Simpson^ | Hayden | Bradman | Chappell^ | Ponting | Border* | Gilchrist+ | Davidson3 | Warne4^ | Lillee1 | McGrath2
Greenidge | Hunte | Richards^ | Headley* | Lara^ | Sobers5^ | Walcott+ | Marshall1 | Ambrose2 | Holding3 | Garner4
Richards^ | Smith*^ | Amla | Pollock | Kallis5^ | Nourse | Cameron+ | Procter3 | Steyn1 | Tayfield4 | Donald2
Hobbs | Hutton*^ | Hammond^ | Compton | Barrington | Botham5^ | Knott | Trueman1 | Laker4 | Larwood2 | Barnes3
There's no way in hell I'm reading all that but I'm pretty sure I know what it says and we've had this debate many times before. I cbf so I'm going to condense this.
-There is minimal difference in bowling quality between any of the names you wrote up there. I don't care what CW or cricinfo eleven you've listed, the decade of vs threads on here has only reinforced my impression no one can say for certain the exact rankings of the top 10-15 bowlers.
-Some of the greatest bowlers ever can bat pretty well. Lower order batting almost always plays a role in real life cricket, so when picking teams for imaginary cricket if I can't separate two players on their primary skill I look at the batting/bowling and fielding. Warne easily makes my side because he can hold a bat and he can field at slip.
Just to clarify, I'm not intending to make this a Warne/Murali bowling debate and this is in no way actually aimed at people who think Warne is better than Murali on bowling alone as the double standard then no longer applies.
Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
Rejecting 'selection deontology' since Mar '15
'Stats' is not a synonym for 'Career Test Averages'
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Tucker
Kyear has come around on some cricketers, but his posts on Hadlee continue to buy piss annoying. Hadlee has as complete a record as any. He did it with a very little support and for so long. He also had an insane period of sub 20 average period. What else must he do, I wonder.
So it's nothing to do with a disrespect for Hadlee, he was an ATG bowler, McGrath was just better IMHO and that is an opinion shared by many. There are some who think McGrath is the best period. If he is the best he should make the team.
If I were to select a reserve opener, middle order bat, pacer, keeper and spinner for my first team to form a squad it would be Gavaskar (just over Barry Richards), Lara, Knott, Muralitharan and Hadlee (just over Lillee even though lillee's pace would be useful). So I don't think I under rate Hadlee.
And smalishah's avatar is the most classy one by far Jan certainly echoes the sentiments of CW
Yeah we don't crap in the first world; most of us would actually have no idea what that was emanating from Ajmal's backside. Why isn't it roses and rainbows like what happens here? PEWS's retort to Ganeshran on Daemon's picture depicting Ajmal's excreta
Additionall if Hadlee makes the team it's at the expense of Imran, not McGrath or Marshall. And Imran brings more to the table with his reverse swing and effectiveness in the sub continent. Out side of the SC though Paddles may make it over Imran. In no scenario though does their respective batting stats come into the decision.
Last edited by kyear2; 29-09-2013 at 09:17 AM.
The peer and historical consensus was that the best bowler of the '70's was Lillee, the best bowler of the '80's was Marshall the 90's was more split with Ambrose and McGrath getting the nod for many along with Warne and Murali. For the 2000's, the first part of the decade up until his retirement McGrath was clearly the number one fast bowler in the world, all over the world. He has the most wickets of any fast bowler in history and maintained his consistency and dominance for 14 years in a gradually changing environment where at one point he stood alone as the only great fast bowler in operation.
Even on CW in conversations of who is the best fast bowlers almost every one places McGrath over Hadlee, there are too many different threads and posts to mention, the last one being Top 10 Batsmen and Bowlers of All Time where even Flem states that he thinks McGrath is the best ever. Any arguments on CW or most places as to who is the best revolves around Lillee, Marshall, McGrath and rarely sometimes Ambrose and Trueman. Hadlee is hardly ever seriously included in that discussion and the perception is that he excelled on helpful surfaces and didn't have a plan B on placid tracks. He played all but 13 of his matches in N.Z, Australia and England, yes where most bowlers excelled.
When one looks at some of the other teams selected by journalists, bloggers and historians I have never seen Hadlee make any, McGrath only makes some, and time may or may not change that but as far as I am concerned McGrath and Tendulkar because of the volume of their numbers and the consistency of their careers and the fact that they succeeded everywhere over those years and the way the played the game they have earned to be included in any ATG XI, even though I personally prefer Lara for at least a couple reasons over SRT.
