Would Jacques Kallis and Imran Khan get more respect if they weren't all-rounders?

[OverratedSanity]

Pointing out that Mark Waugh averages much lower per innings than any other ATG batsman at his position doesn't mean I'm bringing out the spreadsheets.. average is the simplest stat there is and 10-15 runs more each innings is actually very relevant on the field.

If you're saying that with regards to Pollock vs McGrath, I can understand - obviously McGrath is a better bowler, but as a complete package Pollock brings a lot to the table and I just tried to quantify it a bit.

Still a tad simplistic though, because averages can be misleading. Aravinda averaged around 42 and Mahela is 50+ but I've always considered Aravinda superior. As do many others I'm sure.

 

[Dan]

And on this topic, I'm a big fan of the way Cribb put it about 4 or 5 iterations of this discussion ago.

He basically argued that, as you go up to a hypothetical next level against the Martians, the difference between two players in their secondary skills converge. For example, Shane Warne averaged 17 with the bat, and Murali about 11. Presumably, stepping up a level, the difference in the batting would be completely negligible; picking someone slightly better in their secondary skill doesn't help a whole lot.

Cribb used the example of Glenn McGrath and Stuart Broad. If you were playing park cricket, you'd take Broad every time -- McGrath may be a better bowler, but at that level the difference would be negligible; the level of the batting means they'd both dominate irrespective. Meanwhile Broad's batting would be of use compared to McGrath's, because McGrath was such a shunt with the willow.

Meanwhile if you were playing against the Martians, you'd take McGrath without thinking. The difference in their bowling ability suddenly becomes huge when you're pitting them against a higher level of batting. Meanwhile against a higher standard of bowling, Broad would become closer to absolute uselessness and McGrath would shunt it equally hard because he genuinely couldn't bat at either level. Diminishing returns and whatnot.

Perhaps not quite as applicable to the Pollock/McGrath debate because their bowling averages are so similar, but framing Pollock as providing 25 more runs per innings in an ATG scenario is probably rather misleading; the difference wouldn't be quite that pronounced.

 

[Prince EWS]

I legitimately think Pollock was a better Test cricketer than McGrath and would improve more Test sides throughout history by a greater amount on average (I realise this is a very unpopular opinion), however in a game for an All-Time World XI against a team of an equivalent standard I'd take McGrath every time for the reasons you just outlined.

Park cricket: Pollock > Broad > McGrath
Test cricket: Pollock > McGrath > Broad
Theoretical All-Time World XI standard: McGrath > Pollock > Broad

No surprise to see me agreeing with you given your post was essentially agreeing with me, but I thought I'd toss it in there.

 

[viriya]

Still a tad simplistic though, because averages can be misleading. Aravinda averaged around 42 and Mahela is 50+ but I've always considered Aravinda superior. As do many others I'm sure.

Aravinda is rated so highly because of how he could dominate when in the mood - but Mahela has done so much more in Tests. One thing going for Aravinda is that he didn't have as much batting support - carrying most of the burden has it's positives and negatives but it definitely is a negative when it comes to building big scores. Mahela had it easier because of Dilshan/Jayasuriya/Sanga/Thilan who were around.

That said though, Aravinda didn't fulfill his Test promise. Aside from a brilliant 1997, he always disappointed. He wasn't particularly better than Mahela away (averaging 36 vs 52 at home), and didn't have as many great innings that saved/setup a win as Mahela has had.

Just because Aravinda is great to watch doesn't mean he was a great Test match batsman.. Hell, I like to watch Jayasuriya bat in Tests but he still didn't affect that format as much as his preferred ODIs, and the same applies to Aravinda.

If you include ODIs to the conversation, the comparison changes because Aravinda was a way better ODI batsman.

 

[viriya]

And on this topic, I'm a big fan of the way Cribb put it about 4 or 5 iterations of this discussion ago.

He basically argued that, as you go up to a hypothetical next level against the Martians, the difference between two players in their secondary skills converge. For example, Shane Warne averaged 17 with the bat, and Murali about 11. Presumably, stepping up a level, the difference in the batting would be completely negligible; picking someone slightly better in their secondary skill doesn't help a whole lot.

Cribb used the example of Glenn McGrath and Stuart Broad. If you were playing park cricket, you'd take Broad every time -- McGrath may be a better bowler, but at that level the difference would be negligible; the level of the batting means they'd both dominate irrespective. Meanwhile Broad's batting would be of use compared to McGrath's, because McGrath was such a shunt with the willow.

