zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
Why not, out of interest?
-
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.
CW50 2nd Edition (aka WWIII) - No 11 - 12
- Thread starter smash84
- Start date
aussie tragic
International Captain
After watching Lillee, Hadlee, Imran, Marshall, Holding, Roberts, Ambrose and Garner in the 80's, I never really got the McGrath love, so I was one of the 14....
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
His impact on cricket is worthy of top 25 status, maybe top 3. I can not and will not accept that he would be in the top 25 cricketers of all time if he was transported to today and grew up playing cricket in todays day and age.
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
Fair enough.
Complicated and difficult question though. It seems very likely that if you transported him with that technique direct to the present day he'd have very little success. But he clearly had enormous talent and (in his youth) athleticism so it's a fair bet that with the benefit of modern technique, training etc he'd have gone pretty well. In terms of "greatest cricketers", though, I think it's right to consider contribution to the game, dominance in his own era etc and on that basis for me he's in the top 2 at least. Each to his own though,
Complicated and difficult question though. It seems very likely that if you transported him with that technique direct to the present day he'd have very little success. But he clearly had enormous talent and (in his youth) athleticism so it's a fair bet that with the benefit of modern technique, training etc he'd have gone pretty well. In terms of "greatest cricketers", though, I think it's right to consider contribution to the game, dominance in his own era etc and on that basis for me he's in the top 2 at least. Each to his own though,
Agent Nationaux
International Coach
Surprised McGrath is so low. He is the greatest bowler ever after all.
smash84
The Tiger King
Emmm....it isn't quite as clear cut as you make it out to be
kingkallis
International Coach
McGrath - 14
kyear2
Cricketer Of The Year
Surprised this site rates Hadlee so high, especially over Mcgrath and Lillee, nary the expert or former player rates Hadlee as high. I think that we rates bowling all rounder wayyy to highly here. In an all time XI or even an everyday 11, It's more important to have a fifth bowler that a number 8 batsman who scores an extra 10 with the tail. I rate players, even all rounders based on thier primary skill, and to me Mcgrath, Lillee and Trueman, Ambrose ect were better bowlers. I may be strange but I even value great batsmen (or more rarely bowlers) who are great slip fielders more than bowling all rounders as to me they bring more value to a team. So a player (Chappell, Sobers, Hammond, Simpson, Mitchell ect.) who is a fifth bowler and great slippers are infinately more valuable.
Last edited:
Virat Kohli?So only one new entrant in top 10 compared to last time, and a very deserving one too
smash84
The Tiger King
What? This sounds quite silly.
How does a great bowler who is a great slip fielder (and useless with the bat) bring more value to the team than a comparable great bowler who is a decent batsman and an ordinary fielder?
kyear2
Cricketer Of The Year
look back at all of the great teams, none of them had great bowling all rounders, ALL had great bolwers and great slip cordons. They had bowlers who could hold a bat, Marshall, Warne, Holding ect, but none of the great bolwing all rounders.
Oh and was not talking about Imran, as his captaincy did add to his valure. Additionally he didnt only bat at 8, especially after his injury, also he was a better bowler that Hadlee.
Oh and was not talking about Imran, as his captaincy did add to his valure. Additionally he didnt only bat at 8, especially after his injury, also he was a better bowler that Hadlee.
Last edited:
smash84
The Tiger King
This is brilliant display of logic really.
Because the great teams didn't have a bowling all rounder and had great slip cordons hence batsmen with good slip fielding will add more value to ALL teams
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
The Australian sides immediately after each World War say hi. As does the South African side immediately before the ban.
kyear2
Cricketer Of The Year
The invincibles had Miller who was all three mixed into one and Harvey was also in the slips. The SA teams had Richards, Mitchell ect. How does that disprove my point. Lindwall, Miller, Johnson, P. Pollock.
A team cannot win consistently with a poor bowling attack or a weak cordon. It's just a fact.
A team cannot win consistently with a poor bowling attack or a weak cordon. It's just a fact.
Last edited:
smash84
The Tiger King
You do realize that you are contradicting yourself aren't you?
Also the fact that Botham and Kapil were pretty good fielders.
Do you think their batting added more value to their team or their fielding?
kyear2
Cricketer Of The Year
First of all read my entire post. I was mentioning a bowling AR who bats at 7/8 who averages about 10 runs more that the average number 8, which is about the high 20's. Second Botham was a legitimate batsman and bolwer and slipper in his peak. Third, what AT great team was Kapil a part of, or Botham for that matter. I never said its not a bonus to have a bolwer who can bat a bit, but is it a requirement to win. NO. Guys like Marshall and Warne were not bowling ARs but they could hold a bat and extended some innings, that is useful and a part of the reason the make some All Time Teams, but not the ultimate or primary reasons.
What is the big deal over this. I have heard similar arguments from many former players, if it come down to two batsmen, if one can bing something extra like a useful bowler or great slipper then that person gets the nood. Hammond, Sobers, Chappell ect, haven't seen Hadlee selected over Lillee or Marshall for similar reasons for his batting. We dont want rabbits, but I would still choose Mcgrath over Hadlee in my AT XI. But that may just be me.
What is the big deal over this. I have heard similar arguments from many former players, if it come down to two batsmen, if one can bing something extra like a useful bowler or great slipper then that person gets the nood. Hammond, Sobers, Chappell ect, haven't seen Hadlee selected over Lillee or Marshall for similar reasons for his batting. We dont want rabbits, but I would still choose Mcgrath over Hadlee in my AT XI. But that may just be me.