Poll: Greatest Cricketer amongst this lot

[smash84]

As an aside, guys reckon Imran would be the popular choice as "Best ever Asian Cricketer" marginally above Murali?

Imran might edge out Murali and Tendulkar but it would be close. Imran has the advantage of being an all-rounder so he brings more to the table however his leadership was outstanding which gives him an edge. Tendy >>>>>> Imran batting and Murali > Imran in bowling.

I voted Imran, but ffs, is McGrath that much better a cricketer than Hadlee with 7 votes to Hadlee's 1 ?

I personally feel Hadlee to be very very under-rated here on CW. In what way was McGrath better than Hadlee as a bowler???? And even if he was then the difference is only very very marginal. Add to that Hadlee's batting and Hadlee becomes much more valuable then McGrath.

What's even more bewildering is Murali 0 votes?

While Warne has 4.

True. Maybe Murali didn't have any of Warne's glamor hence people shy away from voting for him. Also, and Geoffrey Boycott recently mentioned it in a show as well, Mural's action is something that people will always hold against him which is probably why he doesn't get the credit that is due to him.

Agreed, where is he ?

If you are talking about the greatest cricketer post 1980, then Malcolm Marshall is the most glaring omission. As the greatest bowler of all time, I probably would have voted for him. If it was just an oversight, then it is no big deal.

In the end, I voted for 'Smokin Joe', who wasn't too bad himself. But, the likes of Warne, Murali and Imran, are all in the conversation.

Who is smokin Joe?? And yes it was an oversight. I wanted to add macko in the list but as Jono correctly pointed out that the poll had started by then and it would mess up the results.

A pure hypothetical question but worth contemplating - If they were Kiwis, would McGrath or Marshall have been able to do what Hadlee did for NZ?

They would probably be just as good assuming that great bowlers, like great batsman, are able to adjust to the conditions around them.

Yep but the difference between them as batsman is too huge even if you consider McG a league ahead as a bowler.(Which I disagree with anyway)

I agree if McG's feats in this era are awe-inspiring and hence can be seen as 'greater', You can't ignore the direct value 30-37 runs gives with the bat though.

Agreed

McGrath would have been a handy 3rd drop for the kiwis

 

[Dissector]

It's actually 7 wpm for 11 years at under 20.

I omitted BD and Zim. From memory I think it's 60 tests, 419 wickets at 20.79 between 98 and 06. Unbelievable.

 

[silentstriker]

Gautam Gambhir - he just made about $5 million for 14 weeks of work over two years. Clearly he wouldn't have if he weren't the greatest.

 

[Teja.]

Gautam Gambhir - he just made about $5 million for 14 weeks of work over two years. Clearly he wouldn't have if he weren't the greatest.

Deserves every bit for averaging 60 in SA tbh.

 

[vcs]

Hang on... they can't dump him after this IPL if it turns out he's ****?

 

[Faisal1985]

All those names are so big its almost impossible to compare...i would just take Imran as "cricketer" but seriously this is a tough one.

 

[smash84]

All those names are so big its almost impossible to compare...i would just take Imran as "cricketer" but seriously this is a tough one.

It sure is a tough one.

 

[L Trumper]

MM is a glorious omission there. Its between Imran, Hadlee & Richards for me. Going with richards though. He transcended two generations of fans worldwide, his impact on cricket and on his country is greater than other greats, that is saying something.
Most importantly though he got the greatest walk ever, nothing in any sport is comparable to richards walk to the middle

 

[Prince EWS]

I voted Imran, but ffs, is McGrath that much better a cricketer than Hadlee with 7 votes to Hadlee's 1 ?

I think it's happened that way because the members with the ideology that would've made them likely to pick Hadlee have picked Imran because he fits to it even better. Hadlee was my second choice, and he's probably right up there for all the people who voted Imran. Voting for McGrath requires an entirely different outlook on cricket.

 

[Prince EWS]

I don't know if many of the people who voted for McGrath could make much of a case for him. He played and was successful in a much more batsman-friendly era than Hadlee. But that's about it.

Hadlee's horrendously underrated, basically.

Haha @ "that's about it".

I love Hadlee, so if someone thinks he's better than McGrath because of his batting, fine. But to downplay that teeny weeny fact about McGrath is ridiculous.

The era McGrath played in didn't make that much of a difference though. It was definitely enough for me to say McGrath was in fact a better bowler than Hadlee, but only by a small margin. They were in fact 13th and 14th in my standardised bowling averages thread, which took the standards of run-scoring into account (it was basically its only purpose ).

			Wkts	Avg	St Avg

13	GD McGrath	560	21.69	21.42
14	Sir RJ Hadlee	431	22.30	21.63

The 2000s era has definitely be more batting friendly but I do think people exaggerate by just how much that difference was, at times. Usually they do it to downplay batsmen, but that's spilled over into bowling debates as well.

