The value of ATG specialist bowlers vs bowling AR's/bowlers who can bat (picking the strongest all time XI)

[sayon basak]

Hobbs v Bradman is actually a great example of awful peer ratings. There's a good 30 runs per innings between them yet it was a massive debate back in the day. Cricketers are biased and innumerate.

Pretty sure performance on tough wickets was seen as a very important criteria back then. People rated Trumper ahead of Don as well.

 

[kyear2]

So you admit you have a bias. Great.


You did put him in your third team though before that. It's inexcusable and embarassing.


Yes many go for Hadlee. But none of us care about them or debate them. We argue with you because your arguments are weak and contradicting.


If I recall Kimbers first reservation when Barry was mentioned was that he played just four tests.

You would take that from what I said, when I then gave critiques against the same players you referenced.

That was purely to piss you off for being tou, I see it worked.
But seriously, I think Ambrose is a better bowler and easily so, but they're close enough where the batting makes a difference, and Imran pips him.

Inexcusable and embarrassing is a bit much, and pretty much proves my point.

It's not weak, you disagree, there's a difference.
And yes while the most popular combination was Marshall, McGrath and Hadlee, the 2nd was Marshall, McGrath and Wasim.

For the record, and you can look back and see for yourself. My primary objection is and will always be, selecting an all time XI bowling attack based purely on batting, I think it's philosophically wrong. I also don't think it's a good idea to have all 3 pacers from the same era.

I have also said that while my personal preference was Wasim that the selection for the last spot was a toss up between Wasim, Hadlee, Steyn and Imran.

My issues isn't and haven't been Imran, it's that I think the principal of selecting your entire bowling line up based on batting is extremely flawed. And that in my time of seeing and actively seeking out these types of teams, there's never once been one that included Imran and Hadlee.
I'm looking at this philosophically and at one point even said to take the names out if it, and why would the 8th best bowler be in contention. If you aren't on the short list for your blowing alone, you shouldn't be in it at all. I also aid, that for you it's different because you have him top 5, which though an outlier, would include him Jim that conversation.

It's you'all that makes this a thing about Imran.

 

[kyear2]

Then why are you using secondary quotes as a source of authority on Hobbs vs Bradman if you don't trust that to rate Hobbs as good enough to bat in your XI?

There's a difference between greatness and dominance in your time, and how I believe said person translates to 2025 and what I want them to be able to do.

I know what Barry can do vs the very best fast bowlers, there's less projection.

That's it. Think Hobbs by the standard of greatest and domination of his era is the unquestioned 2nd best batsman of all time. Period. And I'm not sure he's in a different tier to Bradman.

 

[subshakerz]

That was purely to piss you off for being tou, I see it worked.

So you literally created three ATG XIs lineups just for the purpose to exclude Imran and trigger me? How juvenile. What an admission.

Can you share other instances of your trolling?

@Sliferxxxx please do note, this is the guy you want me to take seriously.

 

[subshakerz]

My issues isn't and haven't been Imran,

Dude nobody aside from you believes that.

 

[kyear2]

Hobbs v Bradman is actually a great example of awful peer ratings. There's a good 30 runs per innings between them yet it was a massive debate back in the day. Cricketers are biased and innumerate.

Or, one played in a bowling era where most others were averaging in the 30's, and the other played their entire career on the flattest of pitches with no ATG fast bowlers and the only two ATG spinners were on his team.

And they understood context and nuance better than we did?

 

[Coronis]

I hope the irony of @kyear2 complaining about how debates here have become purely about people being intractable re: their favourite players and then immediately saying he’s not biased towards certain players because of who his favourites are isn’t lost on anyone.

Mate, the reason we say you are biased is because you shift goalposts for certain players more than anyone here based on how much you like them.

 

[subshakerz]

There's a difference between greatness and dominance in your time, and how I believe said person translates to 2025 and what I want them to be able to do.

I know what Barry can do vs the very best fast bowlers, there's less projection.

That's it. Think Hobbs by the standard of greatest and domination of his era is the unquestioned 2nd best batsman of all time. Period. And I'm not sure he's in a different tier to Bradman.

No why are you using secondary sources to make the case that Hobbs was close to Bradman but then you exclude Hobbs because he can't be verified in quality just based on secondary sources? That's a clear contradiction.

 

[kyear2]

Dude nobody aside from you believes that.

But here's the amazing part.

Don't care

 

[Coronis]

But here's the amazing part.

Don't care

>Don’t care

>Posts paragraphs and paragraphs arguing against it directed specifically towards subz

I’m scared to see how you’d post about something you actually care about.

 

[ataraxia]

Or, one played in a bowling era where most others were averaging in the 30's, and the other played their entire career on the flattest of pitches with no ATG fast bowlers and the only two ATG spinners were on his team.

And they understood context and nuance better than we did?

One averaged 100 and the other averaged 57. Halving those averages, I'm pretty sure that you rate someone who averages 50 in a flat era (like Ponting) above someone who averaged 28 in a very tough era (like Trevor Bailey).

 

[kyear2]

No why are you using secondary sources to make the case that Hobbs was close to Bradman but then you exclude Hobbs because he can't be verified in quality? That's a clear contradiction.

I've literally explained it. You're being obtuse.

We all have to use 2nd hand sources for players we haven't seen.

I've never seen him bat in any capacity, so there's a level of projection there I don't need for the person I choose.

I'm not explaining it again, you can accept it or don't.

 

[kyear2]

>Don’t care

>Posts paragraphs and paragraphs arguing against it directed specifically towards subz

I’m scared to see how you’d post about something you actually care about.

God, is all you do troll?

 

[Coronis]

God is all you do troll?

God is all you do post giant paragraphs about slips, Imran and Barry?

 

[OverratedSanity]

God, is all you do troll?

He wasn't even trolling. You can't seriously claim you don't care about something you post so much about.

 

[subshakerz]

God is all you do post giant paragraphs about slips, Imran and Barry?

The guy literally just admitted he created three ATG sides, had Imran placed in the third, all as a massive troll.

 

[kyear2]

One averaged 100 and the other averaged 57. Halving those averages, I'm pretty sure that you rate someone who averages 50 in a flat era (like Ponting) above someone who averaged 28 in a very tough era (like Trevor Bailey).

You do know this wasn't one single person. This was the general consensus at the time, and pretty sure the referenced panel was a mixture of Australians and Englishmen.

28 is till below the standard.of what were discussing. But Punter and the rest of the fraud 4 are still behind Hutton, Tendulkar and Lara, who did play in tougher eras.

 

[kyear2]

God is all you do post giant paragraphs about slips, Imran and Barry?

Yes, it's what interests me.

Anything else?

 

[ataraxia]

You do know this wasn't one single person. This was the general consensus at the time, and pretty sure the referenced panel was a mixture of Australians and Englishmen.

28 is till below the standard.of what were discussing. But Punter and the rest of the fraud 4 are still behind Hutton, Tendulkar and Lara, who did play in tougher eras.

If there was a consensus among cricket journalists that Bailey > Ponting, would you consider those views seriously?

 

[subshakerz]

I've literally explained it. You're being obtuse.

We all have to use 2nd hand sources for players we haven't seen.

You are using secondary sources to say Bradman was close to him.

You have Bradman in your ATG XI. You don't have Hobbs.

Why? You didn't explain anything. You can't claim secondary source are trustworthy to downplay Bradman but not good enough to trust Hobbs.