Split these cricketers into tiers

[shortpitched713]

Sure, bowlers generally have some advantages as you listed but they also have an earlier expiration date, you have to worry about their bowling load management a lot more and they miss games a lot more. While the bowlers have a slight edge in match impact, Batsmen make up for it by far greater availability.

Agreed 100% . There are maybe a handful of bowlers in the game's history who could hope to match the impact of Tendulkar and Kallis for the two's longevity (Anderson at home seems pretty good).

But no one's talking about this. When we're talking about who's the best, we're talking about who's going to win THE BIG GAME. Be that the game 5 of a live Ashes or BGT or what have you. "Who's going to turn this game?" Not "Who's going to have an incremental positive impact over time that exceeds the rest over the long run?" I freely cede that in the latter criteria batsmen catch up to and surpass bowlers in many comparisons. But it's not the question that people are generally envisaging when they ask who's the best.

though I think one being massively more useful than other is counter intuitive to the very point of the game and that is both are important and team composition is all about balancing both

4-5 bowlers. Roughly 8 specialist bats worth of runs to score. Yes, some bats are better and will score more than their share, but they're all pretty much equally vulnerable at the start of an innings. Not to mention the fraction that each bowler gets of that 1/4 or 1/5 won't all be the same quality, volume, or overall value. So anyway, I think it's pretty clear in Test cricket where the top end value lies. In ODIs and T20s the equation is a bit different due to overs restrictions, but yeah seems pretty much an open and shut case of maths here for Tests. Surprised you're resisting facts that are just staring you in the face, as I take you for a rather logical dude most of the time.

 

[Johan]

Agreed 100% . There are maybe a handful of bowlers in the game's history who could hope to match the impact of Tendulkar and Kallis for the two's longevity (Anderson at home seems pretty good).

But no one's talking about this. When we're talking about who's the best, we're talking about who's going to win THE BIG GAME. Be that the game 5 of a live Ashes or BGT or what have you. "Who's going to turn this game?" Not "Who's going to have an incremental positive impact over time that exceeds the rest over the long run?" I freely cede that in the latter criteria batsmen catch up to and surpass bowlers in many comparisons. But it's not the question that people are generally envisaging when they ask who's the best.

That is quite assumptionary of you imo, because a lot on the forum when talking about who is better, are talking about who would win you more games and be more consistently impactful over the entire career, IE that's why a Shaun Pollock would perhaps be chosen over an Ian Botham even though at their very best, Botham is a far bigger matchwinner.

Regarding over the course of a series, take the best bowler and batsman of this generation in neutral conditions, Smith in England 2019 and Bumrah in Australia 2024 and you'd notice Bumrah produced less match winning MOTM performances than Smith, I don't think over a series the impact would be that different. Though ultimately it comes down on wickets, a bowler having a big series on flat pitches and a Batsman having a big series on spicy pitches would have a similar level of impact, I think bowlers having a big series on bowling wickets while Batsmen having a big series on roads, the bowlers would have the edge but only marginally so.

4-5 bowlers. Roughly 8 specialist bats worth of runs to score. Yes, some bats are better and will score more than their share, but they're all pretty much equally vulnerable at the start of an innings. Not to mention the fraction that each bowler gets of that 1/4 or 1/5 won't all be the same quality, volume, or overall value. So anyway, I think it's pretty clear in Test cricket where the top end value lies. In ODIs and T20s the equation is a bit different due to overs restrictions, but yeah seems pretty much an open and shut case of maths here for Tests. Surprised you're resisting facts that are just staring you in the face, as I take you for a rather logical dude most of the time.

I mean I'd say 7 not 8 for batting, and I never refused that bowlers have slightly more impact but batsmen have slightly better availability and longevity in return, and I generally think saying Pollock who is a top 20 bowler of all time is better than Sobers who is a top 5 Batsman of all time (ignoring Don) is idk, a bit much? we often talk about the batriarchy, but isn't this just a bowlriarchy?

 

[shortpitched713]

but isn't this just a bowlriarchy?

Yes

 

[shortpitched713]

That is quite assumptionary of you imo, because a lot on the forum when talking about who is better, are talking about who would win you more games and be more consistently impactful over the entire career, IE that's why a Shaun Pollock would perhaps be chosen over an Ian Botham even though at their very best, Botham is a far bigger matchwinner.

