Jasprit Bumrah vs Joel Garner

[DrWolverine]

Barrington and Compton had opposite reputations back then.

Good.
Barrington’s record is far superior and thankfully he is being rated for his output than entertainment.

 

[Johan]

Good.
Barrington’s record is far superior and thankfully he is being rated for his output than entertainment.

It's inferior in England and West Indies and superior in Australia on the account of Compton facing much better bowling and being injured for one series.

 

[ma1978]

Ken Barrington was an accumulator and played ultra defensively in the most boring period of cricket and that’s why he is not regarded highly.

and this is why people correctly don’t rate him

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Was the average career length shorter back then than it is in the modern era? If it was, then Barrington probably shouldn’t be penalized as harshly for longevity.

 

[ma1978]

Was the average career length shorter back then than it is in the modern era? If it was, then Barrington probably shouldn’t be penalized as harshly for longevity.

no it wasn’t. Barrington wasn’t good enough to be picked earlier

 

[PlayerComparisons]

My post war debut ATG list for some countries (not as strict as others)

Australia:
Miller
Lindwall
Davidson
Chappell
Lillee
Border
Waugh
Warne
McGrath
Ponting
Gilchrist
Smith
Cummins

England:
Trueman
Barrington
Botham
Root

West Indies:
Weekes
Walcott
Sobers
Richards
Holding
Garner
Marshall
Walsh
Ambrose
Lara

South Africa:
Pollock
Donald
Pollock
Kallis
De Villiers
Steyn
Rabada
(Proctor)
(Richards)
(Van der Bijl)

India:
Gavaskar
Kapil
Tendulkar
Dravid
Ashwin
Bumrah

 

[DrWolverine]

no it wasn’t. Barrington wasn’t good enough to be picked earlier

And retired in middle of a series due to health issues

 

[kyear2]

McGrath has the 40% of top order wickets, which further cements him as the greatest new ball bowler of all time imo

That's why he's clearly no 2 for me and the other in the GOAT debate. Also why I think he is the clear choice to open with Marshall in an AT XI.

 

[kyear2]

GOATs: Marshall, McGrath, Barnes
Top ATGs: Hadlee, Steyn, Ambrose
Certified ATGs: Imran, Akram, Lillee, Lindwall, Donald, Holding, Garner, Trueman, Bumrah, Davidson
Debatable: Cummins, Rabada, Pollock, Waqar, Walsh, Anderson, Roberts

No words to describe how much I agree with this list.

 

[kyear2]

* Mine changes from time to time
Tier 1 : Marshall. Hadlee.
Tier 2 : McGrath. Steyn.
Tier 3 :
Ambrose. Imran. Donald. Holding. Bumrah.
Lillee. Trueman. Garner. Akram. Lindwall. Davidson.

I haven't seen a reason, be it statistical, anecdotal, peer driven... any, to rate Hadlee above McGrath.

 

[kyear2]

Sure.

Anyway, on the topic of tailender wickets I think a subject of say, Hadlee or McGrath really has a point here. Most of us (perhaps not kyear) don’t believe there is a huge gap between their bowling. Then people will mostly just look at their batting averages or runs per innings for comparison. Lets go with the latter.

Hadlee would bring you 23 runs per innings vs McGrath’s 5 (rounded to nearest whole number). But the true value of a lower order bat is the ability to stick around with a batsman from the middle/top order and form a meaningful partnership.

So lets look at balls per innings. McGrath would average 11 balls per innings, whereas Hadlee would average roughly 41 balls per innings. Hypothetically in an ATG XI, you’re most likely to have Gilly or Sobers as the established batsmen who end up batting with the tail. Assuming they face 50% of the remaining balls (its usually more but whatever) that would bring you a total of an extra 42 (Gilchrist) or 34 (Sobers) runs per innings. Is the difference between McGrath and Hadlee that great?

So.

If I believe that he's easily one of the two best bowlers of all time, to most the best new ball bowler of all time, a bowler with a knack for removing the oppositions best batsman and for me, easily the most important piece in arguably the greatest team of all time, then yeah, easily.

I will always say, cricket is about moments and just as importantly, it's about complimentary styles.

Not even getting into McGrath being more proven in tougher conditions and being less dependant on conditions.

In a team with literally the best batsmen of all time, and you're choosing a bowler to open the innings, aren't you better off choosing the bowler who you believe is the best new ball bowler of all time, and over all else?

The dudes going to bat at 11.

 

[subshakerz]

In terms of pure quality, I wouldn’t place McGrath far above Bumrah, Holding or Donald but what sets him apart is sheer longevity. Even that advantage vanishes the moment you put him next to Richard Hadlee who played longer and had more workload.

I’ve always been skeptical of McGrath’s ability to dismantle lineups on flat, unresponsive tracks. In 16 Tests in Asia, he managed 58 wickets (around 3.6 wickets per match) and only one five-for. That’s solid for normal bowlers but hardly impressive for his calibre.


