Playing Selector: Top five test all rounders ever

[capt_Luffy]

Here's the elephant in the room, about why it's so ****ing hard to rate all-rounders.

The truth apparent to anyone who watches Test cricket is that (excluding Bradman for obvious reasons), the very best bowlers just blow out the very best batsmen in the world for value. McGrath vs Lara, absolutely laughable comparison. For the top 6-7 bowlers of all-time, they could make an impact towards match result in their team's favor with a consistency that batsmen could never dream of. Even something like the top 15-20 bowlers all time, are going to be more valuable, in my estimation than the very best batsmen, although a slight step down from the top tier. After that some bowlers' value might be more comparable to batsmen, but in these tier it's leaps and bounds higher.

Batsmen are inherently inconsistent, and at the very top they have a very granular difference from one to the next, in their ability to effect matches, unlike bowlers whose top end impact seems to be almost limitless.

So you combine those two attributes, and it's hard to really rank "value" of an allrounder as compared to "balance" of an all-rounder. No one other than Imran could possibly compete with Hadlee on "value", but he doesn't have the "balance" between the two attributes which we see in all-rounders.

Looking just at batting and bowling, that's why I had Sobers "valued" as the 7th best all-rounder in my initial list. But that isn't how we really rank all-rounders. The real way is something like a "rating" of 1-100 for batting, 1-100 for bowling, then add them up. By that listing I'd then have Imran and Miller at the top, followed by Sobers, at a more reasonable 3rd (he's in the same tier as the above if you factor in fielding too).

My man, while I agree that Great bowlers are in general more impactful than Great batsmen; you are totally disregarding in your assumptions the very fact that bowlers, even the very best; have dry spells and bad tours too. Very similar to batsmen, they too are ineffective in various bowling conditions. And as much a great bowler can change the course of a singular game, so can a batsman. A truly Great batsman, like Sachin, Hobbs, Sobers and Lara, are truly great due to their ability to change the course of lost games against great bowlers; be it Lara's 162 or Laxman's 281.

 

[shortpitched713]

My man, while I agree that Great bowlers are in general more impactful than Great batsmen; you are totally disregarding in your assumptions the very fact that bowlers, even the very best; have dry spells and bad tours too. Very similar to batsmen, they too are ineffective in various bowling conditions. And as much a great bowler can change the course of a singular game, so can a batsman. A truly Great batsman, like Sachin, Hobbs, Sobers and Lara, are truly great due to their ability to change the course of lost games against great bowlers; be it Lara's 162 or Laxman's 281.

Unfortunately no. It looks like this because batsmen can have longer careers on average, so the number of great performances can equal out. But ask yourself this. If you could guarantee having a fit Dale Steyn for a full year, or a fit Lara for a full year, which would you take in having a bigger impact on your team's success? It's obvious for those who aren't deluding themselves about the nature of the game.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Unfortunately no. It looks like this because batsmen can have longer careers on average, so the number of great performances can equal out. But ask yourself this. If you could guarantee having a fit Dale Steyn for a full year, or a fit Lara for a full year, which would you take in having a bigger impact on your team's success? It's obvious for those who aren't deluding themselves about the nature of the game.

Honestly, I would probably think that choice through and through for a decently long time. And I actually think that most truly great bowlers (McGrath, Marshall, Hadlee, Warne, Murali, Imran, Akram, etc) all have decently long careers

 

[shortpitched713]

Honestly, I would probably think that choice through and through for a decently long time. And I actually think that most truly great bowlers (McGrath, Marshall, Hadlee, Warne, Murali, Imran, Akram, etc) all have decently long careers

Yup. That's another reason I'd take all of the above over any given batsman you can name (barring Bradman).

 

[kyear2]

Here's the elephant in the room, about why it's so ****ing hard to rate all-rounders.

The truth apparent to anyone who watches Test cricket is that (excluding Bradman for obvious reasons), the very best bowlers just blow out the very best batsmen in the world for value. McGrath vs Lara, absolutely laughable comparison. For the top 6-7 bowlers of all-time, they could make an impact towards match result in their team's favor with a consistency that batsmen could never dream of. Even something like the top 15-20 bowlers all time, are going to be more valuable, in my estimation than the very best batsmen, although a slight step down from the top tier. After that some bowlers' value might be more comparable to batsmen, but in these tier it's leaps and bounds higher.

