My take is simple, just bowlers are slightly more impactful than batsmen, but not sufficient to just to rate all of them higher. So if it's close, I just use that as a tie breaker, similar to how I use secondary and tertiary skills.
It's not actually that close. You've got 4 or 5 bowlers, which you can use the hot hand as you want, and technically 11 (practically maybe 8 1/2 or 9) batsmen, who all get 2 chances at bat. It only ever seems close because bowlers (especially pace bowlers) have a horrible attrition rate, so the batsmen can catch up, especially over a career. Any analysis where I'm looking at a peak vs peak (within a reasonable quality bracket), I know the bowler has made more match winning contributions.
Bowlers still need runs to bowl at.
And yes, batsmen do catch up over time with longevity, hence why it's not so clear cut.
Gotta disagree hard here. It has to be Bradman as a batsman (obviously) or Murali as a bowler (again obviously). You can argue Marshall as a pace bowler for sure though, but I’d go Hadlee - of course there’s Barnes to consider but he’s somewhat in between the two disciplines and of course pre-WWI. In terms of AR’s it has to be Botham.
Interesting to say the least. Are you going based on prime performance?
based on color schema of the footage available. If its not black and white, coronis thinks you are shite.
McGrath for pace bowlers for mine, and Imran for all-rounders. Botham has a longer period of not much match winning contribution at all. Hadlee's a good shout for both pace bowling and all-rounders, although I think he'd fall short of the very best on both counts.
Inherently players (mainly bowlers) who are “lone wolves” end up being seen as better match winners, which is fair I believe. Average overall is less important here, compared to these actual match winning performances, e.g
Yeah but this method has a lot of problems especially with bowlers. Murali and Hadlee are taking a lot of fifers because they don't face much competition for wickets even if we are only including wins. Marshall and Steyn probably would taken a lot of 3/4 wickets of best bats but other good bowlers would have cleaned the tail.
Like I said, it might be inherently unfair, but they contributed more to wins because they were in weaker bowling. So to me this makes them bigger match winners. Its not a comment on their overall quality or anything. e.g I have Marshall/McGrath slightly ahead of Hadlee, Murali equal with Warne, and Sobers and others ahead of Botham.
Was looking at it from the stated perspective as bowlers being the match winners, but yes, obviously Bradman. He wins anything he eligible for.
Again we obviously have different views of what defines a great match winner. You seem to view it as someone who has to be part of a successful team and thus have a high win rate, whilst I am purely defining it as a player on a team that had the most impact on winning.
Ponting scared me in tests, while Dravid was just so frustratingly reliable. Neither scared me in ODIs.
It's clear where the divergence of views lie, but from my perspective, you can't be a great match winner if you weren't winning that many matches. If you lost more mat he's than you won, that kind of invalidates the premise.
I've never been a gear fan or follower of odis, but yeah, Dravid was reliable, he wouldn't turn the course of a match in a session. Felt at one point, everytime you checked the scores, Pointing had another hundred, not to mention when we played them. To get past Hayden and Langer then to have to deal with him, it was relentless.
Except that cricket is a team game, and you have 10 other players on your team. No matter how good a player is, they can only affect the results so much.
But that's what we are looking for, isn't it? Who contributed the most to as many victories as possible.
Nobody rates Bill Russell over Wilt, Michael, Kareem, Lebron.