Imran Khan vs Richard Hadlee

[ZK$]

I'm mildly annoyed you didn't list their wicket tallies and I had to work that out myself.

My bad lol. I’ll edit it in.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah but it just seems wrong to say an ATG bowler is a greater cricketer because they were a better tailender.

However a minor difference in bowling should matter way more.

Unless your secondary skill can qualify to the point of all-rounder status, to me it doesn't factor into debates on greatness.

Yes but the whole point is that for him at least, there is no gap between them as bowlers, so if one is a significantly more skilled batsman, of course it factors in.

 

[shortpitched713]

No one's picking Pollock before McGrath in the first round of a draft.

Except me. I would have done it in this very last draft, even though ataraxia picked up McGrath before I could do that. Very much along the lines of the first pick Hadlee by ankitj. Team balance, and even lower order runs do matter, and making an early pick like that prevents your side from ending up with a long tail.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes but the whole point is that for him at least, there is no gap between them as bowlers, so if one is a significantly more skilled batsman, of course it factors in.

That is never the case. There is always a gap one way or the other.

I personally find Marshall and Warne as bowlers better than McGrath and Murali by a small but notable margin.

 

[ankitj]

We need @StephenZA to weigh in on Pollock.

 

[ankitj]

Except me. I would have done it in this very last draft, even though ataraxia picked up McGrath before I could do that. Very much along the lines of the first pick Hadlee by ankitj. Team balance, and even lower order runs do matter, and making an early pick like that prevents your side from ending up with a long tail.

I wouldn't pick Pollock before McGrath too. And I rate Hadlee > McGrath as bowler alone anyway.

 

[Anil]

Imran, better all rounder. Hadlee, better bowler. Overall, super close. Could be persuaded either way.

what happened to sitting this one out?

 

[trundler]

what happened to sitting this one out?

I still haven't made a judgement on who's better though.

 

[Slifer]

Someone said Imran is to Hadlee as Sachin is to Lara. So obviously, Hadlee.

That was me. And I meant as cricketers overall.

 

[Slifer]

Lindwall and Davidson are insanely underrated. I think both make my Australian side along with McGrath.

The team was already unfair but the left arm angle of Davo plus both players batting just add to it. Warnie at 10 hah.

Completely agree.

 

[Flem274*]

I agree McGrath was the better bowler, you don't need to keep telling me. I think McGrath is the GOAT.

Also stop claiming counter views love spreadsheets too much while typing spreadsheets.

But if you're going to call a 64 run difference per game (almost 200 runs per 3 test series) splitting hairs over tailend runs then I don't think that's an idea that will get any traction outside of ATG internet discussions. A real world selector picking a team to play tomorrow would give such ability obvious weight when comparing two excellent bowlers for very obvious reasons.

 

[thierry henry]

Speaking of spreadsheets, it absolutely is possible to "spreadsheet" the relative significance of bowling vs batting, right? Like, we absolutely could do a decent (but imperfect, like all such analysis) job of comparing the difference in value between McGrath and Pollock's batting and bowling, get some statistically useful comparison of the relative significance of averaging 30-odd at #8 vs being the better of 2 elite bowlers?

It's weird that at a place as nerdy as CW we still mostly talk about these differences in player roles as if their actual value is deeply unknowable or we can only do vague philosophical analysis.

 

[subshakerz]

I agree McGrath was the better bowler, you don't need to keep telling me. I think McGrath is the GOAT.

Also stop claiming counter views love spreadsheets too much while typing spreadsheets.

But if you're going to call a 64 run difference per game (almost 200 runs per 3 test series) splitting hairs over tailend runs then I don't think that's an idea that will get any traction outside of ATG internet discussions. A real world selector picking a team to play tomorrow would give such ability obvious weight when comparing two excellent bowlers for very obvious reasons.

Except Pollock never actually scored that many runs in a 3 test match series in his career. He only had one series where he scored more than a single fifty too.

Pollock's average is misleading. Kind of like Ashwin when he was averaging 30 plus a while back.

 

[Flem274*]

Except Pollock never actually scored that many runs in a 3 test match series in his career. He only had one series where he scored more than a single fifty too.

Pollock's average is misleading. Kind of like Ashwin when he was averaging 30 plus a while back.

And?

Even if you arbitrarily chonk off 7 runs, McGrath didn't even average 10 yet averaging 2 less with the ball is being presented as the distance from here to the moon.

The runs difference between their batting averages is over 12 times the gap between their bowling averages. That matters when assessing who the better cricketer was.

Mathematically I'm being very generous as well, because if my opinions weren't formed by watching both play then the bowling discrepancies could easily be explained as quirks if variation. People who watched cricket in the 00s (the batting boom no less) all agree McGrath was big dog and Pollock second though.

 

[ZK$]

And?

Even if you arbitrarily chonk off 7 runs, McGrath didn't even average 10 yet averaging 2 less with the ball is being presented as the distance from here to the moon.

The runs difference between their batting averages is over 12 times the gap between their bowling averages. That matters when assessing who the better cricketer was.

Mathematically I'm being very generous as well, because if my opinions weren't formed by watching both play then the bowling discrepancies could easily be explained as quirks if variation. People who watched cricket in the 00s (the batting boom no less) all agree McGrath was big dog and Pollock second though.

Since 2014, Anderson averages 21 with the ball which is what Cummins averages as well. If Anderson was scoring around 35 runs with the bat per match like Pollock, would you pick him over Cummins during this period?

 

[ataraxia]

Since 2014, Anderson averages 21 with the ball which is what Cummins averages as well. If Anderson was scoring around 35 runs with the bat per match like Pollock, would you pick him over Cummins during this period?

IMO yes

edit: this was posted when the bolded figure was 30 ftr

 

[subshakerz]

And?

Even if you arbitrarily chonk off 7 runs, McGrath didn't even average 10 yet averaging 2 less with the ball is being presented as the distance from here to the moon.

The runs difference between their batting averages is over 12 times the gap between their bowling averages. That matters when assessing who the better cricketer was.

Mathematically I'm being very generous as well, because if my opinions weren't formed by watching both play then the bowling discrepancies could easily be explained as quirks if variation. People who watched cricket in the 00s (the batting boom no less) all agree McGrath was big dog and Pollock second though.

A seemingly minor difference in the bowling averages, strikerates, etc. for an opening bowler of a test side translates into a bigger impact that the runs by Pollock at 8 which you can agree are not reflected by his average.

I am arguing that the extra wickets Pollock would have taken with McGrath-like efficiency would have more returns for SA than his runs did in his career.

 

[subshakerz]

Since 2014, Anderson averages 21 with the ball which is what Cummins averages as well. If Anderson was scoring around 35 runs with the bat per match like Pollock, would you pick him over Cummins during this period?

There is a difference. Is it a Jadeja like 35 or a Stokes like 35?

 

[ataraxia]

There is a difference. Is it a Jadeja like 35 or a Stokes like 35?

Well he's playing for England, so I can only assume a moderate downgrade on Stokes here. Neither are quite as good as Jadeja unfortunately.

 

[ataraxia]

Anyway I don't like "cricketer" comparisons, can we stop them plz