SS "Most overrated batsmen of all time: All of them"

[JBH001]

My friend, if you've read the other thread (Pace attack vs. Spin attack) I mentioned that I think they are very close. Warne/Murali are in the Marshall/McGrath class. Whether they are better or not is as generic of a question as asking whether McGrath or Ambrose is better. But to say one is not even close for me is going too far.

Er yes, thats what I thought you meant.

When I said "I dont know if Kaz is saying that they are better, or that they are in a similar vicinity (as happens when you compare the top echelon of cricketers) which seems more likely, but to say that they are not even close is going too far" I meant I thought you had said they were in a similar vicinity the more likely explanation, while the latter part of my comment was directed more towards SS's original comment (I think he has qualified it now) that Marshall was a lot better than Warne/Murali, something I disagree with.

Clear?

 

[JBH001]

They do have 3 of the greatest spinners ever...but they are some 6 decades apart in terms of career. The pitches have not remained the same, they've also been covered.

Fair point. But how often did Grimmett and O'Reilly bowl on sticky dogs in the 30's? Especially considering that it was an era notorious for high scores. I'd wager not that often. My point was simply that there is nothing intrinsic about Australian cricketing conditions that precludes effective (especially leg) spin bowling (as there is for example with pace bowling in India and as demonstrated by the fact that only one, perhaps two, quicks worth the name have emerged from that area). From Mailey through Benaud to MacGill, Australia has produced very good to great leg spinners, as well as some good finger spinners of the likes of Mallet and (the under-rated) Yardley. I get your point regarding Warne and bowling in Australia, but as I said I think it over-stated, and it also discounts the natural homeground advantages accruing in all sports, let alone cricket.

 

[Ikki]

Er yes, thats what I thought you meant.

When I said "I dont know if Kaz is saying that they are better, or that they are in a similar vicinity (as happens when you compare the top echelon of cricketers) which seems more likely, but to say that they are not even close is going too far" I meant I thought you had said they were in a similar vicinity the more likely explanation, while the latter part of my comment was directed more towards SS's original comment (I think he has qualified it now) that Marshall was a lot better than Warne/Murali, something I disagree with.

Clear?

Okay, I thought you were asking whether I was thinking one way or another and assumed correctly what I meant. I thought I'd reply to make it clearer.

Fair point. But how often did Grimmett and O'Reilly bowl on sticky dogs in the 30's? Especially considering that it was an era notorious for high scores. I'd wager not that often. My point was simply that there is nothing intrinsic about Australian cricketing conditions that precludes effective (especially leg) spin bowling (as there is for example with pace bowling in India and as demonstrated by the fact that only one, perhaps two, quicks worth the name have emerged from that area). From Mailey through Benaud to MacGill, Australia has produced very good to great leg spinners, as well as some good finger spinners of the likes of Mallet and (the under-rated) Yardley. I get your point regarding Warne and bowling in Australia, but as I said I think it over-stated, and it also discounts the natural homeground advantages accruing in all sports, let alone cricket.

No, I don't think it is that large (although maybe more than you do), but it is quite a difference in the usual places I do bring it up - i.e. Sri Lanka vs. Australia in terms of home-pitch help where there is a clear contrast between what his performances could have been like and what they ended up being because he just happened to be Australian.

 

[Ikki]

I'm one of a very large number of people of this nature on this site. It's a very common gripe.

There you go again Richard, mixing yourself up with normal people.

No, there isn't ever a time when getting out without scoring runs > scoring runs. Or when not taking wickets > taking them. To suggest there ever is really does lack basic understanding of the game - either that or it's trying to give credit where said credit is not due, which is very common.

Guess what, that's pretty much what happens when teams declare. They, in essence, 'get out' to not score runs and save time to win the match. It is clearly evident you do not have the basic understanding of the game.

Obviously there are some occasions in cricket matches where runs\not-conceding-runs\taking wickets matters more than others. Find me where exactly I said there wasn't. Unless you're undertaking a very thorough look indeed at each and every situation throughout a player's career - something that'd take weeks to do effectively - however, no-one with much sense is going to take it very seriously, as it's far more likely to be based on hearsay than anything else.

You said "there is never a time when it doesn't matter" in response to showing up when it matters. The term matchwinner is given usually to the person who contributes in a said period where it actually matters - where the game is in the balance and where the pressure to perform makes it the hardest time to perform well.

And it doesn't take a thorough look for some people who have actually watched Cricket throughout the years. Because they have already had a 'thorough' look. For someone like yourself, maybe Statsguru will help but it will still not get you close to actually having watched said matches.

It's because of these feats that people are remembered as match winners. There is a reason why Lillee is considered the best and Donald is usually not even in the discussion.