Hadlee was bascially McGrath + Batting. Awesome.

 

[Spark]

The era McGrath played in didn't make that much of a difference though. It was definitely enough for me to say McGrath was in fact a better bowler than Hadlee, but only by a small margin. They were in fact 13th and 14th in my standardised bowling averages thread, which took the standards of run-scoring into account (it was basically its only purpose ).

            Wkts    Avg    St Avg

13    GD McGrath    560    21.69    21.42
14    Sir RJ Hadlee    431    22.30    21.63

The 2000s era has definitely be more batting friendly but I do think people exaggerate by just how much that difference was, at times. Usually they do it to downplay batsmen, but that's spilled over into bowling debates as well.

Hadlee was bascially McGrath + Batting. Awesome.

Haha I can just imagine the smug look on your face here...

 

[Teja.]

The era McGrath played in didn't make that much of a difference though. It was definitely enough for me to say McGrath was in fact a better bowler than Hadlee, but only by a small margin. They were in fact 13th and 14th in my standardised bowling averages thread, which took the standards of run-scoring into account (it was basically its only purpose ).

			Wkts	Avg	St Avg

13	GD McGrath	560	21.69	21.42
14	Sir RJ Hadlee	431	22.30	21.63

The 2000s era has definitely be more batting friendly but I do think people exaggerate by just how much that difference was, at times. Usually they do it to downplay batsmen, but that's spilled over into bowling debates as well.

Hadlee was bascially McGrath + Batting. Awesome.

I don't think you can categorically state McGrath was a better bowler based on a difference of 0.21 in standardized averages tbh. Particularly considering Hadlee took half a wicket(0.47) more per game.

/nitpick.

 

[Prince EWS]

I don't think you can categorically state McGrath was a better bowler based on a difference of 0.21 in standardized averages tbh. Particularly considering Hadlee took half a wicket(0.47) more per game.

/nitpick.

To clarify, I wasn't claiming it just based on that at all. I only posted the standardised averages to back up my point that the eras they played in and the teams they bowled to didn't have as great an effect as people seem to think; they weren't the basis for my whole opinion.

I think they're extremely close as bowlers, but I'd give it to McGrath. The standardised averages don't quite actually reflect the distance I'd give it to McGrath by, but they do reflect that McGrath isn't comfortably better owing to his era.

 

[Teja.]

Yeah, thanks.

 

[L Trumper]

By the way isn't the poll asking for who is greater rather than better?
A bit different

 

[Dissector]

I don't think you can categorically state McGrath was a better bowler based on a difference of 0.21 in standardized averages tbh. Particularly considering Hadlee took half a wicket(0.47) more per game.

/nitpick.

Not to mention the quality of the support from the rest of the team. Not only do bowlers help each other by putting pressure, batsmen help bowlers by putting up runs. Scoreboard pressure is a big factor in taking wickets which is why I would rate Hadlee above McGrath as a bowler by a small margin. As a cricketer it's no contest.

And if McGrath gets credit for bowling a lot in a batting-friendly era so should Pollock. Again Pollock is easily the better cricketer and it's particularly noteworthy that he is practically the only top class bowling all-rounder in the last 20 years when ODI's became much more common.

 

[Prince EWS]

By the way isn't the poll asking for who is greater rather than better?
A bit different

Well, everyone has a different way of measuring greatness. To me, it means the same thing.

 

[Teja.]

And if McGrath gets credit for bowling a lot in a batting-friendly era so should Pollock. Again Pollock is easily the better cricketer and it's particularly noteworthy that is he practically the only top class bowling all-rounder in the last 20 years when ODI's became much more common.

Dissector for president IMO.

 

[Teja.]

By the way isn't the poll asking for who is greater rather than better?
A bit different

Certainly not for me.

 

[smash84]

MM is a glorious omission there. Its between Imran, Hadlee & Richards for me. Going with richards though. He transcended two generations of fans worldwide, his impact on cricket and on his country is greater than other greats, that is saying something.
Most importantly though he got the greatest walk ever, nothing in any sport is comparable to richards walk to the middle

I think that Imran's impact on Pakistan cricket has been greater than what Viv had on his country. Imran was the first genuinely quick bowler that Pakistan had and he gave Pakistan cricket a glamor which was missing before and has been missing since he left. No wonder every young sportsman wanted to emulate Imran and that is why you see so many fast bowlers appearing in Pakistan because they saw Imran when they were growing up and it is him that they want to emulate.

I think it's happened that way because the members with the ideology that would've made them likely to pick Hadlee have picked Imran because he fits to it even better. Hadlee was my second choice, and he's probably right up there for all the people who voted Imran. Voting for McGrath requires an entirely different outlook on cricket.

I think you hit the nail on the head there. Voting for McGrath requires a very different outlook on cricket.