5 greatest cricketers since Don’s retirement.

[Bolo.]

No personal offence, but I don't get this, at all.

The notion by some that all rounders are automatically better, just because they're all rounders, while not looking at their impact to games or to the sport is frustrating to me.

McGrath is a considerably better cricketer than Kallis and I would argue Miller. Just because he couldn't bat doesn't take away his impact with the ball. I think Hammond is arguably better than Kallis.

And I'll answer this in advance as I'm trying to have a productive work day today. How about Sobers?

He was the best bat of his era, more importantly a match winning batsman and retired as the 2nd best of all time. He wasn't a 5th bowler, he was often a 2nd or 3rd who delivered more opm than most specialists. He was also very arguably the greatest close catcher of all time, and a top 5 slip of all time, who took catches that most wouldn't even attempt.

one of the main reasons I appreciate American sports, specifically American football is that they have gleaned what's important isn't what's more visible. Offensive linemen are paid more than running backs, corners more than linebackers. It's not about the yards or tackles on the stat sheet.

Too many here are still stuck looking at the shiny yards the running backs get.

The big 4 are all primarly bats or bowlers. Compare to specialists from their own main discipline if unsure. It is always going to be tough comparing across disciplines.

'Bowlers are more valuable than bats', and I should rate a specialist bowler ahead of Sobers and Kallis is a genuinely lazy thought process.

 

[kyear2]

eh, a very much fading one, the team at Bourda were missing both their alpha batsman (Viv) and their alpha bowler, Philip Simmons was one of the openers but he was bad, Hooper and Logie we all know, Greenidge was very much fading by that time, only really left Haynes and Richardson combined with Walsh as the only experienced good bowler, Ambrose was debuting and was awful that series. Barbados was impressive but not really a tactical masterstroke by him.

also, Pakistan can't complain about bad umpiring lol.

The team was at the back end of being (at the time) the GOAT team, the batting was a mess, and as you pointed out, missing their two best players. To be clear, the two that makes AT world XI's.

Not to add Pakistan were a pretty damn good team themselves.

Not even going to comment on the ludicrous comment about the umpiring.

The part that I continue to find honestly a little ridiculous, and this is also something Kimber has spoken about quite a bit recently, the theory of the super captain.
A team has always been as good as their bowlers in particular, and team in general. I guess that the WI winning all those years meant Viv was a great captain as well?

I've read up more than a bit in Imran's captaincy, and he wasn't noted as a great tactical captain, that was often delegated to Javed (though the last time I pointed this out, Subz said that's part of leadership). Some thought he, like Viv, was somewhat of a bully, but many thought that's what the team needed. But at the end of the day it was Imran, but Imran the bowler that elevated them to being a really good team.

As an on field captain, he didn't stand out, and even when he initially retired Javed carried on the success.

The main push, and the reason he's lauded as the captain he is, really has to do with the subsequent world cup victory. But that's how that goes as well.

 

[kyear2]

Regardless if Pakistan can't complain, they were one umpiring decision away from a 2-0 win in WI.

How much umpiring decisions away from their home records? Personal and team?

New Zealand had an entire series of such decisions against us. Christ, we just got 3 against us last week.

It's indefensible that a decade plus of cheating and enhancing records are excused away, but a short leg catch and an LBW appeal (with one given against Marshall just prior), one of countless in the history of the game, is what some focus on.
Not the bad fielding and subsequent dropped catches. Not bowling Wasim and Qadir practically unchanged, with some ridiculously negative bowling by the latter, raising questions about the said same captaincy mind you.

Don't get me wrong, if (in particular the bat pad one, which was the more definitive of the two) was out, it should have been given. But the two countries with the least controversial umpiring and incidents overall of the era, were the WI and Eng. Some perspective.

 

[kyear2]

What does that even mean? You don't think NZ needed Hadlee?

Your argument on McGrath getting extra points makes no sense at all

The notion that success means nothing, means we're just stat checking.