Finally everyone on this forum has opinions that are and aren't substantiated, and mine has been repeatedly, yet I am continuously asked to justify my own opinions, and contrary to Alikina and sometimes Smali comments, I don't state them as facts I state them as my opinion. Which I am allowed to have and express on a cricket forum.
Grace, Hobbs, Bradman, Tendulkar, Pollock, Sobers, Gilchrist, Imran, Marshall, Warne, Barnes
Hutton, Hobbs, Bradman, Tendulkar, Richards, Sobers, Gilchrist, Marshall, Akram, Warne, Lillee
Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Headley, Richards, Sobers, Knott, Marshall, Warne, Lillee, Barnes
Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Bradman, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, Miller, Imran, Warne, Marshall, Barnes
Hobbs, Gavaskar, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers, Imran, Gilchrist, Warne, Lillee, Barnes
Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, Imran, Marshall, Warne, McGrath
Grace, Hobbs, Bradman, Richards, Hammond, Sobers, Gilchrist, Marshall, Warne, Barnes, McGrath
Hobbs, Gavaskar, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, Warne, Akram, Marshall, Lillee
Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Richards, Hammond, Sobers, Gilchrist, Warne, Marshall, Lillee, McGrath
There are mitigating circumstances to McGrath's dominance in the early 2000s - an ATG team, relatively weak opposition (really only SA, and perhaps India in India and the obligatory occasional Pakistan glimmer were that difficult opposition at that time).
For me Marshall seperates himself from the pack but I don't see that for McGrath, Hadlee and Ambrose - the next best of the modern players.
That said, I agree with most of your rationale and do like your team. If you think McGrath is clearly better than Hadlee or Ambrose then yes, you can make the case that he should be included.
Last edited by hendrix; 29-09-2013 at 02:15 PM.
- Played in an ATG team? So did Marshall. And I still don't believe that playing in a great team makes you a better bowler or a lesser bowler.
- Relatively weak opposition? McGrath bowled against the greatest Indian batting line up in India's history. He bowled against a fairly strong SA. Marshall bowled against Australian and English basket case teams in the 80s. India had Gavaskar and Vengsarker and nothing else. NZ had Crowe and no one else.
I'd actually argue that McGrath separated himself from his peers further than Marshall did. Marshall's fast bowling teammates (Garner & Holding) are a lot closer to Marshall in terms of stats than Gillespie/Lee/Kaspa are to McGrath.
Last edited by Red Hill; 29-09-2013 at 10:28 PM.
McGrath bowled in an era of relative roady mcroads where a batting average of 50 was the new 40.
Kyear - how do you say Hadlee relied on pitch assistance? His bowling average and strike rate in subcontinent are better than Marshall and McGrath. See this story: Stats analysis: Richard Hadlee | Specials | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo. You would argue that it is because of the exceptional 12.29 average in SL, but he also averages about the same as his overall average in India. Only in Pakistan he has a poor average but that's because he played only one series there in 1976, which was before 1978 at which time he developed into a champion bowler. Even against India, he played one series in 1976 where he averages 35 or so. In the other series he played in India in 80's, he averaged a ridiculous 14.xx. So how exactly do you make your argument?
It's interesting that you gloss over Lillee's record in Pakistan. If the silly small sample size of Lillee's salvages him, then take out Hadlee's 3 matches in Pakistan too which is the only dark spot in his record.
It is actually quite surprising that Hadlee doesn't get the same amount of praise from "experts" as Lillee and Marshall do. Hadlee's record is just extra ordinary for following reasons:
- Stats. Just great, anyway you look at it. Did it against everyone and all over the world.
- Tremendous impact that he had on NZ cricket. Last time when I looked at series by series performances, IIRC Hadlee was the leading wicket taker on either side in 8 out of the 9 NZ test series victories against strong oppositions (excluding SL). And this includes at least one series against each of the 5 main oppositions.
- Longevity. He played for 17 years, and till he was 39. He was mighty effective till the very end. In this respect, one can argue that he outdid Marshall comfortably. Marshall played for 13 years, and only till he was 33.
With a resume like this, I don't see how he can be put in anything but the top bracket. For mine, the second best fast bowler after Marshall (don't know what Barnes classifies as so keeping him out) just ahead of Ambrose and McGrath.
Last edited by ankitj; 30-09-2013 at 11:34 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)