Tendulkar/Hobbs vs Marshall/McGrath

[Migara]

McGrath's record against SA always confuses me because you'd expect him to have done better considering how dominant his team was and how he was notorious at exploiting mental weaknesses in opponents and well, the Saffers, second-best team though they might've been at this time, were still prone to disintegrating against the Aussies.

South Africa basically fell to Warne.

 

[Xix2565]

Ok but you don't have any bats in the top10 yes except Bradman? Because that would be inconsistent.

Yeah, unless you want me to consider the likes of Sobers or Kallis as just bats. Dude you have literally seen my list before as a direct response to your post.

 

[Xix2565]

I disagree, batsmen are matchwinners too.

Anyway as I’ve said before trying to compare batsmen and bowlers is stupid imo.

Even comparing a bowling allrounder vs a batting allrounder (e.g Sobers/Kallis vs Imran/Hadlee) is bordering on rough for me.

Obvious reason why I voted the way I did.

Not really, because in Tests the bowling side of the equation is far more important (need to take wickets and control runs) which is far more influenced by the bowler than the batter. There's an inherent power imbalance, just like how in T20s the equation flips into the batter's favour since runs are so much more valuable and wickets are not.

 

[Coronis]

Not really, because in Tests the bowling side of the equation is far more important (need to take wickets and control runs) which is far more influenced by the bowler than the batter. There's an inherent power imbalance, just like how in T20s the equation flips into the batter's favour since runs are so much more valuable and wickets are not.

There’s no point in having great bowlers if the batsmen can’t setup a defensible total.

Anyway like I said comparing them is stupid. Like comparing a keeper and a striker would be.

 

[Xix2565]

There’s no point in having great bowlers if the batsmen can’t setup a defensible total.

You're still assuming the batters have more agency than the bowlers they're facing though. That's not really the case in general unless conditions are extremely batting friendly. I'd rather have Marshall and McGrath (or any great bowling attack) reduce the opposition's total runs so that my team doesn't have to make more runs than they have to.

 

[Johan]

There's no point in having good bowlers when the bowlers can't defend respectable targets.

There's no point in having great bowlers when the Batsmen can't defend respectable targets.

almost like it's about balance.

 

[Coronis]

You're still assuming the batters have more agency than the bowlers they're facing though. That's not really the case in general unless conditions are extremely batting friendly. I'd rather have Marshall and McGrath (or any great bowling attack) reduce the opposition's total runs so that my team doesn't have to make more runs than they have to.

Cool. Like I said, its stupid to compare them imo.

 

[subshakerz]

There’s no point in having great bowlers if the batsmen can’t setup a defensible total.

Anyway like I said comparing them is stupid. Like comparing a keeper and a striker would be.

If we are going to take the idea that bowlers inherently more valuable = better cricketers by default we shouldn't have any pure bats outside Bradman in the top 20 rankings.

 

[subshakerz]

There's no point in having good bowlers when the bowlers can't defend respectable targets.

There's no point in having great bowlers when the Batsmen can't defend respectable targets.

almost like it's about balance.

No it's true that you would prefer a top class bowler for a side over a top class bat as the former can win games even with low scoring but that doesn't make them better cricketers. It's different roles.

 

[Johan]

No it's true that you would prefer a top class bowler for a side over a top class bat as the former can win games even with low scoring but that doesn't make them better cricketers. It's different roles.

the gap is massively exaggerated

 

[subshakerz]

the gap is massively exaggerated

Agreed. Unfortunately this board sometimes has a hard time with subtle arguments. They have taken a slight preference of bowlers to be a hard fast rule of putting them ahead of bats the same level.

The reason I did this poll is just to demonstrate that inherent bowler bias.

 

[Johan]

Agreed. Unfortunately this board sometimes has a hard time with subtle arguments. They have taken a slight preference of bowlers to be a hard fast rule of putting them ahead of bats the same level.

The reason I did this poll is just to demonstrate that inherent bowler bias.

I can think of instances where teams had pathetic bowling and amazing batting, and another team had pathetic batting but potent bowling, and their win rates weren't wildly different.

 

[Prince EWS]

the gap is massively exaggerated

Not unlike your posts.

And your face.

 

[Coronis]

I mean I’ve seen people routinely here and outside CW often have Hobbs and Tendulkar above any pure bowler.

Excluding Bradman as an outlier, the vast majority would also consider thel best player ever to have been a batting allrounder

 

[Johan]

Not unlike your posts.

And your face.

why u hate me pews

 

[Johan]

I mean I’ve seen people routinely here and outside CW often have Hobbs and Tendulkar above any pure bowler.

Excluding Bradman as an outlier, the vast majority would also consider thel best player ever to have been a batting allrounder

seconded, I don't think I've seen a bowler >>>>>> Batsmen narrative outside here, the two universally agreed greatest Cricketers are Bradman and Sobers and Bradman is a batter and Sobers is obviously batting dominant.

Grace too, often gets placed alongside them and was batting dominant.

 

[subshakerz]

I can think of instances where teams had pathetic bowling and amazing batting, and another team had pathetic batting but potent bowling, and their win rates weren't wildly different.

Hadlee to me shows what is possible with a weak batting unit and one worldclass bowler.

 

[subshakerz]

I mean I’ve seen people routinely here and outside CW often have Hobbs and Tendulkar above any pure bowler.

Sure my point is when people want to use the argument of bowlers being more valuable it should logically leads to either ARs or bowlers dominating ratings.

I mean, you can make an argument Kumble was more valuable than Tendulkar.

 

[Johan]

Hadlee to me shows what is possible with a weak batting unit and one worldclass bowler.

Imo, Crowe was a very underrated hand in Hadlee's greatest triumphs

 

[Coronis]

Hadlee to me shows what is possible with a weak batting unit and one worldclass bowler.

I mean obviously that NZ team wasn’t the greatest batting unit but it feels like they get a bit more downplayed than actually deserved.