Len Hutton VS Shane Warne

[Johan]

Imran. Then Sobers and Kallis/Pollock/etc.

don't see how Imran's better than Sobers but alright.

 

[Xix2565]

Better bowler which matters more for winning Tests, and his batting isn't as much of a deficiency as Sobers' bowling.

 

[Johan]

his batting isn't better than Sobers's bowling and Gary's batting was clearly better than Imran's, plus, Gary's batting was cleaner if you catch my meaning.

 

[subshakerz]

Gary's batting was cleaner if you catch my meaning.

Lol oh God you really are serious about this. Ah well...

 

[Johan]

Lol oh God you really are serious about this. Ah well...

his away record is objectively better, What did you think?

 

[subshakerz]

his away record is objectively better, What did you think?

Sobers is a better specialist not arguing that.

 

[Xix2565]

his batting isn't better than Sobers's bowling and Gary's batting was clearly better than Imran's, plus, Gary's batting was cleaner if you catch my meaning.

Completely incorrect. Batting isn't more valuable than bowling when it comes to winning Tests, since you need to take wickets (and restrict runs) to actually win, which is generally the bowler's domain. Imran's bowling in general is also much greater than most Test bowlers in comparison to Sobers' batting vs other Test batters. As for secondary skills, being on the level of a 5th bowler isn't better than being a handy 30+ avg bat at 7-9. Being worse at the more valuable skill is not a point for Sobers over Imran.

Either way, Hutton is dead last here.

 

[Johan]

Completely incorrect. Batting isn't more valuable than bowling when it comes to winning Tests, since you need to take wickets (and restrict runs) to actually win, which is generally the bowler's domain. Imran's bowling in general is also much greater than most Test bowlers in comparison to Sobers' batting vs other Test batters. As for secondary skills, being on the level of a 5th bowler isn't better than being a handy 30+ avg bat at 7-9. Being worse at the more valuable skill is not a point for Sobers over Imran.

Sobers is among the top 6 best batters ever while I don't think Imran is a top 6 bowler, plus while it's true that bowlers in a vaccum are a little more valuable, there's no point to underselling the value of batsmen, bowlers need the Batsmen to set up games, Batsmen need the bowlers to finish the job, it's mutually reliant and one isn't necessarily far more valuable than the other, only a slight edge to the fast bowlers at best (spinners is another discussion). Imran also got injured and missed games much more, Imran played less than 70% of the games for Pakistan that he was eligible to play to Sobers playing more than 80% of the games West Indies could play, you'll find more 24 averaging bowlers (what Imran averages without Sri Lanka) than you'll find 58 averaging batters like Gary. Plus, Sobers averages 51 away from home with the bat which certainly beats Imran averaging 26 with the ball away from home.

Sobers was also defacto the best Batsmen of his era, and was discussed for the best ever alongside Hobbs and Bradman (with some crazy shouts to Pollock) while Imran wasn't held in that regard.

When Imran was an all rounder, he made 26 runs an inning and averaged 32, that isn't necessarily better than what Sobers managed on raw numbers. On top, he was a test class pacer who was often handed the new ball over full time bowlers, could bowl spin when required to give the pacers a rest, has match winning performances abroad with the ball in a sense Imran the Batsmen does not. The utlity of Sobers the bowler is higher than the utlity Imran the Batsmen brings in, I'll say they're certainly very close on secondary skill and there's no guaranteed winner like on primary skill, but I think it's fairly debateable.

Hutton is an inferior Cricketer to either, but is a better Batsmen than Gary and beats Imran on primary, and this might be a hot take, He was also a superior captain to either.

 

[Xix2565]

Sobers is among the top 6 best batters ever while I don't think Imran is a top 6 bowler, plus while it's true that bowlers in a vaccum are a little more valuable, there's no point to underselling the value of batsmen, bowlers need the Batsmen to set up games, Batsmen need the bowlers to finish the job, it's mutually reliant and one isn't necessarily far more valuable than the other. Imran also got injured and missed games much more, Imran played less than 70% of the games for Pakistan that he was eligible to play to Sobers playing more than 80% of the games West Indies could play, you'll find more 24 averaging bowlers (what Imran averages without Sri Lanka) than you'll find 58 averaging batters like Gary. Plus, Sobers averages 51 away from home with the bat which certainly beats Imran averaging 26 with the ball away from home.

Sobers was also defacto the best Batsmen of his era, and was discussed for the best ever alongside Hobbs and Bradman (with some crazy shouts to Pollock) while Imran wasn't held in that regard.

When Imran was an all rounder, he made 26 runs an inning and averaged 32, that isn't necessarily better than what Sobers managed on raw numbers. On top, he was a test class pacer who was often handed the new ball over full time bowlers, could bowl spin when required to give the pacers a rest, has match winning performances abroad with the ball in a sense Imran the Batsmen does not. The utlity of Sobers the bowler is higher than the utlity Imran the Batsmen brings in, I'll say they're certainly very close on secondary skill and there's no guaranteed winner like on primary skill, but I think it's fairly debateable.

Hutton is an inferior Cricketer to either, but is a better Batsmen than Gary and beats Imran on primary, and this might be a hot take, He was also a superior captain to either.

Sobers being a top 6 batter is meaningless here when I literally stated earlier that only Bradman can be said to have a greater impact than the top bowlers and Sobers being considered as an AR brings him up there in contention of greatness. And this is because in general when it comes to runscoring and taking wickets, bowlers have a bigger impact on both than batters. They take the wickets, and they have more control and influence on the outcome of each ball. The rest of your post is irrelevant here.

