ERROR: CRITERIA NOT FOUND, TERMINATING THREAD.Neither. Better cricketer
There's a reason we only tend to compare players with similar roles.I don't like this reductionism, and I think the comparison between two players Kallis and Hadlee, both nominal allrounders but with different team roles, brought this home to me. You really shouldn't compare players with different roles.
It feels wrong to say something like Imran was a better player than Malcom Marshall, but by your criteria it's just some sort of objective truth.
If you extended your reasoning to the logical conclusion, then the history of the top X great cricketers would only include Bradman representing batsmen, the odd transcendant bowlers like McGrath, and every allrounder that fit the description, from Jack Gregory to Mushtaq Mohammad to Jason Holder and everyone in between.
I'm sure you'd agree McGrath was a better cricketer than Holder even though Holder is the better allrounder. You can do this, SP!ERROR: CRITERIA NOT FOUND, TERMINATING THREAD.
Probably because he is up in the same tier as Tendulkar, Lara, Headley, G Pollock, and Viv as specialist bat (ahead of Kallis), a decent 5th bowler (but behind Kallis), and an excellent fielder. The vote, not surprisingly, is close.How is Hammond winning this, lol? Are people mad?
I apologise for misroleing him.McGrath identified as an all-rounder
Mostly by the possibility he's a better cricketer, and yes people are very mad.How is Hammond winning this, lol? Are people mad?
Kallis isn't a nominal all-rounder and Imran is unquestionably a better player than Marshall.I don't like this reductionism, and I think the comparison between two players Kallis and Hadlee, both nominal allrounders but with different team roles, brought this home to me. You really shouldn't compare players with different roles.
It feels wrong to say something like Imran was a better player than Malcom Marshall, but by your criteria it's just some sort of objective truth.
If you extended your reasoning to the logical conclusion, then the history of the top X great cricketers would only include Bradman representing batsmen, the odd transcendant bowlers like McGrath, and every allrounder that fit the description, from Jack Gregory to Mushtaq Mohammad to Jason Holder and everyone in between.
Yes agreed.Chris Cairns would be had he averaged 50 with bat or < 25 with ball..
That NZ team Hammond scored his 336* against were minnows.Start Date: 21st birthday (3 years after 18th birthday - picked too early for most players)
End Date: Day before 37th birthday (3 years before 40th birthday - terminal decline for most players)
Remove minnows (Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Ireland, Afghanistan).
Statsguru Link
Hammond is right up there for 2nd best batsman of all time. Basically Steve Smith before Steve Smith.
I can see why people might pick him over Kallis considering Hammond's bowling standard/average was the same as Kallis post 2004 when Kallis' batting really kicked into gear.
View attachment 32916
Depends on whether he was gambling on that day.Chris Cairns would be had he averaged 50 with bat or < 25 with ball..