Meanwhile if you were playing against the Martians, you'd take McGrath without thinking. The difference in their bowling ability suddenly becomes huge when you're pitting them against a higher level of batting. Meanwhile against a higher standard of bowling, Broad would become closer to absolute uselessness and McGrath would shunt it equally hard because he genuinely couldn't bat at either level. Diminishing returns and whatnot.

Perhaps not quite as applicable to the Pollock/McGrath debate because their bowling averages are so similar, but framing Pollock as providing 25 more runs per innings in an ATG scenario is probably rather misleading; the difference wouldn't be quite that pronounced.

I wasn't aware that ATG XI's were against martians packed with 11 Don Bradman in batting and bowling.. Either way, I don't think Pollock's 30+ batting average would be affected the same way Broad's bowling would be - he literally had great batting in his blood.

 

[hendrix]

I wasn't aware that ATG XI's were against martians packed with 11 Don Bradman in batting and bowling.. Either way, I don't think Pollock's 30+ batting average would be affected the same way Broad's bowling would be - he literally had great batting in his blood.

No, Pollock's batting isn't the key point; it's the bowling. If we admit that McGrath is slightly better than Pollock as a bowler, that slight difference makes an exponential difference the further up the talent pool we go.

A slight difference in the quality of a bowling attack can be the difference between a batman being out for a duck and a batsman cashing in and making a big score. Brendon McCullum is a good batsman, but if there was a slight increase in the quality of India's attack he wouldn't have scored a triple century against them - not only might he have got out, but batmen at the other end would have failed as well.

At the top level these slight differences are exaggerated. We can no longer call them negligible.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Assuming this match against the Martian XI that everyone talks about happens at their home turf, the ideal team for that would be

Sehwag
Gavaskar
Sangakkara (wk)
Jayawerdene
Michael Clarke
VVS Laxman
Imran Khan
Saeed Ajmal
Muralitharan
Bedi

Mars would be the dustiest of dustbowls.
Batting lineup is full of players who proved themselves multiple times on dusty raging turners and the bowlers would just rip the Martians a new anus. Clarke is in there so that he can take 6/9 if the other bowlers are somehow negotiated

This leads to the conclusion that subcontinent cricket is the highest form of cricket available (if people didn't already know that) as its the closest thing to Mars we have here. All that talk about fast bouncy pitches being the true test is proven wrong once and for all. All hail the SC

 

[Prince EWS]

Assuming this match against the Martian XI that everyone talks about happens at their home turf, the ideal team for that would be

Sehwag
Gavaskar
Sangakkara (wk)
Jayawerdene
Michael Clarke
VVS Laxman
Imran Khan
Saeed Ajmal
Muralitharan
Bedi

Mars would be the dustiest of dustbowls.
Batting lineup is full of players who proved themselves multiple times on dusty raging turners and the bowlers would just rip the Martians a new anus. Clarke is in there so that he can take 6/9 if the other bowlers are somehow negotiated

This leads to the conclusion that subcontinent cricket is the highest form of cricket available (if people didn't already know that) as its the closest thing to Mars we have here. All that talk about fast bouncy pitches being the true test is proven wrong once and for all. All hail the SC

Nah bro, it's a home series.

 

[Dan]

I legitimately think Pollock was a better Test cricketer than McGrath and would improve more Test sides throughout history by a greater amount on average (I realise this is a very unpopular opinion)

I actually don't necessarily disagree with that, tbh. If you were captaining modern-day Bangladesh, you'd probably want Pollock over McGrath. Sure, Pollock isn't as good a bowler as McGrath (stats be damned), but he's an exponential improvement on Shafiul Islam and you'd gain yet another all-rounder in the lower order to not suck as much with the bat.

McGrath undoubtedly would have been a more valuable (and better) Test cricketer if he could bat. But he was, all else being equal, a better bowler than Pollock was. If you need to strengthen your batting, take Pollock and deal with him being a bit worse with the ball (since he's still an improvement on the vast majority of fast bowlers in history anyway). If you have no such problems with your batting, you'd pick McGrath.

 

[hendrix]

Completely incorrect. The reduced gravity means we need to select batsmen who aren't bunnies against the short ball.