 

[kyear2]

I agree but getting them that close is to Imrans credit.

But Bradman is still better.

Please detail how.

 

[kyear2]

Nah its Brown.

But yeah not sure that you can compare winning across sports, due to the different individual importance in each sport that vastly affects the importance.

There's constant chatter around here about the importance of bowlers to success. The same way with quarterbacks, pitchers et al.

It's not overwhelming as it is for quarterbacks (who do get way too much credit), but it should be factored in.

It is a part of their legacy and accomplishments.

 

[kyear2]

Ask Sobers to bat in Bodyline.

Sobers was one of the absolute greatest ever batsmen against genuine pace and we'll before his peak opened to Lindwall and Miller, and was told to attack them.

 

[kyear2]

The big 4 are all primarly bats or bowlers. Compare to specialists from their own main discipline if unsure. It is always going to be tough comparing across disciplines.

'Bowlers are more valuable than bats', and I should rate a specialist bowler ahead of Sobers and Kallis is a genuinely lazy thought process.

They are by the most optimistic measures, about 15 batsmen better than Kallis, about 7 bowlers better than Imran and Miller isn't an ATG at either.

It's not about bowlers being more important, it's that Kallis for the most part, wasn't nearly the match winner that Marshall or McGrath were. Sachin was a better batsman than he was, that Warne made spin relevant.

What's a lazy though process is "all rounder better" especially when they've never been really proven to be.

 

[subshakerz]

There should be a rule against posting 6 or 7 times in a row.

 

[Migara]

Ask Sobers to bat in Bodyline.

Viv would do fine.

 

[subshakerz]

And I strenuously disagree.

During his substantive all rounder career, Imran averaged 35 in victories. That's excellent right?

In reality it's actually a rpm of 33. That's 33 runs per match.

The all round skills that captures so much attention has literally never been linked to winning or key to winning.

As I've said, that's what I love about the NFL, they identify traits and positions that are key to winning and focus on them. We're still looking at stats.

Do we really think Hadlee's lower order runs consistently turns the tides of games?

It doesn't give you two players and most (not all but most) of the numbers are accumulated and boosted in meaningless drawn contests.

Kallis is a different beast. Even though it's some minnow bashing, in helpful conditions he was a handful and contributed to victories and his catching was particularly critical. But in his primary, he was never particularly noted to be a match winning performer. He's just not quite up there in the absolute upper echelon as a batsman.

And what about the ATG batsmen that were also elite AT slips? Ponting, Chappell, Hammond, Richards, or even that next tier of Dravid, Lara etc etc. do they get boosted as well?

And along that same vein, if we're going accumulative skills, then Sobers, Kallis and Hammond are surely way ahead of the two bowling all rounders.

The inconsistencies though.

Average match impact of great ARs is simply more than those with primary. This is undeniable.

The team was at the back end of being (at the time) the GOAT team, the batting was a mess, and as you pointed out, missing their two best players. To be clear, the two that makes AT world XI's.

Not to add Pakistan were a pretty damn good team themselves.

Not even going to comment on the ludicrous comment about the umpiring.

The part that I continue to find honestly a little ridiculous, and this is also something Kimber has spoken about quite a bit recently, the theory of the super captain.
A team has always been as good as their bowlers in particular, and team in general. I guess that the WI winning all those years meant Viv was a great captain as well?

I've read up more than a bit in Imran's captaincy, and he wasn't noted as a great tactical captain, that was often delegated to Javed (though the last time I pointed this out, Subz said that's part of leadership). Some thought he, like Viv, was somewhat of a bully, but many thought that's what the team needed. But at the end of the day it was Imran, but Imran the bowler that elevated them to being a really good team.

As an on field captain, he didn't stand out, and even when he initially retired Javed carried on the success.

The main push, and the reason he's lauded as the captain he is, really has to do with the subsequent world cup victory. But that's how that goes as well.

Cricket fraternity recognizes Imran as a great captain. Just deal with it.

