, also took apart Lillee when he got him, pretty similar in number to Sachin actually.

 

[kyear2]

Correct me, but don't you rate Tendulkar ahead of Sobers?

Not by the clear margin that's being bandied around by some.

 

[ataraxia]

There has to be some point where you just get max points for longevity.

No way lol. If someone comes along and averages 55 for 30 years then they are best after Bradman no questions asked.

 

[Coronis]

Not by the clear margin that's being bandied around by some.

I think you are misinterpreting the word clear.

 

[Johan]

No way lol. If someone comes along and averages 55 for 30 years then they are best after Bradman no questions asked.

and if they made all their runs against Ireland?

 

[ataraxia]

and if they made all their runs against Ireland?

Assuming this player plays 9 tests a year, of which 2 are against Ireland, that would require this player to score at least 300 runs per test against Ireland, so yes I think so.

 

[Johan]

Assuming this player plays 9 tests a year, of which 2 are against Ireland, that would require this player to score at least 300 runs per test against Ireland, so yes I think so.

let's say he plays 9 tests a year, averages 40 against top teams but 250 against Ireland and Zimbabwe, is he above Sachin?

 

[subshakerz]

Not by the clear margin that's being bandied around by some.

Clear I assume they don't mean wide.

 

[sayon basak]

let's say he plays 9 tests a year, averages 40 against top teams but 250 against Ireland and Zimbabwe, is he above Sachin?

Not enough information imo. What does he average against BD?

 

[OverratedSanity]

And you literally can't rate Hanif's effort and not rate Sobers's.

They were either both useless or they count for something.

I personally don't particularly rate either as great efforts.

Hanif made a triple century when his team was following on and trailing by almost 500 runs. Not rating that as a great effort is completely unhinged.

And yeah surely you see that the match situation is what makes it different from Sobers' triple.

 

[Bolo.]

well that practically proves my point no? Sachin also absolutely filled his pockets with runs against these teams just as much as Sobers against those three

View attachment 45241

What does this low proportion of tests have to do with the high proportion Sobers played? My point is entirely about the quality of opposition, not performances against them.

Sachin played games outside the 90s against other poor attacks. So it's possible this difference is being exaggerated. But you aren't showing this.

I looked at a few other top bats from Sobers era. They played between 4% and 28% of their games against the 3 weak teams from the era. Sobers was 40%. Sobers had an extremely easy ride by the standards of his own era. I don't think it's the case with Sachin. India's opponents seemed to be distributed pretty typically.

 

[Johan]

What does this low proportion of tests have to do with the high proportion Sobers played? My point is entirely about the quality of opposition, not performances against them.

Sachin played games outside the 90s against other poor attacks. So it's possible this difference is being exaggerated. But you aren't showing this.

I looked at a few other top bats from Sobers era. They played between 4% and 28% of their games against the 3 weak teams from the era. Sobers was 40%. Sobers had an extremely easy ride by the standards of his own era. I don't think it's the case with Sachin. India's opponents seemed to be distributed pretty typically.

Honestly? strong disagree again to be honest.

The attacks are always evolving, for example during Sachin's career the attacks of England and Sri Lanka improved to be very good by the end, or Australia regressed, when we use this method we also can see that the lineups were evolving during Sober's era, his Pakistan series is against an attack superior to 60s Pakistan, by the end with the Quaret coming in, India was also a world class attack that they weren't in 50s.

also, it doesn't really matter if he played more with the weaker sides, because

1. as shown, the majority of India and Pakistan attacks he faced were actually pretty decent.

2. his performance against Australia/England is superior to Sachin's against top 2 sides of his era anyway.

so I don't really see how I'm meant to penalize Sobers for just getting more games with NZ and India when his output didn't reduce at all against the strong lineups.

 

[OverratedSanity]

2. his performance against Australia/England is superior to Sachin's against top 2 sides of his era anyway.

If we're slicing performance this much might as well slice it further to point out Sobers only averaged 43 vs Australia, which is fine, nothing spectacular. Tendulkar had multiple great series and away tours vs Australia and South Africa. Think I'd take Tendulkar's records over sobers on that metric tbh.