1. Hayden
2. Gavaskar
3. Ponting
4. Tendulkar
5. Richie Richardson
6. Sobers
7. Gilchrist
8. Marshall
9. Warne
10. Ambrose
11. Garner

 

[OverratedSanity]

Nah bro, it's a home series.

Nah. Gotta beat Mars in Mars surely. That's the true test of an ATG side isn't it? Tackling great opponents in alien conditions?

 

[Red]

Martians don't have anuses.

And McGrath over Pollock in test cricket every day.

 

[viriya]

No, Pollock's batting isn't the key point; it's the bowling. If we admit that McGrath is slightly better than Pollock as a bowler, that slight difference makes an exponential difference the further up the talent pool we go.

A slight difference in the quality of a bowling attack can be the difference between a batman being out for a duck and a batsman cashing in and making a big score. Brendon McCullum is a good batsman, but if there was a slight increase in the quality of India's attack he wouldn't have scored a triple century against them - not only might he have got out, but batmen at the other end would have failed as well.

At the top level these slight differences are exaggerated. We can no longer call them negligible.

Your batting example makes sense, but imo McGrath vs Pollock bowling isn't that different to suggest that McGrath would hold his own against a great team and Pollock would get slaughtered.. There were a couple of big things going for McGrath over Pollock in his career - bowling with better support and not having to bowl to the best batting line-up of all-time.

If you take out Pollock's vs Aus matches and McGrath's vs SA and vs ICCWXI matches and compare them on the common opponents they played against, Pollock's average goes down to 21.68 vs McGrath's 21.04. McGrath was still a more wicket-taking bowler with 2.4/innings vs 2.1/innings, but these differences are not significant by any means.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Completely incorrect. The reduced gravity means we need to select batsmen who aren't bunnies against the short ball.

1. Hayden
2. Gavaskar
3. Ponting
4. Tendulkar
5. Richie Richardson
6. Sobers
7. Gilchrist
8. Marshall
9. Warne
10. Ambrose
11. Garner

Mars is all red sand. Mumbai 2004 happened simply to prepare us for Mars

 

[OverratedSanity]

Martians don't have anuses.

That's OK. Bedi Murali Ajmal and Clarke will give em one

 

[Red]

Due to political instability, Martians have to play their home games on Jupiter.

 

[Dan]

News just in: OS is a Martian and is embarrassed about it

 

[Burgey]

Aravinda is rated so highly because of how he could dominate when in the mood - but Mahela has done so much more in Tests. One thing going for Aravinda is that he didn't have as much batting support - carrying most of the burden has it's positives and negatives but it definitely is a negative when it comes to building big scores. Mahela had it easier because of Dilshan/Jayasuriya/Sanga/Thilan who were around.

That said though, Aravinda didn't fulfill his Test promise. Aside from a brilliant 1997, he always disappointed. He wasn't particularly better than Mahela away (averaging 36 vs 52 at home), and didn't have as many great innings that saved/setup a win as Mahela has had.

Just because Aravinda is great to watch doesn't mean he was a great Test match batsman.. Hell, I like to watch Jayasuriya bat in Tests but he still didn't affect that format as much as his preferred ODIs, and the same applies to Aravinda.

If you include ODIs to the conversation, the comparison changes because Aravinda was a way better ODI batsman.

Aravinda was a far better test batsman than Jayawardene, home and away.

 

[hendrix]

Your batting example makes sense, but imo McGrath vs Pollock bowling isn't that different to suggest that McGrath would hold his own against a great team and Pollock would get slaughtered.. There were a couple of big things going for McGrath over Pollock in his career - bowling with better support and not having to bowl to the best batting line-up of all-time.

If you take out Pollock's vs Aus matches and McGrath's vs SA and vs ICCWXI matches and compare them on the common opponents they played against, Pollock's average goes down to 21.68 vs McGrath's 21.04. McGrath was still a more wicket-taking bowler with 2.4/innings vs 2.1/innings, but these differences are not significant by any means.

Yeah, that's fair enough and if you actually think that Pollock's bowling is just as good as McGrath's then that's fine to take his batting into account and make that call.

But just pointing out that if there's an understanding that McGrath is a slightly superior bowler, then the difference is bigger than just their bowling averages. Similarly, the difference between their batting averages compresses.

Tlr; only the best batsmen score runs against the best bowlers and vice versa.

 

[viriya]

Aravinda was a far better test batsman than Jayawardene, home and away.

Ok, thanks for the detailed reasoning.