There's a surprise. Running-out of derogatory stuff as per usual - you can always identify it when someone uses the word "statsguru" with negative connotations.

Please, reply with your crap but don't act innocent. In this post alone:

"To suggest there ever is really does lack basic understanding of the game - either that or it's trying to give credit where said credit is not due, which is very common."

"however, no-one with much sense is going to take it very seriously, as it's far more likely to be based on hearsay than anything else."

You put these kind of remarks out there like hotcakes and you're offended that others give you some back. Grow up.

 

[JBH001]

Fair enough. And I did not mean it in comparison to other places or to other bowlers, which is irrelevent, merely that the difficulties of bowling in Australia are over-stated, imo (as also shown I think by the fact that Warne's home average is close, if not similar to his career average). But agree to disagree on this I suppose. Also dont want to take this further as I can almost see another Warne v Murali discussion looming on the horizon.

Wrt the topic, I think there is a case for the top pace bowlers being slightly better than Warne and Murali. Simply based on the fact that you have good teams of good players of spin, but never, afaik, have good teams of consistently good players of pace bowling.

 

[Ikki]

Wrt the topic, I think there is a case for the top pace bowlers being slightly better than Warne and Murali. Simply based on the fact that you have good teams of good players of spin, but never, afaik, have good teams of consistently good players of pace bowling.

I believe that's true, but who are these imaginary teams facing? India or another all-time XI? If we are assembling an all-time XI I'd believe that team to be just as capable against pace as India have been against spin.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Exactly, and as such it cannot even hope to be assessed objectively. The number of times players are wrongly called "a matchwinner" attests to this.

So we just forget about it?

 

[weldone]

So hence the fact that some seam-bowlers and ex-seam-bowlers (Angus Fraser for instance) have a little distaste for batsmen given how much physical work they put in and how relatively little in comparison a batsman does.

In a similar way a butcher can have a little distaste for scientists...

Edit: I am not comparing anyone with butchers or scientists...I am just showing how vague the point was...Saying fast bowling needs greater physical strength than batting is similar to saying spin bowling requires greater skill than fast bowling...While both the statements may be true, they do not conclusively put one above the other.

 

[Top_Cat]

Don't you two get get sick of telling each other that they don't know anything about cricket?

 

[Ikki]

Don't you two get get sick of telling each other that they don't know anything about cricket?

. I keep getting new reasons to say it.

 

[Lord Flasheart]

Geoff Allot. He's a world record holder but he couldn't bat to save himself.

 

[Richard]

There you go again Richard, mixing yourself up with normal people.

To mix-up something has to be wrongly compared. That wasn't.

Guess what, that's pretty much what happens when teams declare. They, in essence, 'get out' to not score runs and save time to win the match.

Eeeeeeeeexactly. So if runs aren't needed, teams declare. If they don't declare, it's better to score runs than not score them.

It is clearly evident you do not have the basic understanding of the game.

No, it's clearly evident you want me not to have, and will go to any lengths to manufacture nonsense to tell yourself (fortunately no-one else) that I don't.

You said "there is never a time when it doesn't matter" in response to showing up when it matters. The term matchwinner is given usually to the person who contributes in a said period where it actually matters - where the game is in the balance and where the pressure to perform makes it the hardest time to perform well.

And it doesn't take a thorough look for some people who have actually watched Cricket throughout the years. Because they have already had a 'thorough' look. For someone like yourself, maybe Statsguru will help but it will still not get you close to actually having watched said matches.

They won't have had a thorough look, though. The human memory is so often a faulty instrument, and if statistics don't back-up the claims, they'll be denounced as false. Especially in not-so-recent times when statistical detail was less readily available, a good few people didn't look hard enough at them, and relied too much on their faulty memories. Fortunately these days stats are more readily available and the ongoing generation will likely make their judgements with better resources at their disposal. Without looking at the scorecards, no testimony should be trusted to any enormous extent.

It's because of these feats that people are remembered as match winners. There is a reason why Lillee is considered the best and Donald is usually not even in the discussion.

Yes, I'm sure there is. Never heard a good one, though. Maybe someday I will.

Please, reply with your crap but don't act innocent. In this post alone:

"To suggest there ever is really does lack basic understanding of the game - either that or it's trying to give credit where said credit is not due, which is very common."

"however, no-one with much sense is going to take it very seriously, as it's far more likely to be based on hearsay than anything else."

You put these kind of remarks out there like hotcakes and you're offended that others give you some back. Grow up.

No, I'm not offended that others give me some back. I simply find it laughable whenever anyone throws that particular one my way, because it's such a worthless, mind-numbingly predictable attempted-putdown.

 

[Richard]

So we just forget about it?

Ideally we'd leave that term out. If we must use it, we'd do well to use it better than so many people do.

 

[Richard]

In a similar way a butcher can have a little distaste for scientists...