McGrath was never a lone wolf. He operated within a well-oiled machine surrounded by elite bowlers and backed by a powerhouse batting lineup. Yes, he was a great bowler but there was always a safety net and someone else rose to the occasion on his off days. Hadlee had none of that. He was the bowling attack and he was also the backup plan. Half the time, he was the only reason New Zealand stayed in the game. If he failed, NZ lost. Simple as that. He also had to deliver the bat with some times as well.

Hadlee vs McGrath

Advantages for McGrath:
- Height
- Batting era in 2000s
- More varied opposition and conditions
- Lara/Tendulkar edge

Advantages for Hadlee:
- Less scoreboard advantage
- Outswing in his tool kit, not just seam
- Incredible performances in wins, singlehandedly almost kept NZ a top tier 80s team

 

[subshakerz]

In a team with literally the best batsmen of all time, and you're choosing a bowler to open the innings, aren't you better off choosing the bowler who you believe is the best new ball bowler of all time, and over all else?

I suspect McGrath is the best new ball bowler ever, but if I am being honest, Hadlee might be. Especially since he has a natural outswinger with seam. Its incredibly close and you can't begrudge someone for saying Hadlee is better with the red cherry.

 

[subshakerz]

I haven't seen a reason, be it statistical, anecdotal, peer driven... any, to rate Hadlee above McGrath.

Hadlee mattered more to his team being successful than any other bowler in history.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I haven't seen a reason, be it statistical, anecdotal, peer driven... any, to rate Hadlee above McGrath.

I can think of many statistical reasons.

 

[ankitj]

On quality and where he is in his career, where do you rank him now?

I think it's not justifiable to rank anyone with fewer than 300 wickets above Bumrah except Barnes. Among pace bowlers I'd go:

Marshall
Barnes
Hadlee
McGrath
Ambrose

Steyn
Trueman
Imran
Lillee
Bumrah

Donald
Akram
Cummins
Garner
Waqar


So top 10.

 

[ankitj]

Ok Bumrah above Akram is a big call. Not sure about that.

 

[centurymaker]

Push Donald into 10th and remove Cummins and put Bumrah there.

 

[Johan]

I think it's not justifiable to rank anyone with fewer than 300 wickets above Bumrah except Barnes. Among pace bowlers I'd go:

Marshall
Barnes
Hadlee
McGrath
Ambrose

Steyn
Trueman
Imran
Lillee
Bumrah

Donald
Akram
Cummins
Garner
Waqar


So top 10.

Ah fellow believer

 

[Swamp Witch Hattie]

I haven't seen a reason, be it statistical, anecdotal, peer driven... any, to rate Hadlee above McGrath.

This is a very long post but if you want to know the truth about Hadlee, you should read it, CAREFULLY, as should other forum members. At the very least, it's extremely informative and for some, it might prove to be enlightening. You've harboured doubts about Hadlee for a very long time (over 11 years):

from http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/thr...owlers-of-all-time.32808/page-28#post-3232101:



and investing some time by reading this post, CAREFULLY, could shift your thinking. Maybe. Can ONE post change over ELEVEN years of a person's thinking? We shall see.

Comparing Hadlee and McGrath, one can see that McGrath has a higher average wicket value than Hadlee. That said, one would not expect Hadlee to have a very high average wicket value but it doesn't mean much and doesn't reflect upon his quality as a bowler much at all. It's more an indication of how Hadlee was used. McGrath was used for the top and middle orders, Warne for the lower order. Marshall was used for the top and middle orders, Garner for the lower order (when he was first or second change). This is logical because it keeps the strike bowlers fresh. NZ used Hadlee for the top and middle orders and ... Hadlee again for the lower order because Hadlee was the only consistently penetrative bowler NZ had. Just look at the SRs of the bowlers who bowled with Hadlee:



The tail must not be allowed to wag so Hadlee was brought in. Naturally, that's going to give him a preponderance of lower order wickets thus decreasing his average wicket value. But if you look at what Hadlee actually did, i.e. what he achieved, what he contributed to the team, he actually took significantly more top order wickets per bowling innings than any of the other usual top-five pace bowlers:

top order = 1-6:

Hadlee: 1.75 top order wickets/innings

Marshall: 1.58

McGrath: 1.55

Steyn: 1.56

Ambrose: 1.44

Of course, Hadlee is also superior in the lower order (7-11) numbers:

Hadlee: 1.13

Marshall: 0.91

McGrath: 0.77

Steyn: 1.01

Ambrose: 0.82

Hadlee maintained these better top-order and lower-order WPIs compared to the other bowlers above for much longer and (apart from Ambrose) with greater availability. Now, I know that Hadlee bowling and bowling and bowling contributed to his superior WPIs but for the above bowlers to match Hadlee in this metric, they would have had to increase their workloads by quite a bit which would have probably shortened their careers or caused them to be injured more often, reducing their availability. Even with their actual significantly reduced workloads relative to Hadlee, he still outlasted them all so it's unlikely that any of the above bowlers would have been able to duplicate what Hadlee did and match all of his WPI, longevity and availability.

