Len Hutton VS Shane Warne

[Coronis]

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.

I think saying x team/player only won matches because of y player is a silly thing to say, outside of very fringe outlier cases, such as Bradman, Murali, Hadlee etc.

 

[Xix2565]

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.

Why would you compare batting to bowling for those Indian sides? Compare like with like and you'll see the major differences when it comes to winning, the superior bowling of Kohli's India. With current England vs 2021 England, I don't really see that as a fair comparison given that 2021 England also had a lot of injuries/absences that affect rating them. If they (2021 Eng) were healthy you wouldn't have this take given that they'd have a healthier Stokes to balance out their bowling and batting lineups.

Every great side has been successful based on their bowling stocks and the disparity between them and the rest of the world's bowling attacks. Not the batting.

 

[Xix2565]

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.

90s India wasn't that good though in general. And they didn't have a better bowling attack than 00s India going by comparison of their averages to the mean overall. As for Australia's batting, we've seen during their dominant period what happens when they don't have McWarne around (either one of them or both) to lead the bowling, the batting doesn't stand out and help them win as they usually did. The gap in bowling is the bigger factor in winning.

I mean SA did have Ntini/Steyn/Morkel/etc in their bowling after Donald and Pollock. As for England, refer to the reply to Johan about health and fit, since prior to 2021 they had a solid run of Test results, even if it wasn't as exciting or unique as the Bazball era. I'd also be charitable enough to say that they got one of the toughest schedules in 2021 when they were a hospital side compared to the Bazball era.

 

[Johan]

Why would you compare batting to bowling for those Indian sides? Compare like with like and you'll see the major differences when it comes to winning, the superior bowling of Kohli's India. With current England vs 2021 England, I don't really see that as a fair comparison given that 2021 England also had a lot of injuries/absences that affect rating them. If they (2021 Eng) were healthy you wouldn't have this take given that they'd have a healthier Stokes to balance out their bowling and batting lineups.

Every great side has been successful based on their bowling stocks and the disparity between them and the rest of the world's bowling attacks. Not the batting.

It's all about hitting the balance though, as great as the 2000s Indian batting was, their team was majorly imbalanced. Kohli's india had weaker batting but their batting was still world class, and their bowling was obviously tiers above and elite ATG tier at home, the balance of Kohli's India side was much greater so naturally they'd win more, but had Kohli's India's batting been as weak as the bowling of 2000s India, there's no guarantee Kohli's India would win more, but that wasn't the case and a perfect team balance carried them farther.

frankly put, even at full power I don't see the 2021 English side beat the current English side, even if the prior's bowling reserves manage to average 25 overall, there's no guarantee that the batting could even make use of the opposition being bowled out at 250-270, and that is what I meant by bowlers and batters being reliant on each other to produce results, you can't just do it alone.

Is that really true? if you look at the top sides, The Invincibles had brilliant batting resources, the Mighty Windies had incredible batting and the Great Australian team had incredible batting, heck even the greater saffer team had ridiculous batting resources, they all hit the balance, some imbalanced sides toward batting would be 1950s West Indies or 2000s India, some unbalanced sides toward bowling would be late 90s West Indies (when Lara forgot how to bat) and Modern South Africa – and I don't think these sides are much different from each other in quality.

 

[Xix2565]

It's all about hitting the balance though, as great as the 2000s Indian batting was, their team was majorly imbalanced. Kohli's india had weaker batting but their batting was still world class, and their bowling was obviously tiers above and elite ATG tier at home, the balance of Kohli's India side was much greater so naturally they'd win more, but had Kohli's India's batting been as weak as the bowling of 2000s India, there's no guarantee Kohli's India would win more, but that wasn't the case and a perfect team balance carried them farther.

frankly put, even at full power I don't see the 2021 English side beat the current English side, even if the prior's bowling reserves manage to average 25 overall, there's no guarantee that the batting could even make use of the opposition being bowled out at 250-270, and that is what I meant by bowlers and batters being reliant on each other to produce results, you can't just do it alone.

Is that really true? if you look at the top sides, The Invincibles had brilliant batting resources, the Mighty Windies had incredible batting and the Great Australian team had incredible batting, heck even the greater saffer team had ridiculous batting resources, they all hit the balance, some imbalanced sides toward batting would be 1950s West Indies or 2000s India, some unbalanced sides toward bowling would be late 90s West Indies (when Lara forgot how to bat) and Modern South Africa – and I don't think these sides are much different from each other in quality.