Regarding over the course of a series, take the best bowler and batsman of this generation in neutral conditions, Smith in England 2019 and Bumrah in Australia 2024 and you'd notice Bumrah produced less match winning MOTM performances than Smith, I don't think over a series the impact would be that different. Though ultimately it comes down on wickets, a bowler having a big series on flat pitches and a Batsman having a big series on spicy pitches would have a similar level of impact, I think bowlers having a big series on bowling wickets while Batsmen having a big series on roads, the bowlers would have the edge but only marginally so.


I mean I'd say 7 not 8 for batting, and I never refused that bowlers have slightly more impact but batsmen have slightly better availability and longevity in return, and I generally think saying Pollock who is a top 20 bowler of all time is better than Sobers who is a top 5 Batsman of all time (ignoring Don) is idk, a bit much? we often talk about the batriarchy, but isn't this just a bowlriarchy?

The bowliarchy is valid. Just consider the following thought experiment.

Imagine that the current West Indies team got via time machine prime Marshall and Ambrose. Their mentality suddenly shifts. All they're thinking is suddenly if we can somehow finesse close to 500 odd rus in a match against anyone SA, Australia whoever, these two give us a chance to beat anyone.

If instead they got prime Viv and Lara in that same time machine, do they win more than the odd spectacular fluke win against a strong opponent? Imo no. They still just lose repeatedly against strong opponents, just in more entertaining matches.

 

[Coronis]

The bowliarchy is valid. Just consider the following thought experiment.

Imagine that the current West Indies team got via time machine prime Marshall and Ambrose. Their mentality suddenly shifts. All they're thinking is suddenly if we can somehow finesse close to 500 odd rus in a match against anyone SA, Australia whoever, these two give us a chance to beat anyone.

If instead they got prime Viv and Lara in that same time machine, do they win more than the odd spectacular fluke win against a strong opponent? Imo no. They still just lose repeatedly against strong opponents, just in more entertaining matches.

Their bowling is already much stronger so yeah you’d give them an ATG bowling attack basically vs a team with 2 ATGs + 5 also rans

 

[Bolo.]

Sobers
Hadlee
Imran
Kallis

Miller
Pollock

Botham
Kapil
Ashwin
Jadeja
Shakib

Cairns
Flintoff
Greig
Stokes

No particular order within tiers, just copy pasting.

 

[smash84]

Drop Dead Gorgeous:
Miller
Imran

Good looking
Botham (Young)
Sobers
Jadeja
Stokes
Cairns
Kallis

Meh
Kapil
Hadlee
Shakib
Flintoff

Ugly as hell
Ashwin
Pollock
Greig
Botham (fat)

Your good looking list needs editing.

Botham was never good-looking IMO (and also in the general public's opinion, either). Not sure I would classify Jadeja as good looking either. He probably belongs in the meh category. Shakib needs to move up to the good-looking list. Botham fits rightly into the "Ugly as Hell" list.\\

I guess its easier to agree on the tail ends of this distribution than on the middle.

 

[Johan]

Your good looking list needs editing.

Botham was never good-looking IMO (and also in the general public's opinion, either). Not sure I would classify Jadeja as good looking either. He probably belongs in the meh category. Shakib needs to move up to the good-looking list. Botham fits rightly into the "Ugly as Hell" list.\\

I guess its easier to agree on the tail ends of this distribution than on the middle.

TBH I didn't think much beyond Imran/Miller in top and Ashwin at bottom lol

 

[smash84]

Trying to find some good pictures of Miller

 

[Rob Wesley]

Top ATG tier( Tier 1):
Sobers
Imran
Hadlee
Kallis

Low ATG tier( Tier 2):
Miller
Pollock
Botham

Legend tier( Tier 3):
Kapil( should be considered Low-ATG also if WC win is counted as a leader)
Ashwin
Jadeja

Great tier( also rewarded for captaincy):-
Stokes( should go above Jaddu and Ash if WC win is considered )
Greig

Country great tier:-
Shakib
Cairns
Flintoff

This list is for tests.

 

[kyear2]

The bowliarchy is valid. Just consider the following thought experiment.

Imagine that the current West Indies team got via time machine prime Marshall and Ambrose. Their mentality suddenly shifts. All they're thinking is suddenly if we can somehow finesse close to 500 odd rus in a match against anyone SA, Australia whoever, these two give us a chance to beat anyone.

If instead they got prime Viv and Lara in that same time machine, do they win more than the odd spectacular fluke win against a strong opponent? Imo no. They still just lose repeatedly against strong opponents, just in more entertaining matches.

Absolutely not, and as usual wrong.

We need a prime Viv or (preferably and) Lara right now. We already have a pretty good attack, we need a great batsman to lead the way. Would settle for test standard at the moment really.