Batsmen are inherently inconsistent, and at the very top they have a very granular difference from one to the next, in their ability to effect matches, unlike bowlers whose top end impact seems to be almost limitless.

So you combine those two attributes, and it's hard to really rank "value" of an allrounder as compared to "balance" of an all-rounder. No one other than Imran could possibly compete with Hadlee on "value", but he doesn't have the "balance" between the two attributes which we see in all-rounders.

Looking just at batting and bowling, that's why I had Sobers "valued" as the 7th best all-rounder in my initial list. But that isn't how we really rank all-rounders. The real way is something like a "rating" of 1-100 for batting, 1-100 for bowling, then add them up. By that listing I'd then have Imran and Miller at the top, followed by Sobers, at a more reasonable 3rd (he's in the same tier as the above if you factor in fielding too).

All rounder aside, I would be interested to see your ranking of greatest cricketers ever

 

[shortpitched713]

All rounder aside, I would be interested to see your ranking of greatest cricketers ever

If we're talking about most "valuable" cricketers, it wouldn't be a terribly interesting list, and would just mirror my top 20 bowlers of all time, with the ones who can bat getting a bump up.

(Bradman would be top though, value "undefined".)

 

[shortpitched713]

All rounder aside, I would be interested to see your ranking of greatest cricketers ever

Here's my rough go at it looking at player value, only including post-war players and skewed towards more modern ones I know more about.

Imran
McGrath
S Pollock
Murali
Hadlee

Steyn
Ambrose
Marshall
Donald
Miller
Garner
Ashwin
Philander
Wasim
Warne

Top 5 very clearly separate themselves from the pack though, in my mind.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Here's my rough go at it looking at player value, only including post-war players and skewed towards more modern ones I know more about.

Imran
McGrath
S Pollock
Murali
Hadlee

Steyn
Ambrose
Marshall
Donald
Miller
Garner
Ashwin
Philander
Wasim
Warne

Top 5 very clearly separate themselves from the pack though, in my mind.

I probably rate Shaun Pollock higher than most people on CW; but even I have to say; him being at 3 is a bit too much..... Also, Philander over Tendulkar then!?

 

[Coronis]

Here's my rough go at it looking at player value, only including post-war players and skewed towards more modern ones I know more about.

Imran
McGrath
S Pollock
Murali
Hadlee

Steyn
Ambrose
Marshall
Donald
Miller
Garner
Ashwin
Philander
Wasim
Warne

Top 5 very clearly separate themselves from the pack though, in my mind.

You really put Marshall at 8 in response to kyear? Bold.

Also **** me Philander > Warne now I’ve seen it all.

 

[shortpitched713]

You really put Marshall at 8 in response to kyear? Bold.

Also **** me Philander > Warne now I’ve seen it all.

Batting. Otherwise they're pretty comparable.

Players are pretty interchangeable within the subgroups though, for mine.

 

[shortpitched713]

I probably rate Shaun Pollock higher than most people on CW; but even I have to say; him being at 3 is a bit too much..... Also, Philander over Tendulkar then!?

Yup, problem is you're looking at the name. Of course Tendulkar is close to the top of his role.

But although cricket media would tell you otherwise, the roles are not comparable in impact and potential. Bowler >>> batsman .

 

[kyear2]

You really put Marshall at 8 in response to kyear? Bold.

Also **** me Philander > Warne now I’ve seen it all.

To be fair, the entire list is pretty ..... Novel?

 

[thierry henry]

Here's the elephant in the room, about why it's so ****ing hard to rate all-rounders.

The truth apparent to anyone who watches Test cricket is that (excluding Bradman for obvious reasons), the very best bowlers just blow out the very best batsmen in the world for value. McGrath vs Lara, absolutely laughable comparison. For the top 6-7 bowlers of all-time, they could make an impact towards match result in their team's favor with a consistency that batsmen could never dream of. Even something like the top 15-20 bowlers all time, are going to be more valuable, in my estimation than the very best batsmen, although a slight step down from the top tier. After that some bowlers' value might be more comparable to batsmen, but in these tier it's leaps and bounds higher.

