Len Hutton VS Shane Warne

[kyear2]

So you agree, Viv only won matches because of Marshall

While considering I think Marshall was the greatest match winner ever, it would have played a role.

But considering Viv was winning matches from '76, he won a few on his own as well.

 

[Coronis]

While considering I think Marshall was the greatest match winner ever, it would have played a role.

But considering Viv was winning matches from '76, he won a few on his own as well.

You mean when he was being supported by the Windies other fast bowlers?

And what about the matches Warne won without McGrath?

Interesting stuff… so McGrath played 20 matches without Warne. 13-4-3 record. Warne played 41 matches without McGrath. 21-10-10 record.

However Warne was easily a bigger matchwinner than McGrath in those wins.

McGrath 13 matches 47 @ 22.02 SR 62.8 1 5’fer 1 10’fer
Warne 21 matches 127 @ 21.93 SR 51.0 10 5’ferd 2 10’fers

That means over 12 of those matches McGrath took 37 wickets… at over 27, striking at 74…. not really much of a matchwinner without Warne, huh?

 

[Bolo.]

The skills complement each other.

Mcgrath is knocking out a bunch of the top order and giving Warne more tail to bowl at. Warne is making sure Mcgrath needs to do very few old ball donkey overs by singlehandedly bowling nearly half the time when quicks are gonna struggle.

 

[Xix2565]

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.

Shane Warne still managed 708 wickets at ~25 and 4.88 WPM. To say McGrath is why Warne was great is among the stupidest posts on here, and you've made a lot of contributions over the years to this, even beating out the spam bots.

Warne was at the very least the 2nd most important player on his team. Again, please stop competing with spam bots on post quality.

I don't really see why Imran's numbers aren't convincing enough for you given that you clearly don't have any standards of evidence. It's Imran followed by Sobers. End of discussion.

That's not even worthy of a thoughtful response.

Carry on.

Stop the spam.

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

Bradman
Imran/Sobers
McGrath/Marshall/Hadlee

Can't separate the latter 3 enough to make a clear 5, so 6 will have to do.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

Huh????

Pretty sure no publication ever called Hadlee the greatest AR ever, so why is he willing to entertain that conversation but not on Imran.