Edit: I am not comparing anyone with butchers or scientists...I am just showing how vague the point was...Saying fast bowling needs greater physical strength than batting is similar to saying spin bowling requires greater skill than fast bowling...While both the statements may be true, they do not conclusively put one above the other.

Neither I, ss or anyone else have tried to put seam-bowlers conclusively above batsmen. But the vast increase in physical expenditure required for a seam-bowler gives them legitimate reason to look down on batsmen of times.

BTW, no, spin doesn't require greater skill than seam. If anything, there are far more things available to a seamer than a spinner, and the complete seam-bowler is probably more multi-skilled than the complete spinner.

 

[Ikki]

To mix-up something has to be wrongly compared. That wasn't.

No, I'm fairly sure the amount of discussion you generate by mere disagreement is a testament that you are usually not in the mainstream.

Eeeeeeeeexactly. So if runs aren't needed, teams declare. If they don't declare, it's better to score runs than not score them.

So you are agreeing now? Do you realise that? That was the whole point, sometimes more runs are not needed. But that's only one side of the spectrum. Sometimes runs are desperately needed and there is limited time. To score runs in these times is more valuable, since it is more difficult, than to score them on day one/first ball.

No, it's clearly evident you want me not to have, and will go to any lengths to manufacture nonsense to tell yourself (fortunately no-one else) that I don't.

Fortunately, your own posts save me the trouble of having to manufacture anything. They sound unknowledgeable because they are.

They won't have had a thorough look, though. The human memory is so often a faulty instrument, and if statistics don't back-up the claims, they'll be denounced as false. Especially in not-so-recent times when statistical detail was less readily available, a good few people didn't look hard enough at them, and relied too much on their faulty memories. Fortunately these days stats are more readily available and the ongoing generation will likely make their judgements with better resources at their disposal. Without looking at the scorecards, no testimony should be trusted to any enormous extent.

The human memory is faulty when trying to remember things that are hardly memorable. That is why matchwinning performances are memorable: they are rare and players that put on these performances consistently are even rarer. That is why these kinds of players stand the test of time. Fortunately, people, not including yourself as proclaimed by your own two cents on the matter, do remember and will use the term as they see fit. Which does not need your approval or permission.

Yes, I'm sure there is. Never heard a good one, though. Maybe someday I will.

You'd do well to look in the other thread where SJS is posting excerpts and the testimonies of past cricketers have shown more than enough - certainly more than your rebuttal has ever shown - that Lillee was of a different class.

Again, there is a reason why I don't consider your opinion the norm, because most people actually do consider Lillee as one of the greatest, if not the greatest ever - similarly with Warne in this era - and your opposition to such opinions is not worthy to even start debate. You, unlike many of the other people who've actually played the sport at Test level, are not knowledgeable enough to contest their opinions.

No, I'm not offended that others give me some back. I simply find it laughable whenever anyone throws that particular one my way, because it's such a worthless, mind-numbingly predictable attempted-putdown.

It's predictable/laughable because you know you're doing it? Doesn't make sense.

 

[Richard]

No, I'm fairly sure the amount of discussion you generate by mere disagreement is a testament that you are usually not in the mainstream.

"Normally" or "usually" are often worthless terms. I conform to many archetypes; I do not conform to many others. By nature, nonconformity is noticed, while conformity is not. There are many things on which I agree with the majority; there are also things. Attempted patronising comments like "ah, you confused little boy, remember now you're not normal" are bull**** endear you to no-one.

So you are agreeing now? Do you realise that? That was the whole point, sometimes more runs are not needed.

If your team is batting, runs are regarded as being needed. If your team declares, then they're not, and you don't have the opportunity to score them or get out.

If you are batting and your side has not declared, scoring runs and not getting out is better than getting out and not scoring runs.

Fortunately, your own posts save me the trouble of having to manufacture anything. They sound unknowledgeable because they are.

They sound so only to you and a few others. Fortunately the greater majority regard your views on what I sound like as worthless.

The human memory is faulty when trying to remember things that are hardly memorable. That is why matchwinning performances are memorable: they are rare and players that put on these performances consistently are even rarer. That is why these kinds of players stand the test of time. Fortunately, people, not including yourself as proclaimed by your own two cents on the matter, do remember and will use the term as they see fit. Which does not need your approval or permission.

Nah, they don't remember well. All memories are highly faulty. And if said memories contradict what's on the scorecards, they can't be taken seriously. I'm far from the only one not to do so.

You'd do well to look in the other thread where SJS is posting excerpts and the testimonies of past cricketers have shown more than enough - certainly more than your rebuttal has ever shown - that Lillee was of a different class.

