Steyn/Kallis vs McWarne vs Hobbs/Sutcliffe

[Coronis]

Is this sarcasm?

No? tbf the better player was in my head referring to tests but I see how that may have been confusing in that context

 

[subshakerz]

No? tbf the better player was in my head referring to tests but I see how that may have been confusing in that context

Tell me how Tendulkar had more influence on the wider game than Imran? I rate Tendulkar a greater cricketer but I don't think it's fair to say he is far ahead in influence.

 

[Coronis]

Tell me how Tendulkar had more influence on the wider game than Imran?

I mean c’mon mate, really?

The major talisman figure and next level stardom in rise of India and SC cricket in beginning in 90s and then into 21st century.

Its almost like you got these two threads crossed in your mind.

 

[subshakerz]

I mean c’mon mate, really?



Its almost like you got these two threads crossed in your mind.

Sure but I was referring to indirect influence outside the actual playing game in that thread. On the field and in terms of play, Imran had massive influence.

 

[Coronis]

Sure but I was referring to indirect influence outside the actual playing game in that thread. On the field and in terms of play, Imran had massive influence.

I mean he was a better player sure, but thats not really what we were talking about.

 

[kyear2]

I think if I were to do a Mount Rushmore for all of cricket history based on both quality and impact around the world it would be:
Grace Bradman Sobers Tendulkar
There are sadly no bowlers there, if there was one with the quality of McGrath and impact of Warne, I would have put him there, but there isn't one imo.

Rushmore:

Grace
Hobbs
Bradman
Sobers

everyone else does not distinguish themselves well enough from their peers. Tendulkar often has to fight Lara and Richards (not really a peer but there's some career overlap there) outside of here even if he wins here, Warne always has to fight with his great rival and occasionally Tiger, Marshall has to fight McGrath and so forth. Grace doesn't have to fight any Victorian Cricketer, Hobbs doesn't have to fight any Pre-World I Batsmen, Sobers doesn't have to fight any batting all rounder and Bradman doesn't have to fight any Batsmen.

Wasn't there a discussion just over the weekend about the underrating of bowling in cricket.

It's also the only sport where winning seems to be less important that stats.

Bradman and Sobers are the only certainties, Grace too of we're going back to the 19th century.

There's been 3 great teams of historical note, and 3 bowlers of historical significance that deserves consideration in Marshall, McGrath and Warne, who meets any threshold for statistical brilliance, peer recognition and role in the shift of power and dynastic dominance.

Heaven forbid the match winners get a shout in such discourse.

 

[subshakerz]

There's been 3 great teams of historical note, and 3 bowlers of historical significance that deserves consideration in Marshall, McGrath and Warne, who meets any threshold for statistical brilliance, peer recognition and role in the shift of power and dynastic dominance.

Marshall had nowhere near the role Warne and McGrath had in taking his team to the top. He literally inheirited a no.1 side and by ATG standards had one of the easiest bowling careers in terms of bowling support.

 

[kyear2]

Please, this is pathetic. Tendulkar was far more relevant and impactful on the wider game than either of those two. He was also easily a better player than Viv.

Easily is quite subjective.

 

[kyear2]

Honestly thought you would go for McWarne.

I have.

Doesn't mean others don't have merit.

 

[kyear2]

Tell me how Tendulkar had more influence on the wider game than Imran? I rate Tendulkar a greater cricketer but I don't think it's fair to say he is far ahead in influence.

Think everyone here is confusing influence with popularity.

Influence is making an impact on how the game is played, making an impact on the movement of power and dominance on the field.

And I don't know where batsmen gained dominion over the selection of the great influencers of the game.

We seem to list out the best batsmen and arrange them in order of appearance and make that a list.

Any of McWarne or Marshall has the statistical and team impact required, as well as the peer ratings to qualify for such a spot.

As as per my argument for Marshall being the 3rd name an an AT team list, with Bradman and Sobers off the table and you can only choose one single player from history if you had to win a match, conditions, opposition and location unknown, who's it going to be. For the all time argument it was Gilly or Hobbs in opposition to Maco.

In this scenario with 3 batsmen already listed, and we're looking at who wrecked games, who impacted the landscape of the game and if we're forced to choose between Warne and McGrath, and more go with Warne, then why isn't it Warne or Marshall for that 4th spot?

It's not a batsman game. It's like the NFL where offence sells tickets, defence wins championships.

 

[Johan]

Easier is quite subjective.

Better itself is quite subjective.

 

[kyear2]

Better itself is quite subjective.

Very much so

 

[kyear2]

Marshall had nowhere near the role Warne and McGrath had in taking his team to the top. He literally inheirited a no.1 side and by ATG standards had one of the easiest bowling careers in terms of bowling support.

I know it makes you feel better to say that.

It's fine.

 

[subshakerz]

I know it makes you feel better to say that.

It's fine.

It's true though. It's not a slight on Marshall, but he just came into the team at an easier time. That's a fact.

 

[Bolo.]

Think I agree with all of this.

Both ATG's on primary but Kallis is the ultimate wingman, assisting with the bowling load and even more crucially providing near peerless support in the most critical catching position. Both maximizing Steyn's productivity.

Why would Kallis' slip fielding be remotely comparable to his bowling in value?

He took a bit more than a catch a game. Even a poor slip is taking most of these catches anyway. A pretty good slip (which most teams have, and RSA definitely had) will take 80% of the catches he does. His slip fielding is probably worth 5 runs a game. 10 to be generous.

His bowling was probably worth 25-30 runs a game just through playing an extra bat.

 

[subshakerz]

Why would Kallis' slip fielding be remotely comparable to his bowling in value?

He took a bit more than a catch a game. Even a poor slip is taking most of these catches anyway. A pretty good slip (which most teams have, and RSA definitely had) will take 80% of the catches he does. His slip fielding is probably worth 5 runs a game. 10 to be generous.

His bowling was probably worth 25-30 runs a game just through playing an extra bat.

Kyear has consistently seen slips as a secondary skill despite the evidence to the contrary.

 

[Migara]

Kyear has consistently seen slips as a secondary skill despite the evidence to the contrary.

Slip catching becomes secondary skill only for players like Mahela, Dravid, Taylor, Mahanama etc, who sucked with the ball, but were brilliant slip fieldsmen. Other than for Eknath Solkar there is no one where fielding was even the second disciplune among all rounders.

 

[subshakerz]

Slip catching becomes secondary skill only for players like Mahela, Dravid, Taylor, Mahanama etc, who sucked with the ball, but were brilliant slip fieldsmen. Other than for Eknath Solkar there is no one where fielding was even the second disciplune among all rounders.

It's a tertiary skill because the marginal value of extra elite catches doesn't exceed actual runs or wickets IMO.

 

[Coronis]

Slip catching becomes secondary skill only for players like Mahela, Dravid, Taylor, Mahanama etc, who sucked with the ball, but were brilliant slip fieldsmen. Other than for Eknath Solkar there is no one where fielding was even the second disciplune among all rounders.

Tbh I could be persuaded to consider Jonty an allrounder purely on his fielding.

 

[Migara]

Tbh I could be persuaded to consider Jonty an allrounder purely on his fielding.

Eknath Solkar was actually and all rounder, and undoubted Bradman of short leg catching. Don't think Jonty has that much distinction as a specialist fielder, because there had been and before and after similarly good overall fieldsmen.