The thing is that batting isn't equal to bowling when it comes to winning Test matches. As you just said, the bowling disparity is there and that's the primary reason as to why Kohli's side won more, and still won games even when their batting was underperforming because of their bowlers being very good still.

That 2021 English side still had a pool of Anderson/Broad/Woakes/Archer/Stone/Robinson as pacers, which wouldn't be bad against most teams in England. How they'd have fared in Australia is one thing but they weren't outright terrible.

The Invincibles/Windies/Australian sides all had strong bowling attacks which were much better than their opposition though. I've literally stated how Australia struggled during their dominant period when their bowling wasn't at full strength, what makes you believe that it's a one off thing and not a consistent fact of how weaker bowling affects team strength?

 

[Coronis]

90s India wasn't that good though in general. And they didn't have a better bowling attack than 00s India going by comparison of their averages to the mean overall. As for Australia's batting, we've seen during their dominant period what happens when they don't have McWarne around (either one of them or both) to lead the bowling, the batting doesn't stand out and help them win as they usually did. The gap in bowling is the bigger factor in winning.

I mean SA did have Ntini/Steyn/Morkel/etc in their bowling after Donald and Pollock. As for England, refer to the reply to Johan about health and fit, since prior to 2021 they had a solid run of Test results, even if it wasn't as exciting or unique as the Bazball era. I'd also be charitable enough to say that they got one of the toughest schedules in 2021 when they were a hospital side compared to the Bazball era.

They didn’t have a better or worse attack than the 90’s imo. The batting significantly improved and unsurprisingly so did the team’s performance. SA’s allround bowling was definitely worse and their batting was leagues better, again unsurprisingly improved. And yeah keep trying to make excuses for the English team to try and die on this random hill…

Shocker - if a team’s batting improves the results will too. Same as bowling.

 

[Johan]

The thing is that batting isn't equal to bowling when it comes to winning Test matches. As you just said, the bowling disparity is there and that's the primary reason as to why Kohli's side won more, and still won games even when their batting was underperforming because of their bowlers being very good still.

That 2021 English side still had a pool of Anderson/Broad/Woakes/Archer/Stone/Robinson as pacers, which wouldn't be bad against most teams in England. How they'd have fared in Australia is one thing but they weren't outright terrible.

The Invincibles/Windies/Australian sides all had strong bowling attacks which were much better than their opposition though. I've literally stated how Australia struggled during their dominant period when their bowling wasn't at full strength, what makes you believe that it's a one off thing and not a consistent fact of how weaker bowling affects team strength?

Again, I only said the balance between the two facets is what leads to victories, India of the 2000s had a borderline club standard bowling at times, Kohli's India had a balance and the 2000s lineup didn't, that was actually my point, in a vaccum if a team has terrible bowling but great batting (2000s India) and another team has great bowling and terrible batting (current India), it's not necessary one team would get better results than the other. Kohli's India had world class batting combined with ATG home bowling and decent away bowling, thus being a much more well rounded side, they got better results.

Yeah, but this is very important, people like Archer and Stone are made of glass which is a case for a lot of pacers and thus they miss games they shouldn't, do you really believe that 2021 England with Anderson/Broad/Robinson bowling would be able to beat current England with batting until #9 and #10?

Of Course, take out their great Batsmen and they'd struggle relatively too, you're imbalancing the side by doing that and of course an imbalanced side can never be an ATG one.

 

[Xix2565]

They didn’t have a better or worse attack than the 90’s imo. The batting significantly improved and unsurprisingly so did the team’s performance. SA’s allround bowling was definitely worse and their batting was leagues better, again unsurprisingly improved. And yeah keep trying to make excuses for the English team to try and die on this random hill…

Shocker - if a team’s batting improves the results will too. Same as bowling.

Bowling comparisons vs rest of the world (90s):
Overall: Average 31.51 SR 68.6
IND: Average 33.46 SR 75.9
Overall without IND: Average 31.29 SR 67.8

Bowling comparisons vs rest of the world (00s):
Overall: Average 34.10 SR 66.0
IND: Average 34.98 SR 67.8
Overall without IND: Average 33.98 SR 65.8

Yeah I don't see how the 00s bowling attack isn't better here. I'll have to check up on SA's record, but I don't really see how the bowling improvements in general don't have a bigger impact than the batting. And it's a universal trend for all teams that have a good run, see even of recent times how Bangladesh have gotten better when their bowling attack took a step up.