Batsmen are inherently inconsistent, and at the very top they have a very granular difference from one to the next, in their ability to effect matches, unlike bowlers whose top end impact seems to be almost limitless.

So you combine those two attributes, and it's hard to really rank "value" of an allrounder as compared to "balance" of an all-rounder. No one other than Imran could possibly compete with Hadlee on "value", but he doesn't have the "balance" between the two attributes which we see in all-rounders.

Looking just at batting and bowling, that's why I had Sobers "valued" as the 7th best all-rounder in my initial list. But that isn't how we really rank all-rounders. The real way is something like a "rating" of 1-100 for batting, 1-100 for bowling, then add them up. By that listing I'd then have Imran and Miller at the top, followed by Sobers, at a more reasonable 3rd (he's in the same tier as the above if you factor in fielding too).

HERE'S THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM (some stuff I made up)

 

[shortpitched713]

HERE'S THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM (some stuff I made up)

Bowling vs batting is roughly equally important.

4ish bowlers (which you get to decide how much you use) vs 7ish batsmen

Do the math.

 

[thierry henry]

Bowling vs batting is roughly equally important.

4ish bowlers (which you get to decide how much you use) vs 7ish batsmen

Do the math.

While I am quite easily influenced, I'm not gonna do math just because some internet guy told me to

 

[Coronis]

Batting. Otherwise they're pretty comparable.

Players are pretty interchangeable within the subgroups though, for mine.

>Philander and Warne’s bowling is pretty comparable

 

[Qlder]

Here's my rough go at it looking at player value, only including post-war players and skewed towards more modern ones I know more about.

Imran
McGrath
S Pollock
Murali
Hadlee

Steyn
Ambrose
Marshall
Donald
Miller
Garner
Ashwin
Philander
Wasim
Warne

Top 5 very clearly separate themselves from the pack though, in my mind.

Are you for real?

If you actually think these 15 players are the best cricketers above every batsman why did you pick Sobers and Botham in the Poll instead of Hadlee, your supposed 5th best ever cricketer?

If true, you also would have picked Akram, Jadega or Ashwin ahead of Sobers

 

[TheJediBrah]

bros in this thread not aware of shortpitched713

plays by his own rules

 

[shortpitched713]

>Philander and Warne’s bowling is pretty comparable

Yes. Warne cannot do what Philander can do, and vice versa. When you balance those factors out total bowling value is pretty comparable, to me.

 

[shortpitched713]

Are you for real?

If you actually think these 15 players are the best cricketers above every batsman why did you pick Sobers and Botham in the Poll instead of Hadlee, your supposed 5th best ever cricketer?

If true, you also would have picked Akram, Jadega or Ashwin ahead of Sobers

Read this excerpt from me and try to understand my take:

"Looking just at batting and bowling, that's why I had Sobers "valued" as the 7th best all-rounder in my initial list. But that isn't how we really rank all-rounders. The real way is something like a "rating" of 1-100 for batting, 1-100 for bowling, then add them up. By that listing I'd then have Imran and Miller at the top, followed by Sobers, at a more reasonable 3rd (he's in the same tier as the above if you factor in fielding too)."

Initially I had Sobers at 7, and everyone thought that was off (I definitely knew it would raise eyebrows). It's because consensus is batting is considered an equal part of being an all-rounder as bowling. Given those parameters, I then made my list of an "all-rounder" rating, which has Sobers 3rd, because he's definitely more "balanced" in the skillsets than Hadlee, whose on the very low end of the batting ability spectrum among ATG all-rounders, and in my opinion less superlative of a bowler than Sobers is a bat.

Hadleee is in that very top group of player value for me in spite of that, because bowling>>>batting in terms of overall value provided, and I have all top bowlers mentioned being more valuable than any specialist bat.

Sobers is still a fine first pick in a draft though, as although his absolute value is less than a Hadlee or Imran or other superlative specialist bowler, you do need specialist bats, and it's nice to get an absolutely superlative one + support bowling option in one stroke.