-
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.
The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread
- Thread starter Red
- Start date
smash84
The Tiger King
Without having accompanying match situations it is hard to judge. Curtly had to play in a much more difficult time period for WI. I am saying that if you want to call out Marshall as really good then SR isn't a very good measure of how good he was.
In terms of SR Waqar was 3 deliveries better than MM but in bowling quality there is a significant difference between the two.
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
I would compare Marshall with his contemporaries as regards to the Strike Rates. The srike rate of Marshall being 10% lower than other bowlers who are all time absolute great fast bowlers is quite exceptional. In terms of fast bowlers, how fast one can take wickets significantly affects their effectiveness. Dale Steyn has a great average but the strike rate is so great, it means you are going to get out sooner rather than latter to these bowlers.
Re Waqar: His SR is so low because for a period, around a third of his career, he was unplayable. For that third of his career, there can be a reasonable argument formed that he was the greatest any one has ever been.
Re Waqar: His SR is so low because for a period, around a third of his career, he was unplayable. For that third of his career, there can be a reasonable argument formed that he was the greatest any one has ever been.
smash84
The Tiger King
We'll be going around in circles. Perhaps we can agree to disagree
smash84
The Tiger King
Of course this isn't a classic example. Donald was just a better bowler. He had express pace, and he could make the opposition batsmen squirm, add to that the quality of wickets. Just so many more factors to choose rather than SR. Pollock just wasn't in the same class as Donald for mine. Simple
kyear2
Cricketer Of The Year
I cannot see how a strike rate difference of almost 7 balls per wicket can possibly be immaterial.
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Sobers v Imran v Gilchrist as all rounders
Speaking of strike rates, Sobers' strike rate is over 90 as a bowler. He also managed to take just 6 5 wicket hauls as a bowler. While Sobers was one of the greatest batsmen to have played the game, he was okay as a bowler. Imran on the other hand averages close to 40 with the bat and was a great bowler. So why is Sobers rated higher than Imran when,
Sobers = Super great batsman, average to good bowler
Imran = Super great bowler, good batsan averaging above 35 including the last period of his career where he averaged in 50s
Neither of the two were great in both the main departments of the game mind. I might tend towards Imran ahead of Sobers here.
Take Gilchrist who was great as a batsman and a keeper. One would have to put Gilchrist as ahead of the two if one doesn't consider all rounders in the classical sense.
Speaking of strike rates, Sobers' strike rate is over 90 as a bowler. He also managed to take just 6 5 wicket hauls as a bowler. While Sobers was one of the greatest batsmen to have played the game, he was okay as a bowler. Imran on the other hand averages close to 40 with the bat and was a great bowler. So why is Sobers rated higher than Imran when,
Sobers = Super great batsman, average to good bowler
Imran = Super great bowler, good batsan averaging above 35 including the last period of his career where he averaged in 50s
Neither of the two were great in both the main departments of the game mind. I might tend towards Imran ahead of Sobers here.
Take Gilchrist who was great as a batsman and a keeper. One would have to put Gilchrist as ahead of the two if one doesn't consider all rounders in the classical sense.
Last edited:
smash84
The Tiger King
What is this?
smash84
The Tiger King
If Marshall gets you a wicket every 8 overs and Ambrose gets you a wicket every 9 overs (considering there are 450 overs in the match), how is that material in most cases?
Last edited:
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Seeing who is a better all rounder (added in the original post now).
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
My point is I don't see why Sobers is easily considered the greatest all rounder when Sobers and Imran or on a similar level. One is fine in one department and an ATG in another department. A case can actually be made that Imran is the better all rounder as he was a pretty amazing batsman in the last years of his career.
Let's ignore the Gilchrist part as it would just confuse things.
Let's ignore the Gilchrist part as it would just confuse things.
smash84
The Tiger King
You're preaching to the choir actually
But if you followed Imran's career closely you would have noticed that while he was a competent batsman he wasn't as spectacular as his batting average suggests. His final average is more a reflection of the fact that after 1988 WI series he pretty much played for Pakistan as a batsman (he was playing because he needed to get funds for the cancer hospital he wanted to build). So the numbers wouldn't actually tell you the whole story unless you followed his career.
I didn't watch Sobers play but his batting is rated by many to be second only to Bradman. I didn't watch him bat. The best I ever saw play was Viv Richards and despite the fact that his average is only 50 (lot less compared to any other batsman) but IMO he has to be the best since Bradman.
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Spinners do tend to have far worse strike rates but they can bowl that much more overs, and hence get you that many more wickets. Tiger O'Reilly had a S/R of 70 which was pretty darn good for a spinner back in the day. Warne had an excellent strike rate of 57. A strike rate around 90 isn't amazing though, yeah. Sobers and Lance Gibbs are both there.
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Having said that, I don't think we have enough respect for specialist stock bowlers in the modern game. Would England have been as good as they were had they not had Giles in the team? Swann was a better bowler than Giles, sure. However, how Giles played his part in the team and fitted in the team like a nut in a bolt. Yet, in 50 years time, not many will remember Ashley Giles.
kyear2
Cricketer Of The Year
With Sobers it was more than the strike rate. He was often the stock bowler for his team, bowling run restricting marathons when the team.really lack a true attack. His final stats are also hurt by his initial stint as a spin bowler.
Why he is unanimously seen as the best all rounder is because he was a top 5 batsman and arguably 2nd only to the Don, a world class, master fielder everywhere and the most versatile 5th bowler ever.
Why he is unanimously seen as the best all rounder is because he was a top 5 batsman and arguably 2nd only to the Don, a world class, master fielder everywhere and the most versatile 5th bowler ever.
Last edited:
smash84
The Tiger King
Yeah, but a SR of 90 is just plain awful. His SR against Pakistan is even worse, something like 350 balls per wicket or something. Beggars belief