 

[Xix2565]

Again, I only said the balance between the two facets is what leads to victories, India of the 2000s had a borderline club standard bowling at times, Kohli's India had a balance and the 2000s lineup didn't, that was actually my point, in a vaccum if a team has terrible bowling but great batting (2000s India) and another team has great bowling and terrible batting (current India), it's not necessary one team would get better results than the other. Kohli's India had world class batting combined with ATG home bowling and decent away bowling, thus being a much more well rounded side, they got better results.

Yeah, but this is very important, people like Archer and Stone are made of glass which is a case for a lot of pacers and thus they miss games they shouldn't, do you really believe that 2021 England with Anderson/Broad/Robinson bowling would be able to beat current England with batting until #9 and #10?

Of Course, take out their great Batsmen and they'd struggle relatively too, you're imbalancing the side by doing that and of course an imbalanced side can never be an ATG one.

It's absolutely the case that the better bowling side gets better results. You don't win more by having a relatively bad bowling attack. Sides do struggle to balance it at times but that doesn't mean the basic point isn't true. I wouldn't say current India has great bowling atm, part of their slide recently is the departure/decline of great players (especially bowlers) and their replacements not being able to meet their high standards immediately.

I'd back 2021 England at their best (yes it's a hypothetical copout) to be better, yes. I don't think the batting depth counts as much as the bowling difference. That isn't to say that it'd be one sided.

 

[kyear2]

Warne and McGrath both contributed heavily to wins, unless you think 700 wickets is meaningless if they come from someone who can't touch 130 km/h. Of the other 3 here, only Sobers comes close by being an AR, and he's not even the best ATG AR. Shame on you for dumping on Warne with some idiotic metrics.

Shane's job was made immensely easier by having someone take care of the top order for him.

And I have Warne at worst 6th all time, as a bowler, 9th as a player, hardly dumping.

And saying only Sobers comes close, when and I'll reiterate, Warne wasn't even the most important member of his team is a little unsound and kinda illogical.

And who's the greatest all rounder?

Imran?

Find me and two publications, lists or opinions by any cricket pundit, player or historian that backs that up.

If you want to say Hadlee, we can have that discussion.

 

[kyear2]

wait, who is better than Sobers among all rounders?

Wondering the same.

 

[kyear2]

Kallis

I know you're kidding.

But purely as an all rounder I would give Imran the edge.

As all round cricketers, it's really close.

 

[kyear2]

Imran. Then Sobers and Kallis/Pollock/etc.

That's not even worthy of a thoughtful response.

Carry on.

 

[kyear2]

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.

Yeah, was going to make an argument, but there's literally no point.

 

[kyear2]

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.

You mentioned most of the stuff I was going to.

Using Subz's preferred time period of 74 to 88, Imran averaged 32 with the bat with a rpi of 27. Rpm of 39, and that's with the down hill skiing.

Garry was tiers above better batsman that Imran as a bowler, a better and more impactful bowler than Imran was as a batsman, and Garry was a top 5 slip.

Regarding Hutton, there's no comp. Think Garry was the better bat and catching and bowling over anything Hutton has.

 

[kyear2]

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.

I also take Marshall, McGrath and Hadlee over Sachin, no other bowler though.

Bowlers are more important , but can only really be brought up when discussing players of similar class.

Ratings wise I have Sobers at 2, Warne at 9, Imran 10 and Hutton just behind Hammond and Kallis, around 17th or so.

 

[kyear2]

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.

So what's your top 5 players of all time then?

 

[kyear2]

The Reverse is also true.

Teams like SA proves your point, you need at least capable batsmen and at least one alpha up there as well.

But also look at Bumrah, he Line makes India viable.

There's no doubt though that bowlers are a bit more important and impactful.

 

[kyear2]

I think saying x team/player only won matches because of y player is a silly thing to say, outside of very fringe outlier cases, such as Bradman, Murali, Hadlee etc.

Both players are elite top tier, top 10 ATGs.

Australia isn't getting into the argument of greatest team ever without Glenn McGrath.

Without Warne, there's a pretty good chance, especially with MacGill. With McGrath out of the attack, the team just.wasnt the same. His presence was more crucial to team success.

 

[Coronis]

Both players are elite top tier, top 10 ATGs.

Australia isn't getting into the argument of greatest team ever without Glenn McGrath.

Without Warne, there's a pretty good chance, especially with MacGill. With McGrath out of the attack, the team just.wasnt the same. His presence was more crucial to team success.

So you agree, Viv only won matches because of Marshall