Again, there is a reason why I don't consider your opinion the norm, because most people actually do consider Lillee as one of the greatest, if not the greatest ever - similarly with Warne in this era - and your opposition to such opinions is not worthy to even start debate. You, unlike many of the other people who've actually played the sport at Test level, are not knowledgeable enough to contest their opinions.

Yes, I am.

It's predictable/laughable because you know you're doing it? Doesn't make sense.

No, it's predictable and laughable that people (only a very small number) try to use something as a nonsensical discredit, when they've run-out of other ideas.

 

[Ikki]

"Normally" or "usually" are often worthless terms. I conform to many archetypes; I do not conform to many others. By nature, nonconformity is noticed, while conformity is not. There are many things on which I agree with the majority; there are also things. Attempted patronising comments like "ah, you confused little boy, remember now you're not normal" are bull**** endear you to no-one.

You can wish to believe your normalcy and I'll contest it. Move on.

If your team is batting, runs are regarded as being needed. If your team declares, then they're not, and you don't have the opportunity to score them or get out.

If you are batting and your side has not declared, scoring runs and not getting out is better than getting out and not scoring runs.

Ok, you seem to be missing the point here: declaring is losing your wickets for no runs. If declarations were not possible, teams would just give away their wickets to save time. Therefore making runs is not always needed - you said they always are. I'm contesting that.

Now that aside, you keep failing to address where there are circumstances that making certain runs or taking certain wickets are more valuable than doing the same under normal circumstances. Your failure to address this I'll count as concession towards this point.

They sound so only to you and a few others. Fortunately the greater majority regard your views on what I sound like as worthless.

Again, you can keep wishing to believe what you believe. It doesn't matter that I or a 'few' others here keep butting heads with you. The fact that your gibberish falls flat on it's face when compared to the people that actually matter - the players themselves, former pros, knowledgeable commentators, etc - is the talking point. You are certainly not in the norm in a lot of cases and to say Warne or Murali are not close to excellent seamers is just another example where you are not of the norm.

Nah, they don't remember well. All memories are highly faulty. And if said memories contradict what's on the scorecards, they can't be taken seriously. I'm far from the only one not to do so.

You can speak for your own memory. You think you don't remember well, then that's fine, Statsguru yourself to sleep. Others do remember and can back it up with scorecards and long descriptions and thus will use the term "matchwinner" as they please. Again, your approval nor permission is needed.

Yes, I am.

So you are as knowledgeable about bowling as McGrath is? You are as knowledgeable about bowling as Benaud is? Please, do not insult these great men. You are a nobody compared to these people where it pertains to cricket. Your opinion is not valued even 1/100th as theirs are.

No, it's predictable and laughable that people (only a very small number) try to use something as a nonsensical discredit, when they've run-out of other ideas.

The fact that you keep repeating your flawed rhetoric is the reason people keep bringing up the same reply: you rely too much on statsguru. If someone lies too much, they'll be called a compulsive liar. Whether it's predictable or not to call the compulsive liar a compulsive liar is beside the point.

 

[honestbharani]

I've believed seam > spin from the second I first watched cricket, 16 years ago.

so u mean, without knowing anything about the game, you formed your opinion that seam >>>>>> spin?


Or you saying it only took you one second to figure out the game of cricket?

 

[honestbharani]

I don't think I am doing this at all. Having a great spinner means quite a bit. Having any great bowler means quite a lot in terms of winning matches. What we're comparing is not if Warne was a great bowler, but whether he was a better bowler (in terms of consistently wining games) then the top tier pace bowlers such as Malcolm Marshall.



But its much rarer seeing a great spinner compared to a great fast bowler, and I think its a bit naive to think that doesn't play a huge part. Warne is credited with reviving Leg Spin in cricket (and he did), so he has that going for him too when people rate him. I've no problem with rating him as a Wisden Cricketer - I understand and appreciate the reasons. But a bowler comparable with the top couple of quicks? Not a chance in my mind.

I am one of the biggest fans of Warnie here but he didn't revive anything in India. Or Sri Lanka or Pakistan. Or even the Windies where there were leggies going around pretty much all the time. He revived leg spin in a few of the nations which were generally seamer bastions.


The main reason he was voted that high was simply because he was considered THAT good, mainly as a bowler (as a wicket taking option, if I have to break it down) by so many that have played for so long at the highest level.


That is not opinion. That is FACT.

 

[honestbharani]

The reason they are good is because no-one (Warne + Murali)were like them in these ways:
Warne:
1. No one had heard of leg-spinners, and he was un-natural in that way.
2.To back that (he was un-natural) have you ever seen any body else EVEN TRY to bowl them out behind their legs? Not me.

Murali:
1. Shoiab Akhtar- And Murali can get away with it
2.Cheat.
3. So there is absolutely no limits to the two.

(and they had 20-15 year careers)

Has to come in every thread??