I think that your idea that people are underrating other secondary disciplines is a seperate issue to lower order batting. Lower order batting does (or doesn't) add value irrespective of who is correct in assessing the value add in other departments.I have and do believe the lower order batting can be a factor in test cricket. I also believed that it's come to a point where it's severely over rated on this forum. It's come to a point where outside of Bradman, it's superceded and every other skill and player.
As I've mentioned previously and frequently, I believe that Sobers, Hammond and Kallis possesses the most valuable combination of skill sets in the game. You have an ATG batsman, at worst a 3rd or 4th change quality bowlers and top tier slip fielder. Two of them are totally excluded from any mentions of the greatest cricketers despite the fact that either of their skill sets have proven to be just as valuable if not more so than lower order batting and they have multiple of each. We do hear Kallis didn't bowl enough and Hammond wasn't an all rounder, what ever that means, and with no mention of their catching.
@OverratedSanity believes cordons are important but once it's to a certain standard and not below par, it's not that important and nowhere near vital enough to influence selection criteria.
@subshakerz believes that neither Hammond nor Kallis is close enough to Sachin in their primary skills for their bowling or catching to be a factor for selection or ranking. You have to be very close for it to be a tie breaker, no argument there.
Lower order batting can be crucial and be the difference in winning or losing close games, the extra runs can be useful to build decent scores to good ones.
No one's disputing that, but it's not a cheat code and it's not reliably consistent. It doesn't happen every match and hardly by the same players. There's a reason they are lower order batsmen, they aren't great or even test standard batsmen for the most part, and can sometimes build up averages in high scoring contests, while impacting the closer ones way less than would be imagined.
The same premise that @OverratedSanity has for slip fielders I have for lower order batsmen, once they are viable lower order guys, the likes of Marshall and Warne, it's good enough.
Hadlee admittedly is a perfect medium, he's somewhere between a McGrath and Imran, undisputably a top tier pacer, likely behind only Marshall and said McGrath, but with the added batting to his repertoire. It can be argued that he is the closest to Bradman and Sobers and just a matter of preference or opinion. As bowlers, I do prefer Glenn and Malcolm as bowlers for reasons offered previously, but in the fewest words, they were consistent everywhere and were best able to take the pitch out of the equation, for me that's invaluable.
The reason I'm less willing to factor in secondary skills for bowlers are that there's only 4 of them and especially not for the opening bowlers, as it impacts more than the 6 batsmen. McGrath and Hadlee are close for me, but it's not a disservice for the latter, they're both in my top 6 and absolutely top tier ATG's. But yes, it's definely close and I wouldn't argue with anyone who believes he's more valuable than Marshall either, I would disagree, but wouldn't fight you.
The thing with secondary skills are they are depreciated, and the say way one wouldn't expect Kallis so win games with any regularity with the ball, it's equally unlikely for these guys to do so with the bat. The only secondary skills where these guys are legitimately great and at the higher end more reliable are in the slips. Now I'm not saying that any one secondary skill is more important than the next, but that's what everyone here does. The same way games have been saved by lower order batting, games have been won by 5th bowlers and just as many by great cordon play and lost by inconsistent ones. But that's largely ignored here, in fact I would place a wager that Kallis won more matches with his 5 wicket hauls than Imran did via his hundreds. Also doesn't require a deep YouTube dive to see how Smith, Kallis and deVilliers contributed to SA wins, or Lloyd, Richards and Richardson or Taylor, Waugh and Warne / Ponting did for theirs, and we can keep going...
But why do we only focus on the bowling guys, why do we say Hammond or Kallis isn't close enough to Sachin to be rated higher, but Imran close enough to McGrath? Kallis and Hammond brings two additional, and equally important and more reliable skills. As good as Imran was with the bat, Kallis and Hammond were better in the cordon and equally reliable as 5th bowlers. We just rated Hammond 10th, and Imran 8th, what's the difference? Hammond's true average is in the 60's as his post war exploits shouldn't factor into his legacy.
I'll say this, ideally a team should have a good 5th bowler, a great cordon and good no. 8 bat, but we've decided that only one is important and worthy of sacrificing the primary skill to fit it. Especially since you wouldn't chose a batsman averaging 30 to win or save you tests, but somehow believe a bowler averaging that will regularly. Yes it's a bonus, but not to the extent that we believe, and definely not worth giving up bowling prowess to achieve.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Marshall vs Hadlee (overall cricketers)
- Thread starter Bolo.
- Start date
I think that your idea that people are underrating other secondary disciplines is a seperate issue to lower order batting. Lower order batting does (or doesn't) add value irrespective of who is correct in assessing the value add in other departments.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah I just don't think this is true at all. Kallis actually is frequently rated above Sachin as an overall cricketer on here (imo maybe incorrectly) , not sure why you're implying otherwise. If people think the primary disciplines are close enough, they will use the secondary to justify rating the all rounder higher than the specialist. It applies to both batting and bowling all rounders. There is no disconnect here. The only disagreement is that you don't rate Imran /Hadlee in their primary skills as highly as some others do.
If what you're saying is true that we over value lower order batting provided by bowling ARs, then Shaun Pollock would be rated on par or above Mcgrath. And he flat out isn't. And I picked that specific example because that's the one I pushed back on when a small minority tried to push the idea.
ashley bach
Cricketer Of The Year
Hadlee as a bowler 9/10 and as a batsman 4/10
Marshall as a bowler 9.5/10 and batting is 3/10
Hadlee = 13
Marshall = 12.5
Game over Hadlee wins
Marshall as a bowler 9.5/10 and batting is 3/10
Hadlee = 13
Marshall = 12.5
Game over Hadlee wins
ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
At first, I thought this was a @Pap Finn Keighl post
kyear2
International Coach
I think I have them rated just as highly as most, and my ratings are exactly where they were in the latest pool. I rate Hadlee really highly, literally behind only two others.
My views on Imran are not a secret, don't think he was at that ATG level away from home, but still think he's 8th.
But how can lower order batting alone elevate the 8th best bowler into the 2nd or 3rd best player, even jumping over the same Hadlee.
I do think I could possibly have Hadlee higher, but even now I only have Bradman, Sobers, Marshall and Hobbs over him.
Chin Music
State Vice-Captain
I took the liberty of watching a bit of youtube footage of both to remind myself of the modus operandi. The precision of Hadlee's run-up and action is wonderful to review, so many years after his career ended. I have little doubt that he would take wickets on flat pitches today, simply because the batting techniques of modern day batsmen wouldn't be up to the challenge of dealing with him being so metronomically accurate.
Re Marshall, he was extremely quick from circa 1980 to about 1986 when Patterson was rumoured to be even quicker, then he combined high pace and skill until the probably 1989-1991 when he was noticeably slower if extremely skilled by that stage. Not quite so elegant to watch in his run up and gather but I just loved watching the ball fly in his earlier years.
Re Marshall, he was extremely quick from circa 1980 to about 1986 when Patterson was rumoured to be even quicker, then he combined high pace and skill until the probably 1989-1991 when he was noticeably slower if extremely skilled by that stage. Not quite so elegant to watch in his run up and gather but I just loved watching the ball fly in his earlier years.