All in all, Imran > Warne/Sobers >>>>>>>>>> Hutton.

 

[Johan]

Sobers being a top 6 batter is meaningless here when I literally stated earlier that only Bradman can be said to have a greater impact than the top bowlers and Sobers being considered as an AR brings him up there in contention of greatness. And this is because in general when it comes to runscoring and taking wickets, bowlers have a bigger impact on both than batters. They take the wickets, and they have more control and influence on the outcome of each ball. The rest of your post is irrelevant here.

All in all, Imran > Warne/Sobers >>>>>>>>>> Hutton.

Yeah, and I disagreed with the view, at most I can say I'd put McGrath ahead of Sachin on the account of prior being more valuable, I can assure you that no team would take Garner over Sachin simply on the account of the prior being a bowler, there's an edge but a very small one, especially since pacers like Imran extinguish faster and play less games thus allowing the batters to inherently close the gap. They have influence on the outcome sure, but they need the Batsmen to set up the scores and give them something to defend, you can't win by just having strong bowling lineups same way you cannot win by just having strong batting lineups. All in all, Sobers wins on primary.

Sobers absolutely smokes Warne, Imran also beats Warne decisively in Cricketer comparison, I'd take Hutton over Warne simply because I think he'd be needed more in an AT XI, was a top five batsmen and played for longer than Warne. so Sobers > Imran > Hutton > Warne.

 

[Xix2565]

Yeah, and I disagreed with the view, at most I can say I'd put McGrath ahead of Sachin on the account of prior being more valuable, I can assure you that no team would take Garner over Sachin simply on the account of the prior being a bowler, there's an edge but a very small one, especially since pacers like Imran extinguish faster and play less games thus allowing the batters to inherently close the gap. They have influence on the outcome sure, but they need the Batsmen to set up the scores and give them something to defend, you can't win by just having strong bowling lineups same way you cannot win by just having strong batting lineups. All in all, Sobers wins on primary.

Sobers absolutely smokes Warne, Imran also beats Warne decisively in Cricketer comparison, I'd take Hutton over Warne simply because I think he'd be needed more in an AT XI, was a top five batsmen and played for longer than Warne. so Sobers > Imran > Hutton > Warne.

Just can't agree here when we literally see how teams rise and fall based on the development or dissolution of their bowling attacks. Personal preferences =/= basic logic or facts.

 

[Prince EWS]

Or is? (iykyk)

 

[Coronis]

Wondering if you knew or just googled though…

 

[Prince EWS]

Wondering if you knew or just googled though…

I have receipts.

Yeah I made a comment to a friend about halfway through that I enjoyed the jokes, references and general humour - perhaps unsurprisingly as a big Futurama fan - but that the attempt to engage the viewer in the overall story arc had completely missed the mark. I essentially felt the main story was just low effort context for amusing gags at this point. By the end I'd completely changed my mind on that - - not only are the latter episodes much more interesting outside the gags, but they actually make the earlier ones so too, even if just in hindsight. It seems like it isn't going anywhere in the middle but it definitely is.

 

[Coronis]

I have receipts.

I would also agree with your post, it does start out a bit slow but theres a lot of great payoff.

 

[Johan]

Just can't agree here when we literally see how teams rise and fall based on the development or dissolution of their bowling attacks. Personal preferences =/= basic logic or facts.

The Reverse is also true.

 

[Xix2565]

The Reverse is also true.

Not at all. Otherwise the 2000s Indian side would've won more than the Kohli era Indian side. Or Australia getting McGrath/Warne/etc and going from mediocrity to greatest team of all time before the side starts falling post their retirements.

 

[Johan]

Not at all. Otherwise the 2000s Indian side would've won more than the Kohli era Indian side. Or Australia getting McGrath/Warne/etc and going from mediocrity to greatest team of all time before the side starts falling post their retirements.

The Batting Stocks of Kohli's India were much higher than the bowling stocks of the 2000s Indian side though, for example, take England of today compared to England of 2021, the bowling stocks have plummeted (Anderson/Broad gone, Robinson became trash) but the current team is arguably stronger on the account of batting alone and would probably win the games, that's just one example, it's not as one sided as you believe it to be.

 

[Coronis]

Not at all. Otherwise the 2000s Indian side would've won more than the Kohli era Indian side. Or Australia getting McGrath/Warne/etc and going from mediocrity to greatest team of all time before the side starts falling post their retirements.

Pretty sure the 00’s India won more than 90’s India. Also conveniently ignoring that Australia’s batting also improved markedly when they had McGrath and Warne. SA with a declining Pollock and losing Donald and Kallis not bowling as much but gaining Smith, Amla and de Villiers?

England recently with Brook, Duckett to an extent, Stokes not bowling, losing a declining Anderson and Broad.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Warne won because of McGrath. Viv batted to win, Sobers and Hobbs as well. Sobers also added in his catching and bowling to his resume, all important factors for said winning.

They both contributed to wins but imo, I give Glenn the edge for several reasons. For one Glenn was much much better vs the best batting they both bowled to ie India. I think Coronis actually pointed out RSA averaged slightly more during their careers but even then, yes Warne was great vs RSA but so too was McGrath (very good actually).

I'm sure you can agree, we in the WI had absolutely no fear for Warne. He did his thing in 1992 and won them a test but after that I honestly never had any fear of warne vs us. Glenn was a different animal. We feared him and he wrecked us over and over and over again.