The longevity and availability comparison:

Length of Test career, age at last Test, availability (number of Tests played/number of Tests the team played):

Hadlee: 17 years 5 months, 39 years 0 months, 86/100 = 86.0%

Marshall: 12 years 8 months, 33 years 4 months, 81/106 = 76.4%

McGrath: 13 years 2 months, 36 years 11 months, 124/157 = 79.0%

Steyn: 14 years 2 months, 35 years 8 months, 93/140 = 66.4%

Ambrose: 12 years 5 months, 36 years 11 1/2 months, 98/108 = 90.7%

Longevity and availability are incredibly important not only for individual achievement but also because they indicate how much you are contributing to your team. If Jack Nicklaus showed up just half the time for professional majors, he might have ended up with nine instead of 18, Djokovic with 12 instead of 24, Jordan with three rings instead of six. Would they then still be held in the same high esteem? Of course not. Longevity and availability might be less visible attributes in cricket than in some other sports but those with keen eyesight will still see them.

Now, you might think that Hadlee got his wickets by accumulation and that the quality was lacking. Well ... no, not after he turned professional in 1978. Before that, he worked as a sales manager in Christchurch!:

from https://www.hadlee.co.nz/pages/faqs:



By Hadlee's own admission, he wasted the first four years of his Test career. Here's Hadlee's record against top-tier opposition (SL removed) from February 1978 onwards (just before he turned professional):



An average of 20.9 against top-tier opposition under a massive workload of 155 BPI which would normally undermine your average or damage you physically is extremely impressive as is the resulting WPM and WPI of 5.29 and 3.08 respectively. This was maintained for 12 years and 5 months until July 1990, showing tremendous longevity for that sustained quality.

From February 1978 onwards we have the following for Hadlee (none, i.e. NONE, i.e. NOT ONE, of the other bowlers above satisfy ALL of the following categories simultaneously as well as Hadlee did and sometimes the disparity with Hadlee is quite marked so he is certainly a perfectly legitimate GOAT pacer contender):

Excellent quality: average of 20.9 against top teams: tick.

Excellent longevity: 12 years 5 months: tick.

(when Hadlee toured India in 1988, he was 37 years 4-5 months old; in an early tour game at Rajkot, on "a flat surface", Hadlee took 9/55 in his only bowling innings (figures eerily reminiscent of his 9/52 at the Gabba) and was unplayable; in the first Test, on a spinning wicket, Hadlee took 5/65, becoming the oldest pacer to take a fifer in the SC, and was unplayable; he then fell sick and when it was his turn to bat, was in a state of delirium and had to be guided to the wicket by Kapil; he didn't bowl in the second innings (still crook) but recovered to take a tenfer in the second Test on another spinning wicket, including, of course, another fifer, breaking his own record of being the oldest pacer to take a fifer in the SC and becoming the oldest pacer (AFAIK, he still is) to take a tenfer in the SC; for the second Test pitch, on Indian team management's orders, "every single blade of grass was shaved off" because they were scared of Hadlee but Hadlee still took a tenfer:

from https://m.rediff.com/sports/2000/jan/27pitch.htm:

(the article says "the first Test" but it was actually the second Test)



from http://cricmash.com/biographies/richard-hadlee-a-phenomenon-even-among-cricketing-greats:



Hadlee's worst performance came in the third Test (3/99 in the first innings) "in which the conditions, ironically, favoured bounce and pace" but I think he might have been hampered by an injury because he didn't bowl in the second innings and "returned home after the Third Test, having injured an Achilles' tendon".)

Excellent availability: 63/69 = 91.3% (excl. SL) or 69/75 (incl. SL) = 92% which now exceeds Ambrose's of 90.7% for the same length of time: tick.

Excellent stamina: 155 BPI: tick.

(when Hadlee toured Australia in 1987, he took 18 wickets at 19.61 and endured a BPI of 187; he was 36 years 5-6 months old; in the second Test at Adelaide, on a dead wicket, he produced the incredible figures in his only bowling innings of 42 overs, 5/68; in the third Test at Melbourne, he took a tenfer which should have produced a win for NZ but Dick French wouldn't put his finger up when Morrison should have had McDermott adjudged plumb LBW; that was the only tenfer of Hadlee's nine Test tenfers which did not result in a win for NZ)

Excellent results: WPM of 5.29, WPI of 3.08, 32 fifers in 108 innings, 7 tenfers in 63 matches: tick

Legendary results:

9/52 (best figures by a pacer since George Lohmann in 1896), 33 wickets in 3 Tests (the most in a 3-Test match series since S.F. Barnes in 1912 who also managed 49 wickets in a 4-Test match series in 1913/14), world record for Test wickets, first to 400 Test wickets, still the most fifers and tenfers by a pacer more than 35 years after his retirement

Lowest average in wins by any bowler in Test cricket history with at least 95 wickets in wins:



Lohmann has the lowest average if it's at least 94 wickets in wins!:



[I will continue with this in the next post as I can attach only up to 10 files]