How much umpiring decisions away from their home records? Personal and team?

New Zealand had an entire series of such decisions against us. Christ, we just got 3 against us last week.

It's indefensible that a decade plus of cheating and enhancing records are excused away, but a short leg catch and an LBW appeal (with one given against Marshall just prior), one of countless in the history of the game, is what some focus on.
Not the bad fielding and subsequent dropped catches. Not bowling Wasim and Qadir practically unchanged, with some ridiculously negative bowling by the latter, raising questions about the said same captaincy mind you.

Don't get me wrong, if (in particular the bat pad one, which was the more definitive of the two) was out, it should have been given. But the two countries with the least controversial umpiring and incidents overall of the era, were the WI and Eng. Some perspective.

All irrelevant to the point being discussed.

The notion that success means nothing, means we're just stat checking.

Another crappy strawman. As if anyone was saying success is bad. We are talking extra points for being in strong teams.

Please detail how.

Bradman has more match impact. Simple.

 

[sayon basak]

The notion that success means nothing, means we're just stat checking.

Was it Hadlee's fault that he had basically only him in his team? Surely Hadlee was needed more to his team than McGrath was to his. Take away McGrath from that team, it's still a great team. Take away Hadlee, you barely have anyone except Crowe.

AUS would be just as successful as NZ if that Australia only had McGrath.

 

[Bolo.]

They are by the most optimistic measures, about 15 batsmen better than Kallis, about 7 bowlers better than Imran and Miller isn't an ATG at either.

It's not about bowlers being more important, it's that Kallis for the most part, wasn't nearly the match winner that Marshall or McGrath were. Sachin was a better batsman than he was, that Warne made spin relevant.

What's a lazy though process is "all rounder better" especially when they've never been really proven to be.

I rate a bunch of bats ahead of Sobers, and even more bowlers. It doesn't stop me from rating him as the best (non-Grace or Bradman player) ever. Do you think my perspective on rating him is wrong?

 

[Bolo.]

Just seal with it.

 

[sayon basak]

View attachment 48457

Foreign dogs look weird.

 

[subshakerz]

I rate a bunch of bats ahead of Sobers, and even more bowlers. It doesn't stop me from rating him as the best (non-Grace or Bradman player) ever. Do you think my perspective on rating him is wrong?

I am trying to think of arguments for non-Bradman players being ATG in primary discipline being better than Sobers, Imran, Hadlee, Kallis, Miller and maybe Hammond.

I can understand considering such players greater. But not better.

I don't think any difference in primary can make up for the rest of the AR skills.

 

[Bolo.]

I am trying to think of arguments for non-Bradman players being ATG in primary discipline being better than Sobers, Imran, Hadlee, Kallis, Miller and maybe Hammond.

I can understand considering such players greater. But not better.

I don't think any difference in primary can make up for the rest of the AR skills.

Nice. That's my perspective.

Murali is a bit of a wildcard for me though. I rate him obnoxiously highly. He might have some of those players beat. But that is just me rating him much higher than most people do.

 

[subshakerz]

Nice. That's my perspective.

Murali is a bit of a wildcard for me though. I rate him obnoxiously highly. He might have some of those players beat. But that is just me rating him much higher than most people do.

Yeah I don't rate Murali as high as you.

 

[Bolo.]

Yeah I don't rate Murali as high as you.

Most don't. That's fine. We aren't gonna derail this thread by debating it.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Was it Hadlee's fault that he had basically only him in his team? Surely Hadlee was needed more to his team than McGrath was to his. Take away McGrath from that team, it's still a great team. Take away Hadlee, you barely have anyone except Crowe.

AUS would be just as successful as NZ if that Australia only had McGrath.

NZ won a Series to the mighty WI (only one at that) and were by and large 2nd/3rd best of the Era, all for a single bowler. Maradona has a church not because he won 2 Series A in 7 seasons, it's because he won them with a mid asf Napoli.